Can you elaborate on this Christian myopia please?

Ben, I'm a little perplexed by this question from you. Surely you must be aware that Bush and cronies are neo-cons and that there is a lot of Christian fundamentalism behind the push to attack different countries in the Middle East? Bush himself is Born-Again Christian. And a lot of the organizations that supported the Bush administration were powerful Christian groups (and a lot of Jewish groups, too). The impetus behind everything that has been happening and the outlook that people carry on the Middle East is very heavily influenced by Christian attitudes ever since the Crusades. Do I need to spell it all out for you? Surely not...

It's white underwear that kills people

White underwear one size too small... and wet on a freezing day at windchill -20 C. YEOW!

Miguel:

As Europe and the US are becoming increasingly secular in their outlook (esp. Europe) -- starting a crusade is no longer possible (there just aren't enough Christian fanatics nowadays and the majority of believers will simply laugh) -- so Bush & Co. waved the banners of defending freedom and democracy!

Bush & Co. also manipulated people's fears. Believe me, with a full 70% of Americans supporting the war on Iraq -- you will find people and organizations of almost every stripe behind the support! I am sure many atheists and agnostic Americans supported the war -- as did many Christians, Buddhists and Hindus.

The war in Iraq was never really about helping any poor Iraqis. It was Bush & Co's desire to shape that part of the world more to our own liking. Most Americans couldn't care less -- so the main motivators -- fear, and defending freedom/democracy were used right from the get go. None of these is inherently Christian. If there was ever a peep about turning Muslim Iraqis into Christians -- that peep was drowned out by the loud roar of the need to secure "our" resources and influence in that part of the world.

Finally, both the pope and the Anglican archbishop came out publically against starting the war in Iraq -- and both were ignored by the secular governments of the US and Britain.

Edited by ben2world on 03/05/2010 10:05:17 MST.

30% of us knew the truth. One out of every three people.

Don't marginalize us.

"starting a crusade is no longer possible (there just aren't enough Christian fanatics nowadays"

I sometimes wonder about that. You should spend a little time in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, or Tennessee ;)

Kind of late, Cameron? We were marginalized. The war happened -- we burned through probably 2 trillion dollars by now (and counting) -- we brought death and destruction to Iraq -- and we are stuck there for "a while" yet.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan -- it was officially all about providing fraternal assistance to a socialist brother state. Not aggression at all, mind you. Most Soviets didn't buy it.

When the US invaded Iraq -- it was officially to defend freedom and democracy and to help the poor Iraqis. Most Americans bought it -- with wild enthusiasm. And we wonder why most of the world keep calling us "naive"??

No matter what you believe, you are just believing. It is only a belief, essentially a thought that you copy and copy millions of times in your mind. Every time you read something twice, you make ANOTHER COPY in your brain. Beliefs are thoughts nothing more. Real progress is made when you get past beliefs all together. It takes a certain arrogance to believe.

3 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDQX3MybtVA

Edited by isaac.mouser on 03/05/2010 10:29:10 MST.

Miguel, I plan on taking your advice and reading that book. Thanks for the recommendation. I know a little about China though, my wife is Chinese and I've been there 10 times.

1. The Chinese's historical problem was considering themselves the center of the Universe and refusing to look significantly outward (unlike the Japanese once they became exposed to Western Science). It's true under an ancient Emperor, they did look outward for a brief period, but that stance became taboo for eons afterwards.

2. The Chinese did not go much beyond firecrackers -- they did not invent any significant artillery compared to what the West did -- had they, they would not have been able to have been defeated by Gengis Khan and later by the British.

I doubt if many would disagree that the advancement of the modern world prior to 1850 was mostly a European cause (regardless of their ignorance of Chinese achievements).

(Yes, I know by 1905, Japan had a considerable Navy, but in the 1800s, Japan imported thousands of English speaking teachers and they learned immensely from the West in that century.)

Roleigh:

At the risk of exaggerating, I think there's something of a role reversal here -- China and the US seem to be both tacking away from their 'usual' directions.

Our country is still relatively young and vibrant -- but we are also seeing more and more conservatism. Change has always made certain people uneasy but lately, the desire to "keep things the way they are" seems to be growing. As a society, I think certain changes are now slower and harder to come by. We are maturing steadily I think.

China still has its hide-bound traditions, but as a trend, I see more and more desire over there for change -- esp. things perceived as Western and progressive. No one bats an eye about hiring foreign architects to build "bold" new office towers, or foreign consultants to build high speed rail and almost every parent who can afford it wants his or her child to learn English and be exposed to western, "progressive" ways.

The mentality within China has fundamentally shifted to "progressive" and outward looking. I think the mentality within the US is also shifting -- but more slowly and steadily.

"Roleigh, please read, "The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention" by Robert Temple

Miguel, I plan on taking your advice and reading that book. Thanks for the recommendation. I know a little about China though, my wife is Chinese and I've been there 10 times."


Miguel, Roleigh

Although I haven't read Temple's books (there were three huge volumes) they do lead to the question Roleigh raised -why did the Chinese never take it any further? There was a book published last year that tried to link Chinese science to the Renaissance (apparently a Chinese fleet got to Venice and everything that followed was them copying Chinese science - so why are the Italian waterwheels still vertical, not horizontal?) but the book had sketchy evidence for any of its claims, particularly the presence of the fleet. The truth is that a lot of things simply developed independently in different parts of the world at different times - like convergent evolution in the natuaral world.

Looking forward, and picking up on Ben's points, I think that China's biggest advantage over Japan in the next few centuries will be an apparent history of rationality: when I first moved to Japan I was always puzzled by the times when Japanese practice would head in different directions to what you would expect in a Western society - I mean outwardly it looked familiar but in practice it wasn't. This was demonstrated in the attitude of petty bureaucrats - what they said went, no matter how senseless. The worst thing you could say to them was "why?". As a lawyer what I noticed was that there was no apparent administrative law (no mandamus and no ability to demand an explanation for a decision) and judicial decisions often just didn't seem to be logical but seemed to have social rationales. My theory was that rationality in Western society, as reflected in our laws, arose from the Enlightenment (and, apparently, Socrates and others before then). But Japan never had the Enlightenment - they adopted civil law from the Germans and French, but not the entire cultural baggage those laws were founded in. So to that extent Japan's adopted laws exist in a type of cultural vacuum. Japan has never been about logic - just power and social accommodatation (not harmony but the resolution of conflict). Japan's historical administrative class were hereditary soldiers. In contrast, as I understand it, the Chinese administrative class (the "Mandarins") were selected by examination and learnt some form of formal logic. It's noticeable that even now in China dissent by students and intellectuals is tolerated, to a degree (the Tianneman square protesters were students and intellectuals), whilst dissent by the proletariat is ruthlessly suppressed. In Japan if an issue is too big to deal with they just ignore it - the prime example is earthquakes in Tokyo (in Australia, I alwys used to think that if we built the world's largest city on some of the biggest, most active fault lines on the planet we'd take some precautions - refuges, hardened water and communications etc etc - but after Black Saturday, when it became clear that the Victorian government had ignored all warnings and common sense and hadn't required houses in the most bushfire prone part of the world to be fire-resistant, apparently because their building industry cronies had told them it would add hugely to the expense of housing, and the point was that the government were trying to move people out of Melbourne to ease the housing crisis to avoid political oblivion - I no longer think so.)

Edited by Arapiles on 03/06/2010 16:06:52 MST.

Ben, I do think the future is going to have China playing a very big role, most particularly because of their financial strength. The USA has become most irresponsible in regards to matters, financially (among other things). There is an old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." The curse applies to the current times.

Very interesting discussion folks.

For you poor old 30% of Americans marginalised by the invasion of Irag, stop and have a moments thought for the >70% of the rest of the (non-muslim) world who's wishes were also ignored. Great way to make amends with your middle-eastern friends too. If it's just about helping out a country in political and economic trouble, then why isn't America invading countries like Zimbabwe, or Iran who is much more likely to harbor true WMD?? Somethings are unfathomable to my poor rational mind.

A favourite short read of mine is called "How the Bible was Built" by James W. Bennett. It's a succinct insight into how the "the people of the book" came by much of their book.

I do not consider Buddhism a religion, at least not in it's modern practice with the current Dalai Lama at the helm. It is merely a practice of meditations and mindfulness that aims to reduce suffering. It invokes no Gods, and it promises no miracles. It embraces science wherever scientific techniques are shown to reduce suffering. It's rational above all else, which is not something that can be said of most religions. Of course, there is a difference between modern Buddhism and traditional Buddhism as practiced by the mostly poor and uneducated (even illiterate) majority of practitioners.

Buddhism not religion???

Isn't the Dalai Lama essentially a divinely chosen monarch?
A literal living manifestation/reincarnation of Avelokitesvara?
Don't oracles and other Lamas go to lake Lhamo La-tso to search for a "magical" sign of who the next Lama will be?

Is it that far off from Joseph Smith using his magic glasses with seer stone lenses?


Sounds a lot like religion to me.

"Is it that far off from Joseph Smith using his magic glasses with seer stone lenses? Sounds a lot like religion to me."


I'd hate to use a comparison with Mormonism to prove that something is a religion. :)

I think Mormons get a bad rap mainly because it's so new.

But if we look at the stories of all religions with extreme objectivity, they're all pretty rooted in bizarre magical acts, fantastic happenings, and a complete break with scientific rationality. I guess that's why it's called religion.

The funny thing about the Dalai Lama to me:
So many cultures have fought so long and hard to escape the oppression and corruption of the "divine" monarchy.

Dismissing the idea that kings are placed there by some God has been a huge leap for human thinking/society.
Yet nobody really seems to take issue with the idea that the Dalai Lama (as cuddly and likable as he is!) is essentially the "divine" leader of the people of Tibet. Not democratically chosen by the people, but hand-picked and trained by an elite male-dominated religious hierarchy...
Hmmm...

> I think Mormons get a bad rap mainly because it's so new.

Or, to flip it around, the other religions get a (relatively) free pass because they are so old.

I guess I'm always continuously amazed that any intelligent people in 2010 truly believe in organized religion (at least the followers... there are lots of reasons for the leaders to "believe" in it).

Mormons weird? You bet -- and so are them Jehovah Witnesses! OTOH, as a Catholic, I believe in virgin birth and a God who sacrificed Himself to save us -- so really, who am I to call anyone weird?

I fancy myself 'intelligent'; and yet, I am also an enthusiastic member of the Catholic Church -- which is just about as organized as any religion can get!

IMO, the one conclusion we can make about faith and religion is this: we're all wired differently.

For those who view that intelligence and faith ought to be incompatible -- maybe read up on Einstein's thoughts about faith HERE.

Edited by ben2world on 03/07/2010 14:21:19 MST.

"Yet nobody really seems to take issue with the idea that the Dalai Lama (as cuddly and likable as he is!) is essentially the "divine" leader of the people of Tibet."

A LOT of Buddhists take exception to the Dalai Lama as we know him as the divine leader of their beliefs. The Dalai Lama is not the head of any of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism – the Nyingmas, Kagyus, Sakyas and Gelugpas. Each sect of Tibetan Buddhism has its own head. Many people mistakenly think that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, or at least of the Gelugpa school. In truth, there is no ‘Pope’ of Tibetan Buddhism, and certainly not of worldwide Buddhism. He is really just a politician. That doesn't change the underlying teachings of the original Buddha, which sought enlightenment and releif from suffering without invoking the need for a "God".

Edited by retropump on 03/07/2010 14:21:55 MST.

"A LOT of Buddhists take exception to the Dalai Lama as we know him as the divine leader of their beliefs. The Dalai Lama is not the head of any of the four traditions of Tibetan Buddhism – the Nyingmas, Kagyus, Sakyas and Gelugpas. Each sect of Tibetan Buddhism has its own head. Many people mistakenly think that the Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, or at least of the Gelugpa school. In truth, there is no ‘Pope’ of Tibetan Buddhism, and certainly not of worldwide Buddhism. He is really just a politician. That doesn't change the underlying teachings of the original Buddha, which sought enlightenment and releif from suffering without invoking the need for a "God"."

Why do many Tibetan's have pictures of the Dalai Lama
or his Chinese appointed equivalent in their homes?
Or why are there 1000's of gods they revere or placate.

It would seem to me that Western Buddhism has cherry
picked only those parts of the religion that fits Western
culture. (Not that other religions don't do that.)

Edited by oware on 03/07/2010 14:33:42 MST.

"Why do many Tibetan's have pictures of the Dalai Lama
or his Chinese appointed equivalent in their homes?
Or why are there 1000's of gods they revere or placate."

Because they, like so many people from so many religions, are ignorant, and often illiterate. It seems that human nature wants to believe in deities. Same could be asked of Shia muslims who believe they can only approach Allah through the grace of the mullahs even though the Qu'ran explicitly says otherwise, or like Catholics who invoke the aide of saints where the bible says you need only accept Jesus as the Son and pray to God, and so on and so forth. All are customs not supported by the writings of the Prophets.