[Fwd: Iraq Dispatches: Inside Abu Hanifa mosque during attack

[Ralph Shumaker]

James E. Henderson wrote:

>
>
> boblq wrote:
>
>> There is likely no escape from the problem of being human.
>>  
>>
> War was not a human invention. It was devised to divide a species into 
> small, somewhat isolated groups so that the entire species would not 
> be destroyed by a single disease. Read Carl Sagan's "Shadows of 
> Forgotten Ancestors". Many species have used it, along with the alpha 
> to omega power hierarchy, but none have elaborated it to the extent 
> that humans have. We've made our groups bigger and more complex, our 
> hierarchies within hierarchies bewilderingly, gothically byzantine 
> and, with our technology, our warfare deadly beyond imagining.
>
> But war is still 'us' against 'them'. We still claim 'they' are the 
> spawn of the devil as the result of deviant sexual practices. If we 
> didn't demonize them, they would be just people, the same as us, and 
> it would be harder to push the button that kills them. The two groups, 
> 'us' and 'them', cannot be allowed to merge -- they must remain 
> distinct -- for the process to work. It's been the same whether the 
> human groups were bands, tribes, city-states or mighty nations. It 
> works the same way for lions and wolves.
>
> It evolved for survival of the species. We have reached the point in 
> our development where it is counter-survival. The ideal solution, 
> where our technology seems to be leading us, is to become one big group.
>
> That will take a while.
>
>> I am hopeful that we shall find a way. My optimism flies in the face 
>> of much data except for one important observation. Slowly, often with 
>> backsliding, the balance that allows for more freedom within order 
>> seems to be coming into being.  The reasons for this are that the 
>> technological and economic underpinnings of freedom and justice are 
>> being created to which I suspect (and hope) James H. will testify (or 
>> critique).
>>  
>>
> The chances are good that we, or those who come after us, will evolve 
> a way. What you've described is, in a sense, a form of evolution ... 
> and we're not done evolving yet.
>
> We'll be done evolving when we no longer survive. Our immediate 
> survival requires that we fix our messed-up economic situation so that 
> everybody will have enough. That will do two things: it will give us 
> the luxury to permit freedom by removing the base causes of conflict, 
> and it will encourage people to seek luxury and procreate less, as it 
> has recently been reported that more prosperous Hispanic women are 
> doing (marrying later, having fewer children).
>
> Our long-term survival requires us to leave this doomed planet. We've 
> taken a few steps in that direction and a few people are aware that 
> the Earth will eventually become uninhabitable. We have the capability 
> to begin an exodus now ... or will have, once we unscramble our economy.
>
>>>> Think about it a moment. It has been about 100 years since there
>>>> has been a major war on the North American continent. Why is that?
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Pacific and Atlantic ocean.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> You miss the point, for which I apologize. I should have been more 
>> explicit. Why is this continent not subject to wars in the way that 
>> Europe has been?
>> I am not asking why we are easily defended from their wars. Oceans, I 
>> agree, have been fortunate barriers against the importation of 
>> foreign wars.
>> But I am asking why we do not have wars of our own.  
>>
> One expert said that the Crusades resulted when one of the Popes got 
> tired of the "Frankish knights forever fighting among themselves" and 
> sent them off to fight where they could cause less of an annoyance.
>
> But I'll refer you to a different 'expert' for this one: John 
> Steinbeck in his book "Travels with Charlie" observed that the people 
> of the North American continent have developed a single identity. They 
> think of themselves as Americans. We did have a nasty little spat, 
> supposedly over slavery but really over a number of matters, but both 
> sides were still Americans when the dust cleared. Europeans have no 
> such unity.
>
>>>> We already have this problem with the ordinary police in our cities.
>>>> Ask why the "peaceful" USA has the highest per capita incarceration
>>>> rate in the world.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> It is obvious as we also have the highest crime rate.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Duh, Tautology. If we had no laws we would have no crimes. Do we have 
>> people who are somehow more criminal than the rest of the world? I 
>> don't think so. I think we have an oppressive system that both 
>> encourages a certain segment of society to become criminal and then 
>> penalizes them severely when they act as we encourage them to act.
>>  
>>
> Our laws often create new crimes. It is called criminalization.
>
> 200 years ago, good medical practice consisted of surgery to stop 
> excess bleeding, bleeding the patient when you didn't know what else 
> to do, giving whiskey / brandy to stimulate somebody who was lethargic 
> and giving opium to calm somebody who was excited. Since then, we've 
> attempted to outlaw alcohol and have made drug sale, use or possession 
> a crime; it is even a crime to have apparatus associated with drug use 
> even without the drugs. A large fraction of our current prison 
> population is there on drug charges, especially those marijuana 
> related. We created those crimes with our laws.
>
>> I am not religious. I am a devout agnostic. I don't get answers to 
>> many fundamental questions. OK, call that a religion if you
>> will, but it does not follow from a lack of belief in god or God
>> that one should not care for one's fellow humans nor does it follow 
>> that the only mechanism for that caring is an uncaring bureaucracy.
>>
>> I do believe that we need the secular equivalent of churches,
>> sermons, and direct voluntary social  action. I hear lots of talk  
>> about what politicians and governments should do by people who walk 
>> right by the homeless every day and do nothing.
>> I refuse to accept the notion that caring for others is a sign of
>> weakness and naivete. I suggest the real problem is fear. People
>> of all political and religious persuasions are afraid of the underclass,
>> perhaps because their own middle class situations are so precarious.
>> I just don't know though. 
>> So ... I tire. My tirade winds down.
>>  
>>
> At the time evolution evoked language in humans, it gave us the logic 
> to ask questions and religion to invent answers for them. Without 
> religion, the unanswered questions would have driven us even crazier 
> than we are. The answers didn't have to be correct in an absolute 
> sense, but they were the right answers if they worked to relieve 
> stress and to bond people together into their groups more firmly.
>
> Face it. There is no rational reason to believe that some supreme 
> being(s) are watching out for us, to grant us an afterlife of glory 
> that will make up for some of the grief and pain we suffer in this 
> life. If you're going to be completely rational, you're going to 
> create a lot of stress for yourself. The innocent / ignorant true 
> believer frees himself from those worries. He gives himself superhuman 
> guidance and, as a bonus, he finds a way for his 'sins' to be 
> forgiven. He can screw up and not pay for it!


This is not quite accurate.  While I have no need to "pay for it" with 
God, this *forgiveness* does not come without cost.  Imagine the person 
you love the most in this life "paying for it" every time you "screw 
up".  Unfortunately, some Christians do take this for granted.

Also inaccurate is your assertion that the "true believer" is "innocent 
/ ignorant".  Many have become believers because of the *loss* of 
ignorance due to investigation.  And calling the "true believer" 
"innocent" is a veiled way of calling him naive.  Very few become true 
believers out of ignorance or naivetee.  And none who become true 
believers then become ignorant or naive as a result nor as a 
prerequisite.  It is ignorant and naive to assume that "superhuman 
guidance" and "forgiveness" is a contrivance.

Secondly, you are only talking about Christians here because AFAIK no 
others have the system of "forgiveness" to which you refer.  All other 
religions AFAIK have either justification or some type of penance.  Most 
religions have forgiveness as something earned (or unnecessary because 
of justification).  AFAIK, only the Christians have forgiveness offerred 
as a gift from God (and paid for by God at an extremely high price).


> Who will live longer and be happier? It's no contest.
>
> Meanwhile, enough people have become proficient with the tools gained 
> from evolution to invent the technology we enjoy, often destroying 
> themselves in the process. The race benefits and advances.


The "tools gained" are not from evolution.  They are from the creativity 
built into us by our creator, driven by our desire to make things easier 
for ourselves (including our safety by military means), and then 
promptly abused because of our hopeless depravity and desire for 
personal gain even at the expense of others.  Ultimately, mankind is 
caught up by his own selfish desires.  The Bible claims that the heart 
of man is "desparately wicked".  And our history seems to bear that out.


> Never regret being of a rational bent. There have to be a few of us 
> for the race to advance.


I do not regret being rational.  I'm not going to believe evolution just 
because the masses seem to agree that it has been proven.  The masses 
once believed that it was proven that the earth was flat and that only 
fools would believe otherwise.  Just because the masses believe 
something does not make it so.

The rational person realizes that evolution is a belief (several 
millenia old) that cannot be proven.  The rational person realizes that 
the concept of evolution (in its present form) defies logic.  The 
rational person realizes that evolution was not cooked up by science.  
Science has been used (and abused) to try to prove a belief (evolution, 
creation, whatever) that cannot be proven.  Just because evolution has 
been declared to be proven does not mean that it really has been 
proven.  It has not.  In every field of science, the foremost experts 
admit that their field of expertise offers no proof for evolution.  
Everyone seems to think that it has been proven somewhere even though no 
one can tell you where.  They blindly follow those who just simply 
*claim* that evolution has been proven.


> The rest are sheep.


Indeed.  You just made my point.