Memories of the 28th Century

Even though it isn't a major issue in the news, there is a holy war going on. DAESH would like to be fighting against the princes of Christendom, as their ancestors did centuries ago, but there aren't any princes of Christendom anymore. The issues that DAESH is fighting about are not issues to more than a few people outside of their organization. Eight hundred or a thousand years ago religious power was a major concern, but in most of the world religion is a personal matter that is not part of governmental activity. The Crusaders of yore fought for values that are not greatly valued any more, and the way they are valued is as personal spiritual values, rather than as national goals. There may be some people who regard religion as a matter of national importance, but there are no unified religious ideals, except within small sects. Even in Islam there are many sects that disagree on large issues. Here in the U.S.A. religion is explicitly excluded from governmental consideration, and many other countries have similar exclusions.

If DAESH wants to have a holy war, then they will have to find another religion or sect that is also interested in having a holy war. There probably are some small Christian sects that would be willing to engage in holy war, but those are too small to make a real war. There are other sects of Islam that might be willing to have a holy war, but to make holy war against Muslims would create doctrinal problems, so it would be easier to avoid that. I recall having seen that there are holy war-like actions going on in India sometimes. Recently gangs of Hindus killed people for killing cattle. That might be a good way to start, but they will have to rouse a great many Hindus to make a good holy war, and they will have to move their forces from Iraq and Syria to India. They would need some cooperation from Pakistan and Iran.

Another way to handle the Crusade that DAESH wants would be to arm the Syrian refugees and send them back to recover their country. This would be a calculated risk, because some of them are rather risky, and some might join DAESH, but I think that most of them would want to stomp DAESH before they went after power for themselves. This method would also be cost effective. We could give them old weapons and let them worry about keeping in working. But we would want to give them enough that they would be appreciative after they won, and if they were defeated; well sometimes things don't work out as hoped.

It would be nice, if we could also get secular humanism to join the crusade, but that would be rather contrary to its principles. And there are other nonreligious organizations that seek to infuse the world with their values, and maybe some of those would be interested in joining the crusade against DAESH. The people who support gender equality would have a lot to lose, if DAESH won, so maybe they could be persuaded. And oddly enough pacifists would also have a great deal to lose, so it would be in their advantage to fight against DAESH. But the fundamental conflict is non-religious. The original enemy of classical liberalism was absolutism in all forms, not just against religious forces trying to force their mythologies on non-members.

The fundamental problem is how to get people to understand that it does not harm them for there to be people who disagree with them. Whether someone is of some particular religion or of some philosophy is of no concern to me. The thoughts of others do not affect me in any way, unless they try to act on those thoughts in ways that affect me. Ironically, humans have this philosophical conflict built into basic urges. The desire for self-preservation underlies greed, but it also underlies love and the desire to help the community, because the community is an extension of the individual, and individual survival is meaningless without it being shared with others. But humans also want answers to everything, and accepting answers from an authority is easier than finding answers for oneself. Being part of a community gives a warm, fuzzy feeling that for some people is stronger than the warm, fuzzy feeling of being an individual. Both are characteristics that developed more strongly through evolution, and both also lead toward survival; they are simply two different strategies. And they fit together; it is good to have communitarians and individuals in the same community.

There may be a chemical way to cure the absolutist way of thinking, but not much research has been done in the matter. I was thinking o oxytocin and cocaine, but that might not have the appropriate effect.

But education certainly would have some effect. If a person learns that nothing is certain, then it is almost impossible for that person to retain the absolutist, religious viewpoint. Ultimately, this holy war will be won on the internet and in book, rather than on the field, but it may take a long time to finish the war. If the Gods will be generous, then the human population will crash before the war ends, but we'll have to wait to see how it will end.

I was thinking of this matter while writing he last post, "Single-Minded", and these are closely related subjects.

The title is deliberately inappropriate. I have no desire to carry the cross to any place, but there is a holy war being fought, but only one side is fighting it as such.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10074806

An excellent outline of Classical Liberalism
The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism
By Amy H. Sturgis
http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/li...the_rise1.html