The Coffee House - the UU Fellowship Thread (churches, experience)

[lilithu]

Hey Guys, namaste. This is indeed a difficult topic. No matter how one looks at it, lives are at stake, not just life and death but our daily lives. Also at stake is our sense of justice, which we UUs hold up along with freedom as some of our highest ideals. Even as I brought it up I wondered if it wasn't better not to. It would certainly be easier, but not better, imo.

I've been reflecting a lot lately on our 7 principles. Principle 3 is that we affirm and promote acceptance of one another and encouragement to personal growth. It would be easy to accept one another if we never talked about anything controversial but there would be no push towards spiritual growth, on either side. As difficult as it is sometimes, we are called to create a space for those of us with whom we respectfully disagree, while at the same time challenging their assumptions and being open to having our own assumptions challenged. Let's remember to keep this space so that no UU will be hesitant to speak from his or her heart.

[Ciscokid]

Originally Posted by jamaesi

I agree with you, I want all the terrorists gone. But using terror to get rid of the terrorists doesn't make much sense. :/

I don't think reason and pacifism is the answer either. A terrorist can't slam a plane into a building when his heart is stopped.

[Ciscokid]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Hey Guys, namaste. This is indeed a difficult topic. No matter how one looks at it, lives are at stake, not just life and death but our daily lives. Also at stake is our sense of justice, which we UUs hold up along with freedom as some of our highest ideals. Even as I brought it up I wondered if it wasn't better not to. It would certainly be easier, but not better, imo.

I've been reflecting a lot lately on our 7 principles. Principle 3 is that we affirm and promote acceptance of one another and encouragement to personal growth. It would be easy to accept one another if we never talked about anything controversial but there would be no push towards spiritual growth, on either side. As difficult as it is sometimes, we are called to create a space for those of us with whom we respectfully disagree, while at the same time challenging their assumptions and being open to having our own assumptions challenged. Let's remember to keep this space so that no UU will be hesitant to speak from his or her heart.

Great post. I have found that discussing tough topics is worthwhile once you get past the discomfort. I hope I have not offended Jamaesi or any other Muslim. I tend to type exactly what is going on in my mind.
I pray for peace...I want a good world for our children to grow up in. That's all.


P.S. In case you haven't noticed...I'm one of the more conservative UU's you'll find.

[jamaesi]

I don't think reason and pacifism is the answer either. A terrorist can't slam a plane into a building when his heart is stopped.

I agree, but look at the innocents killed and innocents tortured and innocents detained without human rights. But you know, I'm less and less in favour of the death penalty as time goes on.

Just killing them doesn't work- you need to go to the root of the problem. I get called a silly liberal when I say this, but if you just kill the terrorists and leave the conditions the same then more terrorists will just pop up. It's an endless cycle and it needs broken.


To fight terror with terror is like putting a fire out with gasoline. It might go out in the end, but only have a big explosion.


Actually, I have a little story to tell. One of my ex-boyfriends WAS a fan of terrorism. (This isn't the reason he is my ex, but alas, I was younger and stupider.) He was from Saudi Arabia, lived there growing up.

He also had no real purpose in his life. His family was (oil) rich and he had whatever he wanted. Which was, for him, video games.

I was the little white-looking American that didn't shun him and the only girl (still!) who ever got close to him. (I was an agnostic back, but most everyone just considered me Jewish, for some reason. I believe it was because of my Jewish grandparents. Which, well, made a few things akward being around Muslim full Arabs so much.)

I was horrified shortly after 9/11 when he said al-Qaidah and the Taleban were good groups, etc, etc. So of course, I immediately gave him a sound verbal thrashing. >:{ Force would be okay to be employed in this situations. After.. quite some time of me bickering with him I won him over. I was actually surprised he never knew of the absolute horrors these groups commit- and to the Arab people. I also got him to see the error in the way he was reading the Qur'an (in the violent "kill the infidels and women suck!" twisting of the Qur'an way that makes my skin crawl)- I knew more about Islam and the Qur'an than he did. D:

And now he's.. well, mostly harmless and going to med school and a rather moderate Muslim.
I'd like to think I had a part in that. *puffs up*




(This is probably how liberal Christians felt during the Crusades! )

[jamaesi]

I pray for peace...I want a good world for our children to grow up in. That's all.

Me too.

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

I don't think reason and pacifism is the answer either. A terrorist can't slam a plane into a building when his heart is stopped.

While I have no ethical problems with killing people who are attempting to kill others, there is a major flaw with the strategy of killing all the terrorists:

No man is an island. The terrorist you kill today (or the innocent bystander who is "collateral damage") has a brother, a son, or a father that you'll face tomorrow.

There's a good example of this in the western "The Cheyenne Social Club". At the beginning of the movie, The protagonist (Jimmy Stewart) kills an enemy. This enemy's five brothers come gunning for Stewart. He finally manages to kill them. Next thing he knows, the whole extended family (several dozen) are out for his blood. Stewart leaves town, never to return.

I don't know any easy answers to this problem. The solutions the US is currently pursuing seem to be backfiring. As stupid as it sounds, reason and pacifism might actually work better.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Jamaesi

I agree with you, I want all the terrorists gone. But using terror to get rid of the terrorists doesn't make much sense.

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

I don't think reason and pacifism is the answer either. A terrorist can't slam a plane into a building when his heart is stopped.

Respectfully, I believe that we are talking past each other here. You're talking about two different things. I believe that Jamaesi is refering to the "war on terror" and the fact that despite all of our technology, war kills innocents. And even when it doesn't kill them, it terrorizes them and causes them to hate the people who are terrorizing them. The question is whether war in this situation is an effective solution. Whereas, I believe that Cisco is responding to the question of whether war and killing is ever an acceptable solution, and he's saying that pacifism is not the answer.

I won't speak for Jamaesi but I am not a pacifist. I believe that there are times when war is necessary because the alternative causes greater harm. (Hitler is the obvious example, but there are others that I believe were "just" wars.) And if I knew with absolute certainty that a person was about to do something that would kill tens/hundreds/thousands of innocent people, would I kill him or her to prevent that? Yes, I probably would (tho I shudder at the thought of ever being faced with that decision). So pacifism is not the issue here, at least not for me. But Cisco, if you knew that the person, the "terrorist", was in a building with a dozen other people who may be innocent, would you blow up that building in order to kill the one person? How would you stop that one heart without hurting other innocent hearts? And if you'd be willing to hurt innocents, how many? At what price? And wouldn't you be the "terrorist" to those other people and the people who love them? Wouldn't they then be justified in trying to kill you?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Karl R

While I have no ethical problems with killing people who are attempting to kill others, there is a major flaw with the strategy of killing all the terrorists:

No man is an island. The terrorist you kill today (or the innocent bystander who is "collateral damage") has a brother, a son, or a father that you'll face tomorrow.

There's a good example of this in the western "The Cheyenne Social Club". At the beginning of the movie, The protagonist (Jimmy Stewart) kills an enemy. This enemy's five brothers come gunning for Stewart. He finally manages to kill them. Next thing he knows, the whole extended family (several dozen) are out for his blood. Stewart leaves town, never to return.

I don't know any easy answers to this problem. The solutions the US is currently pursuing seem to be backfiring. As stupid as it sounds, reason and pacifism might actually work better.

Karl, welcome to RF! And thank you for your excellent first post. Since you are new to RF you may not realize the set up here. This discussion is taking place within the Unitarian Universalist forum, which is reserved for UUs and friends of UUs. Since most everyone is our friend, you are certainly welcome to post here when the spirit moves you. There are of course other forums reserved for Christians, Jews, Muslisms, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. And in all cases people outside of that faith tradition are welcome to come and ask questions and interact. (I've visited other forums regularly.) Just remember that when you're visiting, you're a visitor. (There are also open forums where