Buying through this banner helps support the forum!
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 199

Thread: Religion and War

  1. #46
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    Alright, I fixed the first quote. That was my error.
    The second I don't see any trouble with. You claimed you had answered the thread, you had but stated your opinion on a minor part of the issue. The issue is a lot more than, whether or not religion is needed for war.
    Are these not questions?
    Certainly, but they are questions regarding but one avenue of discussion that is allowed for under the rather broad title of Religion and War.
    Last edited by Leland Gaunt; 08-10-2010 at 11:40 PM.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  2. #47
    Sufi .Kafka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    The CDI is a reliable think tank that compiles data on military technology. If you click on the individual nation subheadings, you can be lead to detailed articles with extensive bibliographies. The list is unfortunately 13 years old, and Americans and Russians have likely both continued to downsize arsenals, but it's silly to think Russia would have significantly less, when they have a history of maintaining a larger arsenal, and continue to keep their arsenal secret.



    I said the opposite, or maybe you've made a typo here. Either way, the Japanese are responsible for an estimated 10 million civilian deaths in China, Korea, and South East Asia. Any civilian deaths that can be attributed to the Americans during the war don't approach that number.



    There was no patronizing involved, I responded with a reason why I don't think the impending Soviet invasion, which you proposed as a reason why the bombing was unjustified, didn't necessarily make the use of the bombs unjustifiable.

    Geez, you're awfully self-righteous for someone who started this off by attacking Americans humanitarian efforts. If you were gonna begin with the a priori assumption that the use of nuclear weapons is never justifiable, why begin the discussion at all. What differentiates the use of nuclear weapons from any other weapon, not much if you ask me.
    Yes it was a typo, if you can call it that. My mistake. You think the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 'humanitarian efforts'?

    All weapons, regardless of weapon grade, should be decommissioned. This is the first statement of yours I agree with.


    Religion is not needed for anything. Not for war. Not for life. Not for discipline. Religion is not needed.
    I have no blood in these veins
    but words that run as coarse
    and dark as when they first
    encounter arteries of secrets
    that burst onto this page.

  3. #48
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    Religion is not needed for anything. Not for war. Not for life. Not for discipline. Religion is not needed
    .
    While I am inclined to agree, only one of those has anything to do with the topic at hand. And it is but a part of that topic.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  4. #49
    Jethro BienvenuJDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mid-Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    13,843
    Blog Entries
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by .Kafka View Post
    Religion is not needed for anything. Not for war. Not for life. Not for discipline. Religion is not needed.
    Merely a matter of opinion that most of the world does not agree with.

    How many hospitals would not exist today if it wasn't for religion?
    How many schools would NEVER have been established if it weren't for religion?
    How many charities wouldn't be around if it weren't for religion?

    I'm not saying that there are not non-religious people doing good things, but that a great deal of humanitarian works are done by religions.
    Les Miserables,
    Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
    Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.

  5. #50
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by .Kafka View Post
    Religion is not needed for anything. Not for war. Not for life. Not for discipline. Religion is not needed.
    Well this I certainly agree with, I can quite do without religion.

    However, the statement at the end of your previous post I would find a rather dangerous idea. The only way that works is as long as there is no one anywhere who thinks it might be advantageous to tuck away a weapon for a rainy day, and knowing human beings almost everyone would want to have one of the few weapons left on Earth if in some hypothetical world the governments all became saints and gave up their weapons for dismantlement. I don't trust my neighbours not to hurt me, I certainly don't trust foreign governments not to want to hurt me. I'd rather not be defenseless.

  6. #51
    Sufi .Kafka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    Well this I certainly agree with, I can quite do without religion.

    However, the statement at the end of your previous post I would find a rather dangerous idea. The only way that works is as long as there is no one anywhere who thinks it might be advantageous to tuck away a weapon for a rainy day, and knowing human beings almost everyone would want to have one of the few weapons left on Earth if in some hypothetical world the governments all became saints and gave up their weapons for dismantlement. I don't trust my neighbours not to hurt me, I certainly don't trust foreign governments not to want to hurt me. I'd rather not be defenseless.
    I understand your contention. Let me clarify. All weapons that can kill indiscriminately should be decommissioned, ie. - atomic weapons, clutter bombs, daisy cutters, etc. For the killing of civilians is inexcusable.
    I have no blood in these veins
    but words that run as coarse
    and dark as when they first
    encounter arteries of secrets
    that burst onto this page.

  7. #52
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    All weapons can be used indiscriminately.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  8. #53
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by .Kafka View Post
    I understand your contention. Let me clarify. All weapons that can kill indiscriminately should be decommissioned, ie. - atomic weapons, clutter bombs, daisy cutters, etc. For the killing of civilians is inexcusable.
    I think most wars start with this idea, but then one side gets desperate and will start to target civilians. Then you're faced with a dilemma, do you allow your civilians to die without striking back, or do you respond in turn and target enemy civilians. The logical step, if you want to win the war, is to target the enemy civilians. It's ugly, and it's not a good thing, but it's just another reality of wars past.

    Initiating such civilian targeting tactics, I can agree is morally wrong, and it's probably not even sound military strategy. I'm not sure a modern military would want to be without these weapons though. That kind of warfare is mostly obsolete now anyway.

  9. #54
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    Civilian deaths would not stop with decommissioning of those weapons.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  10. #55
    Bibliophile JBI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    6,360
    Quote Originally Posted by .Kafka View Post
    Furthermore, Leland as to there not being any questions let me refresh your memory. In your first post in this thread you quoted the following questions:

    "Wars not caused by religion? Small mattre of WW2, and the Nazi agression against Judaism? The continuing battles in England between Catholic and Protestant? The wars between England and Wales, or Scotland? The Troubles in Ireland? The continuing punch -up between Islam and The Rest? Priests preaching young men in to the trenches of WW1? Holy Wars all over the place? Crusades? The Israelite Wars? I'm not convinced, I'm afraid."

    Are these not questions?
    The problem with that statement is, every one of those conflicts has a background that is nonreligious - so take the first few - Nazi Aggression wasn't really due to religion, but to hyper-nationalism, and a sense of genetic superiority, coupled with a failure of the West, and an easy scape goat to blame.

    As for England, perhaps, though the separation between Churches had nothing to do with theology, in that it was a matter of an ugly wife's uncle holding the Pope hostage, thereby making the common annulment that would have happened impossible. As for the impending conflict - it also seemed to be a matter of cultural and socio-economic self determination. Even so though, that wasn't quite a "war" of religions.

    It's really easy to blame religion, even for the so called "War on Terror" in the world right now. Then again, if you look at the problems, generally there is an underlayer of non-religious conflict, such as imperialism, foreign occupancy, and post-colonial globalization, to name a few.

    European wars generally, if we look historically, had the religious tinge, but even that is vague. It is easy to blame the conflict between Irish and English persons on religion, but that is to ignore the fact that England was a colonial occupant on the island, and when people's identity and liberty are threatened, they will go to no end to defend themselves, and in the process, cling harder to that which they feel is under attack.

    Just read Franz Fannon's work on the Algerian Independence - notably his essay on Muslim garb in Algeria to get the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by .Kafka View Post
    Religion is not needed for anything. Not for war. Not for life. Not for discipline. Religion is not needed.
    Yes, true, mankind isn't needed either, nor is cancer, or grape juice. I'm not needed either, and I suspect the same of you. That really isn't a convincing argument - very little is "needed."

    As it is, religion does quite a lot of good in the world - there is no denying it - the charity of religious institutions and their functions in fostering community amongst people is to be commended. I am not a believer, but I can still appreciate the cultural benefits of a religious tradition.

    My family is Jewish, but I, as a non-believer, still see the qualities in the traditions and history I come from, and the good sense of community it creates. I can go into a synagogue across the world and feel welcomed - that isn't something small - it is a part of identity - can it be lived without? Perhaps, we can live without Chinese food too, but Chinese food is a respectable art form and is worth saving and enjoying.

  11. #56
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    Yes, true, mankind isn't needed either, nor is cancer, or grape juice. I'm not needed either, and I suspect the same of you. That really isn't a convincing argument - very little is "needed."
    It's safe to assume that he was saying that religion is not needed in relation to mankind. Which I agree with. Please, don't take this as me denying the good religion does do, just that it isn't necessary for good to be done.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  12. #57
    Orwellian The Atheist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The George Orwell sub-forum
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    It's just a bad strategy though, if you try pacifism and it doesn't work you're **** out of luck.
    Is that true, though?

    Take a war - any war will do. One side lost in each case. Would the slaughter have been worse if one side had resorted to not fighting? Given most of humankind's wars have been genocidal, losing has usually been equivalent to being wiped out, so where's the downside?

    Since we're on religion and war, the bible is quite clear that when an enemy is conquered, all the men should be killed and all the young women taken for breeding with everyone else enslaved.

    Passive resistance is hardly a worse an outcome than that, and that attitude encompasses most wars that took place in BC years.

    Take something as obvious as WWII - that seems to match most people's description of a "just" war - on the Allied side. Would the world have been that much worse off if everyone but Germany had been pacifists? Germany did very little damage to countries it occupied - Belgium, Holland, Norway, etc, so the death toll would likely have been infinitely lower for starters.

    Things aren't always as clear-cut as we assume. Obviously, playing with history is purely theoretical, but I think it's reasonable to accept that other than [possibly/probably] Jews, Poles, Gypsies and black people, the death toll would have been nowhere the number it was had there been no war through pacifism on the Allied side.

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanPip View Post
    On the other hand, military defense has proven more or less a successful strategy.
    I disagree. It has at best a 50% chance of succeeding, since wars have a victor and a vanquished. In fact, I'm sure you know the expression "Pyrrhic victory", where even the victor is a loser, so 50% is actually generous.
    Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."

    Anon

  13. #58
    Sufi .Kafka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by JBI View Post
    The problem with that statement is, every one of those conflicts has a background that is nonreligious - so take the first few - Nazi Aggression wasn't really due to religion, but to hyper-nationalism, and a sense of genetic superiority, coupled with a failure of the West, and an easy scape goat to blame.

    As for England, perhaps, though the separation between Churches had nothing to do with theology, in that it was a matter of an ugly wife's uncle holding the Pope hostage, thereby making the common annulment that would have happened impossible. As for the impending conflict - it also seemed to be a matter of cultural and socio-economic self determination. Even so though, that wasn't quite a "war" of religions.

    It's really easy to blame religion, even for the so called "War on Terror" in the world right now. Then again, if you look at the problems, generally there is an underlayer of non-religious conflict, such as imperialism, foreign occupancy, and post-colonial globalization, to name a few.

    European wars generally, if we look historically, had the religious tinge, but even that is vague. It is easy to blame the conflict between Irish and English persons on religion, but that is to ignore the fact that England was a colonial occupant on the island, and when people's identity and liberty are threatened, they will go to no end to defend themselves, and in the process, cling harder to that which they feel is under attack.

    Just read Franz Fannon's work on the Algerian Independence - notably his essay on Muslim garb in Algeria to get the idea.

    An extremely well articulated argument.
    I have no blood in these veins
    but words that run as coarse
    and dark as when they first
    encounter arteries of secrets
    that burst onto this page.

  14. #59
    Registered User Leland Gaunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Columbus, NE
    Posts
    146
    An extremely well articulated argument.
    Yes, but this is just rehashing old ground. All that was addressed within the first 2-3 posts of this thread.
    Nothing, nothing is certain, except the insignificance of everything I can comprehend and the grandeur of something incomprehensible but most important" -Andrei Bolkonsky
    "But, I didn't do anything"- Professor Lawrence Gopnik
    "Cat in the wall, eh? Okay, now you're talking my language. I know this game." -Charlie Kelly

  15. #60
    Dance Magic Dance OrphanPip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur but from Canada
    Posts
    4,163
    Blog Entries
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post


    I disagree. It has at best a 50% chance of succeeding, since wars have a victor and a vanquished. In fact, I'm sure you know the expression "Pyrrhic victory", where even the victor is a loser, so 50% is actually generous.
    I tend to approach this from a geopolitical standpoint where I view states as vying for power. If you lose a war through pacifism, people's lives may be saved, but this makes no sense from a position of statecraft. States fight to survive, tooth and nail, to the death, it's a trend that I would struggle to find a counterexample to.

    If you surrender, you save lives, but the state ceases to be, then the state has a 100% chance of losing. Military defense is a more sound strategy, at the state level, under any circumstance.

    Also, since it was mentioned earlier about the good religion does in the world. I agree they do plenty of fine charity work, I'm just bothered by how we often allow religious charities to undermine other necessary charity work. Since JBI is Canadian, just look at the Harper government's recent movement to move funding away from charities that provide abortions for women in the third world to more religiously based charities, this is not a good thing. Likewise, the Catholic church continues to endorse the criminilization of homosexuality in Africa, in the case of Uganda the Arch-Bishop endorsed the death penalty until this drew negative press and the Vatican made him tone back to endorsing merely a life imprisonment. Then there's Mormon missionaries subverting AIDS charities by buying condoms off of people. Religion has the power to organize people, and organizing people has the power to do a lot of good and a lot of bad.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •