Do you support war and your religion?

[tom_mich]

Let me ask you a question?

Do you know your religon well if you can recite the stories and have memorized many passages and lines.....or......do you know you religion well when you understand the overall philosphy and aims of the founders and follow those beliefs, even if you don't remember the stories and details?

Let me ask you another question.

Did the events of 9/11 make you think,
1. Gosh! These terrorists are serious! We better leave them alone.
or
2. We will make them pay for what they did.

If you followed answer 2. Then how can you possibilty believe that killing 40,000 people in Iraq will reduce terrorism. Do you think people of the world will think...gosh!! The Americans are serious, we better not mess with them.

Or

Do you think Orphaned children, and widowed fathers in Iraq will think...I will make them pay for what they died.

It is an absolute undeniable proven fact that violence creates more violence.

Since nearly all religions support peace, love and tolerance, I would like to know how anyone could support the Iraq war, the increase of violence and terrorism around the world as a result.

By starting the Iraq war, the USA has set an example that it is ok to use weapons of mass distruction to achieve your goals. Hey....same goals as Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Engyo]

Buddhism is against war; war increases suffering of all who participate in it, whether voluntarily or not. Therefore, war is to be avoided.

 

[Faint]

It is an absolute undeniable proven fact that violence creates more violence.

What makes you so certain? Let's say I don't think this "fact" is proven at all. What then?

Also, do you think that humans are naturally non-violent as a species?

 

[YamiB.]

I do think that violence often cause more violence, but I also think that war is sometimes nessecary. The only time I can really think of where I would support war is if the other country attacked first or if it is to stop a goverment endorsed genocide.

 

[tom_mich]

quote: Also, do you think that humans are naturally non-violent as a species?

Humans used to naturally eat each other 30,000 years ago. Should we still do that?

Because we have always warred....does that mean we cannot aim higher to prevent wars? At least not to start them!!!

Violence makes violence!!! Look it up! Did Hilters war make peace? Did the mongols invasion of China make peace? Did Japan bombing Pearl Harbour make peace?

You can argue wars bring peace after they have been won....but that is ignoring the price of war, and ignoring the fact that wars are started almost always by evil doers, power trippers or greedy leaders.

 

[tom_mich]

I also believe wars CAN be necessary. But my question is about THIS CURRENT UNNECESSARY war. The one Iraq that did not need occur if not for the will of the US government to attack a country that was no threat, and turn it into a whirlpool of chaos and death.

 

[Green Gaia]

From the words of Rev. William Sinkford, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association:

As a religious community, Unitarian Universalists do not say that war is never justified: we are not a “peace church.” But most of us view war as an absolute last resort, to be embarked upon only when all other avenues have failed, or when we have been attacked. Most of us do not believe this war met those tests. Many of us have written our legislators, some of us have stood vigil for peace, a few of us have protested. Almost all of us fear that this occupation will damage our credibility as a freedom-loving nation; almost all of us fear that we are, with our own hands, helping to birth the next generation of terrorists who will threaten our safety.

....

Perhaps our invasion and occupation of Iraq will have the beneficial consequences our national leadership claims they will. Perhaps democratic government will flourish in Iraq and encourage the spread of democracy throughout that region. Perhaps the lives of ordinary Iraqis will improve, after decades of suffering. Perhaps these developments will, in time, redeem the many lost lives and the heavy toll on our nation’s soul.

Like many of you, I find these outcomes unlikely. Before the invasion, we raised questions: did Saddam Hussein truly have weapons of mass destruction that threatened us? Would our troops be welcomed as liberators or reviled as occupiers? What role did the presence of Iraq’s oil resources play in our decision to invade, and who would control them once Saddam was gone? How could our nation embrace a policy of unilateral pre-emptive war?

My religion believes in the inherent worth and dignity of every person; justice, equity and compassion in human relations; the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; and respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. I find it very rare that war and violence can coexist with those principles.

 

[Faint]

Humans used to naturally eat each other 30,000 years ago. Should we still do that?

Wait--what? Where did you read this? When were humans ever primarily cannibals?

Because we have always warred....does that mean we cannot aim higher to prevent wars? At least not to start them!!!

Yes, that would be nice. But that's avoiding my question. Oh wait...

Violence makes violence!!! Look it up! Did Hilters war make peace? Did the mongols invasion of China make peace? Did Japan bombing Pearl Harbour make peace?

If you mean war causes violence, then yes--that is an understatement. War is violence. But does violence in general cause more violence? For instance, if two kids are fighting on a playground, does the whole school suddenly erupt into a riot? Is it a chain reaction? You ask me to "look it up!"--I will. Just as soon as you cite some credible source to back up your claim. Post a link or tell me what study you got this from (or is this "fact" of yours just an opinion?)

 

[Darkdale]

It is an absolute undeniable proven fact that violence creates more violence.

This is not true. I would like you to give undeniable, comprehensive evidence for such a position.

We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and haven't fought them since.

 

[Mike182]

Let me ask you a question?

Do you know your religon well if you can recite the stories and have memorized many passages and lines.....or......do you know you religion well when you understand the overall philosphy and aims of the founders and follow those beliefs, even if you don't remember the stories and details?

Let me ask you another question.

Did the events of 9/11 make you think,
1. Gosh! These terrorists are serious! We better leave them alone.
or
2. We will make them pay for what they did.

If you followed answer 2. Then how can you possibilty believe that killing 40,000 people in Iraq will reduce terrorism. Do you think people of the world will think...gosh!! The Americans are serious, we better not mess with them.

Or

Do you think Orphaned children, and widowed fathers in Iraq will think...I will make them pay for what they died.

It is an absolute undeniable proven fact that violence creates more violence.

Since nearly all religions support peace, love and tolerance, I would like to know how anyone could support the Iraq war, the increase of violence and terrorism around the world as a result.

By starting the Iraq war, the USA has set an example that it is ok to use weapons of mass distruction to achieve your goals. Hey....same goals as Osama Bin Laden.

wow, you confined my answer to only a few choices, and i felt like non of these

i love christian theology, i understand what i believe to be the basic beliefs, and i know several bits of scripture to support my views

on 9/11, i felt sorrow and pain and sadness. i did not suport the war in iraq, but i did not think we should leave them alone either. at this point in time i was not a christian, but i really felt that the world leaders needed some propper guidance and council, as they were f**king it up really badly

right now i prey that the whole situation will be lifted up to God, and that some good can come of it all - i prey for iraq to gain independance, democracy (true democracy, not the disillusioned and corrupt crap)

C_P

 

[Faint]

This is not true. I would like you to give undeniable, comprehensive evidence for such a position..

Is there an echo in here?

We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and haven't fought them since.

Dude! Totally! Party on Dark! :clap

 

[Mike182]

This is not true. I would like you to give undeniable, comprehensive evidence for such a position.

We dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan and haven't fought them since.

ofcourse the other nuclear weapons facing their general direction hasn't affected that fact in the slightest

its not the violence, it the aftermath of the violence

as we saw at the end of WW1, britain france and america were complete bums towards germany, stupid repayment, stupid military restricitions, serious loss of lands, and to top that, a black hole where we had forced out their dictator and left them with no governing body - this resulted in WW2, the aftermath of this war was we helped the parts of germany we had access to, re-built the economy, worked with them, and their has not been a 3 war in europe on this scale

the difference between the two was not the ammount of violence, but the attitudes after the violence

C_P

 

[Darkdale]

What I am referring to is something known as "total victory", which basically destroys an enemies ability to use violence. The result of which is peace. Now, President Bush has declared that we will achieve total victory in the war on terror... how?

In the case where total victory cannot (or will not, for a variety of reasons, i.e. Israel v. Palestine) be won... violence will breed violence. We used the concept of total victory in the cold war and it worked; we simply used an economic strategy. Anyway... Total Victory creates peace, anything less creates more violence. Fighting a war without the sincere intent of total victory is one of the more horrid and cruel choices a nation could make... because as violence is ongoing, many more people will have died, than if total victory would have been pursued.

 

[almifkhar]

tom this you posted a real good question. for me, i feel that war should be avoided, but sometimes it just cant be. if feel the only justification for going to war is if a people are invaded by another people and the invaders are not there for good intentions. i like the way teric aziz said it, he said that if bush wanted saddam, that the both of them should settle their problems in a boxing ring so as to spare the people. sounds like a good idea to me. my religion and religion in general, i feel is pro war to a point. i think that most of the old wars and conquest that they speak of should be viewed in as a lesson. the future wars that they speak of i think too should be viewed as a lesson. that lesson being don't be so greedy and selfish and perhaps we can avoid war.

 

[jonny]

How many threads can there be debating the same thing at the same time?

We get it. People are angry about the war in Iraq. Can we just combine all these threads together and have one big fight over it?

Yes, I support my religion. Yes, I supported the war.

 

[Mike182]

What I am referring to is something known as "total victory", which basically destroys an enemies ability to use violence. The result of which is peace. Now, President Bush has declared that we will achieve total victory in the war on terror... how?

we will never be able to achieve "total victory" in the war against terror, to suggest such a thing is bull plop on george bush

In the case where total victory cannot (or will not, for a variety of reasons, i.e. Israel v. Palestine) be won... violence will breed violence. We used the concept of total victory in the cold war and it worked; we simply used an economic strategy. Anyway... Total Victory creates peace, anything less creates more violence. Fighting a war without the sincere intent of total victory is one of the more horrid and cruel choices a nation could make... because as violence is ongoing, many more people will have died, than if total victory would have been pursued.

this is where we disagree, because you are saying that in a war situation, unless you completely cripple you opponent, they will rise to fight you again - i disagree because after you have victory, with the right negotiations, a lasting peace is possible without the need to completely cripple another nation

 

[Darkdale]

we will never be able to achieve "total victory" in the war against terror, to suggest such a thing is bull plop on george bush


this is where we disagree, because you are saying that in a war situation, unless you completely cripple you opponent, they will rise to fight you again - i disagree because after you have victory, with the right negotiations, a lasting peace is possible without the need to completely cripple another nation

What you are talking about is "winning the hearts and minds of the people" type of thing right? You'll never get to the point of negotiations without total victory... i.e. Israel v. Palestine. Total Victory is the only policy that makes sense, in my opinion and I believe history agrees with me. I would, however, be interested in looking at cases of large scale wars that were solved without total victory and looking at the negotiation processes to see if there is anything that can be learned from them. But negotiations didn't work for the Native Americans, they aren't working for the Israelis, they didn't work for the French before world war II when they tried to "deal" with Hitler. The only case I can think of.... is the negotiations of the cold war, that prevented war all together. Fear of Mutually Assured Destruction. I don't know if this is the case now.

I agree with you though, Total Victory in the war on terror is impossible. We aren't fighting a nation or a people. We are fighting an idea... a movement. Historically, it's very dangerous to fight a movement. You tend to empower the people you are fighting. It's possible, but unlikely. That being said, total victory is possible in Iraq. But we didn't have the balls to rip it apart and get out. It might be too late now.

 

[Mike182]

i am talking about negotiations after a war, you can win a war without completely crippling you opponent (like a "total victory" would secure) and then start the negotiations to prevent further war, deal with the grievances that started the war etc

 

[michel]

Let me ask you a question?.

Do you know your religon well if you can recite the stories and have memorized many passages and lines.....or......do you know you religion well when you understand the overall philosphy and aims of the founders and follow those beliefs, even if you don't remember the stories and details?

I most certainly do not know and cannot recite scriptures. I follow what I understand to be the example that Jesust Christ gave us.

Let me ask you another question.

Did the events of 9/11 make you think,
1. Gosh! These terrorists are serious! We better leave them alone.
or
2. We will make them pay for what they did.

If you followed answer 2. Then how can you possibilty believe that killing 40,000 people in Iraq will reduce terrorism. Do you think people of the world will think...gosh!! The Americans are serious, we better not mess with them.

Or

Do you think Orphaned children, and widowed fathers in Iraq will think...I will make them pay for what they died.

It is an absolute undeniable proven fact that violence creates more violence.

Since nearly all religions support peace, love and tolerance, I would like to know how anyone could support the Iraq war, the increase of violence and terrorism around the world as a result.

By starting the Iraq war, the USA has set an example that it is ok to use weapons of mass distruction to achieve your goals. Hey....same goals as Osama Bin Laden

It is against the Idea of Christianity to kill any other human being. That said, if it is the lesser of two evils, the I guess it is justified. All I hope is that I am never in the position of having to make up my mind when killing is necessary.

 

[robtex]

Tom I find your original question to the 9/11 senerio to be an oversimplification however, I like what the direction you are going with this. God as a rationazation for murder is wrong everytime and here is why.

1) If you believe in an all-powerful God than you must realize that if he wants someone dead he doesn't need your help.

2) The attainment of divine revelation as a justification of anything is the divorce from reason and deduction in exchange for faith. To ask any nation to kill members of another nation on faith alone is poposterous.

3) Religious reasons for war create an "us and them" based mainly or many times soley on religious beliefs and makes objectivity in that senerio somewhere between impossible and highly unlikely.