- This topic has 10 voices and 55 replies.
-
Posts
-
While there are a variety of anti-Western Civilization types, who do you think is to be feared the most?
Fidel Castro? Hugo Chavez? Bin Laden? Kim Jong Il? Jiang Zemin? Someone else?
I think that Castro had his day back in the 1960s, and Chavez is probably a Castro wannabe. Bin Laden is a figurehead, but I wonder if his network isn't so badly damaged that he's powerless.
Anyone?anger towards nothing is the threat to peace…everyone takes things too seriously in this day and age…different people get offended for the least thing…recent example is this Danish Cartoon thing – how daft people have acted about it. It’s getting to the point whereby you have to think too much about offending other poeple of different faiths etc too much.
So far in the post-CW world, Islamists or Arab dictators have proven themselves the greatest threat to the to the established order. The Chinese, for all their sabre rattling, have been restrained by realism and cost-benefit analysis over Taiwan. North Korea is somewhat of an unknown quantity, their unpredictability both a plus and a negative (who knows what they'll do? Maybe they'll do nothing.) CHavez and Castro are a worrisome axis, but what real threat could they pose to the security of us or their neighbors? They have no real militaries or the capability to project any meaningful force. Chavez's control of oil is the most concering aspect of his power, but we've dealt with madmen on top of oceans of oil before and there's no evidence Chavez is as great of a threat as a Saddam or the Mullahs in Tehran or the Taliban. For my money, Arab Islamofascists and nihlists are the greatest threat to any peace in the world right now.
Gotta agree with nemesisenforcer for two reasons. China and other potential threats are navel-gazers: the world ends and begins in their own sphere and they could care less about the rest of the world. Islam, on the other hand (and not just Islamofascists), is based on total world domination without competition allowed. What's bad about the religion in a cultural sense is Mohammad's claim that his generation was the all-time best and most successful, and that each succeeding generation will be less and less potent. There is no built in concept of growth and betterment, only conquering and taking the leavings of other cultures as homage. Any knowledfge or technology ocurring after Mohammad's time is heretical and worthless, so the technology must be beaten back as well as the infidels.
Gotta agree with nemesisenforcer for two reasons. China and other potential threats are navel-gazers: the world ends and begins in their own sphere and they could care less about the rest of the world. Islam, on the other hand (and not just Islamofascists), is based on total world domination without competition allowed. What's bad about the religion in a cultural sense is Mohammad's claim that his generation was the all-time best and most successful, and that each succeeding generation will be less and less potent. There is no built in concept of growth and betterment, only conquering and taking the leavings of other cultures as homage. Any knowledfge or technology ocurring after Mohammad's time is heretical and worthless, so the technology must be beaten back as well as the infidels.
Interesting take. Is that Muslim doctrine about the technology or your interpretation of their actions?
There is one thing in particular that I would like to know about Islam: does this religious system contain the belief in freedom of religious conscience? That should be one of the most important issues brought up in any debate about the Muslim world. Christianity has, at its core, this belief of freedom of conscience; that is, people are free to choose one religion over the other. Whether people like it or not, America is a Christian-based nation, and holds true to this belief. This tenet is not protected in atheist nations (look to Communist China for an example where freedom of religion is not guaranteed), and I'm not sure this exists in Islam, either. Although I realize that there are certain sects of Christianity that are alive in, say, Iraq, we only need to look to the Christian convert in Afghanistan who was almost executed for an example of how this belief does not exist. And I believe that no Christian churches exist in Saudia Arabia because they are not permitted to exist.This is a serious question because as the forces of political correctness and relativism fight their battles in the United States and in Europe, we need to ask ourselves what kind of beliefs will be protected if these places lose their fundamentally Christian base.
Christianity has, at its core, this belief of freedom of conscience; that is, people are free to choose one religion over the other. Whether people like it or not, America is a Christian-based nation, and holds true to this belief.
I think that "freedom" to choose one religion over another, is actually based in the USAmerican government, more than Christianity itself. Christianity, while at its best not pushy or overbearing, is not a system of belief that includes or supports choosing other religions. Today, fortunately, most Christians don't actively persecute non-believers or infidels, but historically and currently, Christianity is not enamored of the mildly Hinduistic idea of compatibility between all religions. However, the US government, especially in the documents of founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, is committed more or less strongly to that idea of freedom of conscience, and so USAmerica does encourage and promote these ideas of freedom of conscience and/or belief. For the most part.
I was sort of wondering about raising that issue beforehand. Now that you bring it up, I'll address it a bit.I think that the freedom to choose one's religion is different from the Hinduistic (as you say) belief in compatibility among all religions. The difference is that the Christian notion of freedom places the conscience at the forefront, even if that conscience is sometimes wrong. Indeed, Christianity does not believe that all religions are equally valid; this would be relativism. Rather, if man is going to arrive at the Christian faith, he must do so based on his conscience, rather than the sword. I realize that history seems to contradict this, but just to take the Spanish Inquisition as an example - those were different times. The State and Church acted in sync with one another, and in troubled times one's religion determined one's allegience to the state. Religion was therefore used as a way of determining who was loyal the Spanish crown and who was a spy or infiltrator. Christianity has also developed doctrinally, so that now individual conscience is that which man uses to determine which faith he should have; it really doesn't do any good to put a sword to someone's throat and say "convert!", because then the faith is not really "faith" after all. Likewise, Christianity has developed in its value of the human person (e.g. lessening of the death penalty). I don't think that the principle of freedom of conscience in the Constitution can be separated from the developing Christian ideals of Europe. As we know from atheistic USSR, modern China, etc., nations that do not know God do not respect freedom of conscience.
GREED. Or 'my way or the highway' thinking. Man has never been at peace with himself and the general reasons for that have never changed. Thats one of the first things I learned when I became a student of history.
Sounds like you've got two concepts here. Why didn't you say “power”? I'll have to think and try to see if I can get a good example of desire for power without greed. Perhaps the two go hand in hand so well that they are inseparable. Well, that's not entirely true; examples of Napoleon's invasion of Russia, or even Hitler's invasion of it, suggest that desire for power can be separated from greed.
Can't the desire for power be a form of greed? When you see a man who truly wants to help someone, is he desirous of power? No. He is desirous of lifting his fellow man up into a better position in life. And Hitler and Napoleon? Ask yourself why they wanted that power. It wasnt for the good of men, it was for the good of Hitler and Napoleon. I am always suspicious of someone who wants power over his fellow man.It doesnt always have to be about the tangible things.
Yes, I think that that the desire for power can be a form of greed. However, I'd normally place greed as the desire for money and/or material wealth, whereas the desire for power is the desire to control people, their way of life (and property). I think Hitler's problem was that he was clearly after power; bringing the holocaust to the Jews cannot be described in any way other than the desire to exercise power by one race over another. I think that Napoleon, too, might have had a power trip. His leadership abilities (which I touch on in this thread) suggest this. Of course, I'm not saying that Napoleon was on the same level as Hitler, merely that both leaders preferred power over wealth.In another class are leaders who, as you suggest, are "desirous of lifting his fellow man...into a better position in life". Perhaps a person like Che Guevara - whether one disagrees with him or not - falls into this category. Is this the kind of person you were thinking of?
