Dear mrs. Best,
I hope you don't mind me dropping into this discussion (I saved some time putting Freesco to work instead of trying to configure Monkey so maybe I can shed some light on war philosophy). At 19:30 26-2-03 -0400, you wrote: >I'm not a believer in "black & white" but yin/yang has a lot of >validity. Where Yin/Yang of course are the antagonist influences within every single thought, not good/bad in the categoric definition. Yin aspects of this statement is that it's good to share the insight, yang is the circumstance that we're mainly doing this in order to break the black/white picture that's inherent to war propaganda (or vice versa). Anyway, although you declared no objection against being "sent on" a bit before your time, if there's a general interest to do so, I'd like to share some thoughts before such drastics take over. > >The Bible says to cast your bread upon the waters & it will return >multiplied; the problem I've seen is the Christians assume they are >somehow "right" and that only the "good" they do will be returned ... >they fail to realize that the message is that "bad" will also return >multipled. > >Wiccans believe in The Threefold Law -- whatever you do, it will be >returned to you three times over; they recognize that both 'good' and >'bad' are included in that formula. You're not likely to see Wiccans >standing in front of a congregation preaching hatred, and you won't find >them knocking on your door with a fistful of pamphlets and the "only >true answer" ... that could be because "All roads lead to the center." > >Mohammed is rumored to have found something he wanted to be involved in, >and failed to meet the relatively simple requirements for its >acquisition ... due to impatience. So he took what he wanted to use, >borrowing from what existed, and wrote a religion which suited his >personal desires. I cannot swear to the truth of that any more than I >could swear to the truth of Jesse Ben Joseph [aka Jesus of Nazarus] >being crucified. Would science be a religion (and I think it is, the difference is mainly cultural; a matter of recognition) the following seems to clear the lot: Independent knowledge: Who thinks to know, believes. Who thinks to believe, doubts. Who thinks to doubt is halfway independence. Meaning that with every bit of information there should be a reliable guideline to its interpretation, and if there isn't, there should be time spent constructing it independently. > >What I do know, and can swear to, is that certain attitudes and actions >help a society to survive as a healthy and growing entity, and that >other attitudes and actions can lead to the total destruction of that >society -- and sometimes everything that society touches. > >Thus there is certainly "right" and certainly "wrong" ... and morality >cannot be legislated, nor is it "popular opinion" which determins >morality. Remember that most of the people in Germany during the reign >of Hitler were not Nazis, yet popular opinion remained "as long as it's >them and not me, I'm OK with it." I would consider that amoral at best >and immoral with no excuse at worst. There's a vivid discussion going on about the guilt of the german population as a whole, for the Nazi crimes. They were demecratically elected on a program that contained a lot of now obviously criminal intentions. Defence would of course say that before WW2 there was no reference to the massacre the Nazi's were preparing for (Racism was, also in Europe, a fashionable part of popular science. The war as such was not recognised as a threat because Germany was disarmed after WW1. UK and France wouldn't take Hitler serious, even when he started rebuilding the army, as he had promised for the elections) Anyway: When a democracy marches to war the majority of people ARE responsible, but when a dictator does the same, the guilt stays with the government. > >Even for those who are amoral, who have no sense of intrinsic "right" or >"wrong" must have had something else which allowed them to survive. If >it was "the bottom line" then look at the costs -- in money and feelings >about self & others -- of any war. When the war is declared to be >"right," even though the enemy is only perceived to be a danger rather >than proven to be so, the definition of "right" and the potential guilt >of those who allow it to happen (those who create it are entirely >different creatures) is a heavy cost to bear. > >If it's money & right vs. wrong, where is the right of killing innocent >civilians trapped in a society they must support or die opposing? Where >is the right of spending billions of dollars to destroy when we still >have thousands of innocent children on our streets, homeless and hungry? >Where is the right in supporting a nation we've destroyed, if the >destruction could have been avoided in the first place? > >Would you truly rather be a pensioner for the rest of your life, if all >it meant was you lost an eye, or wear burn scars, or have a broken back? >I'd rather be strong & healthy enough to live off the land, to have the >opportunity and physical ability to be personally responsible for my >survival. How is a country any different from an individual when it >comes to that choice?? That's a hard one for me: The army wouldn't want me (with my -12 glasses) and I must admit I never minded... On a international scale Europes classical handicap is to be divided (this caused both WW1 and 2). Netherlands usual strategy used to be neutrality (WW1) but Hitler obviously wasn't impressed. Looking back we could hold the UK and France responsible for letting the nazi's build their reich, which in 1936 could still have been crushed according to the Versaille treaty. (Some add that this is also Iraqs position at this time, but the nazi's had quite a lot more to go by.) The world then choose to watch the Olympics, though. > >My plea to everyone, particularly those in positions of power, is a >simple one: Carry your faith with you, but leave your religion at home! > >l.d. >-- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ > (Is that: Carry your gun but leave your weapons of mass destruction?) Money says: A living religion is one that still moves. Bart > There's a good thing about every war: It can end!
