More Bush

[Nabubrush]

Thank you, V, for your post. I have a problem with some of this perspective:

I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion.

It seems somewhat circular. You said it better than I could, though.

[V-Adore]

Thank you, V, for your post. I have a problem with some of this perspective:

I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion.

It seems somewhat circular. You said it better than I could, though.

Well, it's the same reason that I get frustrated by the argument that, since Christ embodies goodness, "good" people are by definition Christian -- it's setting up a false paradigm in which it's established that all morality is intrinsically religious as a point not up to dispute. It very much is a point up to dispute, I think, especially given what it does to modern statecraft.

[miles]

Now, why is this necessarily the case (that every argument against theft is based on religion)?  What makes you think that the prohibition against theft orignated with the Bible?  Just because Moses said Don't Steal doesn't mean that no one had said it before him.  There are many theories of the origins of morality, and they don't all start with God(s).

aHA!  But religion isn't always monotheism.  You'll find that almost all religions have "don't steal" rules in them.  I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion.  If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected).  That by itself can be considered a religion.  You have good evidence to support that belief, but I'll bet you haven't done extensive research yourself, and have to take some of it on faith.  Cogito ergo sum is the only ultimately provable science.  From there you have to take everything (the changing reliability of your own senses and your fellow man) with a little bit of faith.

That reminds me of Augustine.  I read Confessions some time ago, and I remember at one point he argued that having faith in God isn't such a bad thing because we have faith in history.  Thing is, I don't have faith in history, in the sense that Augustine wants me to have faith in God.  I don't consider historical knowledge to be knowledge in that it is justified true belief.  I believe things happen, and my belief may be true, but I can't justify it.  It's more like practical knowledge.  I don't know that the earth is spherical, that stars are giant balls of gas undergoing nuclear fusion as opposed to being holes in the firmament, or that George Washington was our nation's first president.  But I believe all those things.  They may very well be true, but I can't justify my beliefs, even if others can.  Accepting God on faith is an entirely different project, because you are accepting something you have little or know practical knowledge of, and basing an entire life system around it.  I don't know that the earth is spherical, but that doesn't really impact me.  The problem I have with atheists and theists (not that I have a problem with them personally) is just that their claim is too strong.  I don't think it really can be justified.

Descartes argued that the Cogito was the first instance of knowledge in human history.  Though he did continue on to prove God's existence.  However, millions of Philosophers and Scientists aren't fully convinced.  Still, the man was fuck*ng brilliant.

So anyway, I haven't done extensive research on the history of morality.  But I have read what people like Hobbes, Locke, and Nietzsche have to say about the subject.  And morality doesn't always start with God or gods.  I mean, if you buy Genesis it's easier to accept that, but if you believe humans evolved over millions of years, then it might be harder to prove that religious beliefs preceeded any kind of ethical system.  I think one problem here is that we don't have a working definition of religion.  You can call it what you want, but I think of it as something more than an ethical system.  Like, you could say that murdering people for fun is wrong because you don't want to be murdered for fun.  Stealing is wrong because I don't want my shit to get stolen.  I don't see how that is relgion, at least in the sense that religion is used today.  And while it may be the case that almost every religion has a Don't Steal rule, that still doesn't mean that religion invented it.

When people today talk about how they don't want laws to be based on strictly religious arguments, they mean that they don't want to hear lawmakers say "Killing is wrong because it's in the Bible."  "Abortion is wrong because the Pope says so."  "Fornication is wrong beacuse Paul said fornicators will go to hell."  People want better justification than that.  Although, you might end up with "Fags--that just ain't right.  It ain't natural."  Which, if anyone could tell me what people mean by natural in that context, I would appreciate it.  Because sex is very natural.  Birth control--that's a wonderful thing, but it ain't natural.  I think they just mean gross.

Slink said that Bush and other conservatives seem to forget 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.'  I don't think it's a fair reading of the Ten Commandments to say this.  At the time, God was telling his people to kill all sorts of people, men, women and children.  At ont point God commanded them to kill everyone save the young virgins (and you are forced to guess what was done with them, but little doubt remains in my mind).  So either God or the writer of Exodus is completely stupid, or the command not to kill meant something else than just not killing.  I know the Bible fairly well, but unfortunately I don't know Hebrew and I haven't studied anything besided the KJV, but I imagine the command not to kill doesn't preclude war or capital punishment, as those things abound in the OT.  The ability to kill probably necessitates a command from God, and Bush really think that he has that.  Which is actually scarier, in my mind, than someone who kills for only self-defense, or something like that.

[slink]

The ability to kill probably necessitates a command from God, and Bush really think that he has that.

Well, yea. That was kind of my point. I know that the crusades were happening and shit, but Bush's attitude to non christians dying just doesn't seem to follow the whole 'treat others as you wish to be treated' philosophy that that Jesus guy was trying to put forward.
I think it would show a hell of a lot to terrorists and the world, if we would go and capture people like Osama Bin Laden, and not kill him. I know they capture Hussein alive, but look at the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in Iraq, let alone the other members of Hussein's regime.
I read a quote on Gibson's blog I think, from a military commander of some sort in Iraq, saying that collateral damage is a good thing, as the civilian deaths will make the population question harbouring the terrorists.
That is just too fucked up. Do these guys even have consciences? Oh wait, yea, NO!

[jough]

Well, the only deaths that should be on the conscience of military commanders should be their own troops.

I mean, if you're an officer and are commanded to go to war then it's your duty to do the best you can to win.  It's like a lawyer defending a client he knows is guilty - he's still ethically required to do his best to defend the scumbag.

The real problem in Iraq is that EVERYONE is our enemy.  If terrorists were killing police officers in Philadelphia I could be reasonably certain that they would not find safe haven in many homes here.

But since the terrorists and resistance fighters are supported by the general population, a larger number of civilian casualties will occur simply because the civilians aren't civilians - they're combattants as soon as they support the resistance fighters.

Now, whether we should be there at all is questionable, and how the American troops treat the Iraqi people (even when they are not killing them) is abysmal.  Abu Ghraibe is hardly an isolated incident.

[V-Adore]

I am not a Hebrew scholar, but the "thou shalt not kill" Commandment, IIRC, is actually better translated as "thou shalt not murder." Then, as now, the question of what precisely constituted 'murder' was an open one -- and then, as now, deaths as a result of war and/or God telling you to were considered non-murderous. (Today we have a more strict attitude on exemptions due to divine will, though.)

[slink]

The real problem in Iraq is that EVERYONE is our enemy.

This is just a difference in the methodology of warfare between the US and the UK that has gne back a long way. Even in WW2, British forces avoided all collateral damage. I can respect that you ought to stop your own troops dying, yet somehow we do so without as much collateral damage as the US military.
With events in Fallujah, the US were at one point asking our troops to keep everywhere else safe, as they can do so without so much unnecessary death, while the US go in and drop as many bombs as they have on the streets of Fallujah.
If there were terrorists in your city, and you were refusing to harbour them, but they still couldn't be flushed out, would you be happy to see your family die because bombs were dropped?