We do not necessarily progress. Technology is ahead of reason which makes
it extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. And people still believe in
tooth fairies. The prime directive of all living things is to survive and
to propagate. However there are some religions which are regressive and
anti-life because they encourage self-destruction, jihads, and death
before honor. The reason Islam survived for as long as it did is because
it appealed to that type of ignorance, to people who were not informed in
the ways of the world and it offered as a carrot and stick the wrath of
Allah if you didn't follow Allah and rewards of great bounty if you did.
It is easy to see how so many (Arabs were nomads and very low literacy) in
that part of the world and in areas of conquest would follow a creed that
was so thoroughly based on greed and salvation but that is going in the
opposite direction from progress. Islam can't survive in an enlightened
world. And no one should be willing to destroy themselves to survive; to
save themselves. It is illogical.
But in the dark ages people were very barbaric. They just have more
destructive tools now Asko. During the hunter-gatherer period we can
assume that Homo sapiens were also aggressive with regard to their food
supply but were also nomadic until they were pastoral and began to farm
and up to then not tied to the land as they are now.
Jihad is an element of murder and destruction and there doesn't seem to be
a high regard for life among Muslims who follow a "prophet" who advocated
killing (only 1,400 years ago) whole communities for material gain - and
his followers carry out that deed with the promise of the spoils which is
how the cult of Allah gathered it's large flock of illiterates.
And calling our sense of concern a form of humanity is vainglorious
because humanity invented all the many forms of destruction. Being
civilized is another thing altogether and it is held together largely with
glue from rules. Break them and you suffer the consequences. Make the
consequences great enough and there is compliance with law but weak
penalties and nobody gives a damn. It is not humanity or compassion, it is
fear of punishment that keeps us from doing bad things. War crimes for
crimes we can't even define because everyone has a different idea what the
crime is however.
Hank
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Asko Ojaluoto
wrote:
> As 'uncivilized' may be belief in any idea which people have for
> themselves in relation with nature and humans. Many ideas are supported
> by modern society and may be more destructive. Belief in war can be more
> dangerous than medieval nonscientific beliefs. In these days idea of war
> or way how relations can be handled is not rationalized by religions.
> Not muslim countries start war because of Jihad which has been
> popularised as a concept of holy war (contrary most religions that seems
> to justify attack or even conquest maybe somebody could tell what that
> means as a muslim duty). Maybe religion can culturally change attitude
> towards use of violence but way it is rationalized is different. I don't
> say war couldn't be sociobiological activity at least people won't meet
> violence which has occured differently in history. Violence has
> different reality. Culturally wars have changed peoples. Most peoples
> would not like to go war with similar political reasons. In the USA
> mobilization could be more difficult than in the sixties. There has to
> be a threat to make that. Would people fight because of democratization?
>
> Asko Ojaluoto
-----
/ o o \
===OO=====OO==================================================
http://pnews.org/ (links)
http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/ (West Coast News Wiki)
http://g0lem.net/PhpWiki/ (East Coast News Wiki)
===============================================================
Sub/Unsub [pnews-l - rhetoric] :: http://pnews.org/signup.shtml
===============================================================
==================
FIGHT THE RIGHT!
==================
