Fundamentalism

[Ted]

jester

I don't have a great deal of time at this moment but will make a few comments. That you dislike Karen Armstrong is certainly based on your biases. Her work is well recognized among scholarly and academic circles. I happen to think Karen is much closer to the truth.

Now to the second last post.

To say the US did not put Saddam in power but used its influence . . . is nothing more than a play on words. The US has been meddling in nations all around the world in an attempt to spread its power and control. That is, simply put, the behaviour of an empire: Nicaragua, Philippines, Viet Nam, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Granada, Chile etc. Pressing the US's right to have nuclear weapons but denying others. Sounds like "Do as I say not as I do."

William Butler Yeats wrote in his poem concerning America, "The Stare's Nest by My Window" (1922) the following "We had fed the heart on fantasies, The heart's grown brutal from the fare." He goes on to talk about empire.

"There is indeed a certain parallelism between the march of the Roman Empire from Italy, around the Mediterranean, and out to what they called 'the earth' and our own advance from continental, through hemispheric,, and on to global American Empire that moved the creation of this book. That parallelism is repeated again and again today--sometimes proudly, sometimes sadly, sometimes with approval, sometimes with disapproval.

In the past year, I have read about a dozen books on this topic--mostly on the sad and disapproving side of it. Her is but one example, from Chalmers Johnson';s 2004 book "The Sorrows of Empire:

'Americans like to say they the world changed as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It would be more accurate to say that the attacks produced a dangerous change in the thinking of some of our leaders, who began to see our republic as a genuine empire, a new Rome, the Greatest colossus in history, no longer bound by international law, the concern of all or any constraints on its use of military force, (p3)'

Furthermore, his chapter 3 is entitled 'Toward the New Rome.' He emphasizes that America is 'not an empire of colonies but an empire of bases' (p23)", but that we are still 'the second coming of the Roman Empire' (p284)" p 3 "God and Empire", J. D. Crossan.

As far as the world court being a farce I would suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. The real issue is if the US wants to commit war crimes it thinks it can get away with it. Witness Guantanamo Bay. To say it is a process to be worked out is purely a self defense statement. The international community calls it illegal. That sounds a lot like 'empire' to me. We will do what we want regardless of what the world thinks.

Perhaps you are blinded by your own nationalism. Hypocrisy it would seem is OK for the US. The US preaches democracy but runs around helping install and prop up dictators. My own country is not free from hypocrisy. The Canadian government permitted an American psychiatrist to conduct serious and very destructive experiments on people in Montreal during the 1950's. This is what Mengela was doing for Germany. This is OK? No this was and is evil. Soldiers, both Canadian and American exposed, deliberately, as an experiment, to nuclear explosions--evil.

Shalom
Ted

Originally Posted by Ted

jester

I don't have a great deal of time at this moment but will make a few comments. That you dislike Karen Armstrong is certainly based on your biases. Her work is well recognized among scholarly and academic circles. I happen to think Karen is much closer to the truth.

Now to the second last post.

To say the US did not put Saddam in power but used its influence . . . is nothing more than a play on words. The US has been meddling in nations all around the world in an attempt to spread its power and control. That is, simply put, the behaviour of an empire: Nicaragua, Philippines, Viet Nam, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Granada, Chile etc. Pressing the US's right to have nuclear weapons but denying others. Sounds like "Do as I say not as I do."

William Butler Yeats wrote in his poem concerning America, "The Stare's Nest by My Window" (1922) the following "We had fed the heart on fantasies, The heart's grown brutal from the fare." He goes on to talk about empire.

"There is indeed a certain parallelism between the march of the Roman Empire from Italy, around the Mediterranean, and out to what they called 'the earth' and our own advance from continental, through hemispheric,, and on to global American Empire that moved the creation of this book. That parallelism is repeated again and again today--sometimes proudly, sometimes sadly, sometimes with approval, sometimes with disapproval.

In the past year, I have read about a dozen books on this topic--mostly on the sad and disapproving side of it. Her is but one example, from Chalmers Johnson';s 2004 book "The Sorrows of Empire:

'Americans like to say they the world changed as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It would be more accurate to say that the attacks produced a dangerous change in the thinking of some of our leaders, who began to see our republic as a genuine empire, a new Rome, the Greatest colossus in history, no longer bound by international law, the concern of all or any constraints on its use of military force, (p3)'

Furthermore, his chapter 3 is entitled 'Toward the New Rome.' He emphasizes that America is 'not an empire of colonies but an empire of bases' (p23)", but that we are still 'the second coming of the Roman Empire' (p284)" p 3 "God and Empire", J. D. Crossan.

As far as the world court being a farce I would suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. The real issue is if the US wants to commit war crimes it thinks it can get away with it. Witness Guantanamo Bay. To say it is a process to be worked out is purely a self defense statement. The international community calls it illegal. That sounds a lot like 'empire' to me. We will do what we want regardless of what the world thinks.

Perhaps you are blinded by your own nationalism. Hypocrisy it would seem is OK for the US. The US preaches democracy but runs around helping install and prop up dictators. My own country is not free from hypocrisy. The Canadian government permitted an American psychiatrist to conduct serious and very destructive experiments on people in Montreal during the 1950's. This is what Mengela was doing for Germany. This is OK? No this was and is evil. Soldiers, both Canadian and American exposed, deliberately, as an experiment, to nuclear explosions--evil.

Shalom
Ted

Ted,

Simple biblical wisdom far out reaches the error of man, including Karen Armstrong and the rest fo the scholars you refer to almost constantly... you may certianly quote them and use thiee ideologies to make up your mainline theology but I don't, I'll stick to the simplistic truth of the scritpures.

The US has never been rightin everythign we do, we make errors, we are a country run by humans and subject to all of the issues that humans naturally come too, what seems liek the best thing to do at the time always has consequences later.

The US, like other soverighn nations has to live in this world, but we are certainly not this world. Nations have conflicts just like people do, we try to sort them out and use force as a last resort, we cant always do that. But your trying to say that the US has a destroy and control policy as its driving force under 'empirialism'. I fully disagree, we seek to spread the ideology of freedom in the face of tyrannical groups, therein is the conflict, one mainline ideology agsint another. that is not emperilism, we dont seek to 'own' it we seek to allow freedom to spread as a natural course of mankind.

The world is not one government, the world does not have a world court, there is no such thing as international law, the ideology is a farce, we have no represntatives to affect the laws internationally, as a result of that no citizen of the US living under US law has a say in the making of international law, and is therefore not bound by laws he cannot change oif they become tyrranical. I will not ever recognize a man made authority that lords over me if I cannot change said law or system. In short, if another nation can rip me away, put me under trial, convict me without do course of the laws that govern me in my homeland, with legal representation than I will not allow that, nor ever recognize that law.

Guantonimo--

To the victor in war... I'd have never brought them to guantonimo but thats neither here nor there the issue is what they are and who they are... those are prisoners of war, they get no trial they will remain locked up till the war on terror is over. They should be treated with medical care, fed, clothed and housed in a modicome of basic needs. These arent poeple who broke a law persay but were captured in the course of military action. They dont need a trial, they need to be housed as prisoners till the end of the conflict. That is all. If they didnt want to be held like this they shouldnt have taken up arms against the US.


Ted you and I again wont agree on this subject at all, but I'd like to point one thing out... your blaming 'fundamentalism', for all these ills you've mentioned so far in the opening posts of this thread... how is it you blame the fundamentalists like phelps and robertson (NOT FALWELL) for the kind of things in the US you claim to be about emperialsim that go back 200 years?

I think you like to bash the US just as much as some of the regulars here in the garden and you like to attach it to anything that claims strict biblical interpretation... and you talk of my biases...

[gmc]

posted by jester

The world is not one government, the world does not have a world court, there is no such thing as international law, the ideology is a farce, we have no represntatives to affect the laws internationally, as a result of that no citizen of the US living under US law has a say in the making of international law, and is therefore not bound by laws he cannot change oif they become tyrranical. I will not ever recognize a man made authority that lords over me if I cannot change said law or system. In short, if another nation can rip me away, put me under trial, convict me without do course of the laws that govern me in my homeland, with legal representation than I will not allow that, nor ever recognize that law.

Actually there is such a thing as international law. like most law it has grown up over time as nations work out their differences rather than go to war over things. The US is quite happy to accept international law when it suits over things like trade treaties and international patents and push for enforcement when convenient and decide to ignore them when not.

Treaties work both ways as you say

The US, like other soverighn nations has to live in this world, but we are certainly not this world.

Your economy needs the world ever more so as you go in to decline. Perhaps you should worry that the trust and respect built up over the years in multilateral trade agreements and mutually beneficial economics is being poured away by high handed unilateral like it or lump it attitudes. it's sad to see.

posted by ted

gmc

Yes, I am worried about GWB and any successor that might be supported by the Christian right. After all Robertson one called for the assassination of President Chevez of Venezuela. Then one listens to the likes of the late Falwell etc.

There are those who would love to hasten what they believe to be the "last days".

Shalom
Ted

America is a democracy. Leaving conspiracy theories aside I just can't see the US becoming a right wing theocracy unless accidentally brought on by indifference on the part of the electorate and a culture where no one questions authority. Fundamentalists of any kind can never keep power unless outside pressures help keep them there. Usually the rule is so appalling the people get fed up and overturn them.

posted by Ted

I don't have a great deal of time at this moment but will make a few comments. That you dislike Karen Armstrong is certainly based on your biases. Her work is well recognized among scholarly and academic circles. I happen to think Karen is much closer to the truth.

Still haven't got round to looking KA up but my inclination is to agree with jester but for completely different reasons. There are a lot of religious writers who seek somehow prove that monotheistic religion has always been a force for good-the clearly fallacious belief that there can be no morality without religion. It irritates the life out of me because they ignore or dismiss anything that suggests otherwise.

I would point out to both of you that the driving force of the present situation in the middle east and Afghanistan is fundamentalist on both sides that want to fight a good war and call for the destruction of he other side. Economics, religion and warfare. Always a potent brew. Love thy neighbour and forgive those who trespass against you. What happened to that?

posted by jester


Actually there is such a thing as international law. like most law it has grown up over time as nations work out their differences rather than go to war over things. The US is quite happy to accept international law when it suits over things like trade treaties and international patents and push for enforcement when convenient and decide to ignore them when not. thats my point abotu international law not really being true law... if one can own up to it or disregard it then the law is ineffective, worthless and a waste of ink on a page.

We ignore the so called international laws when they are wrong and there's no fair representation under our agreements with other nations, other than those agreements we do not recognize an international law.

Treaties work both ways as you say

Exactly and in so mauch as the treaty is continually accepted we wil honor it, treaties are up for interpretation and cicumstances chaneg as time goes on.

Your economy needs the world ever more so as you go in to decline. Perhaps you should worry that the trust and respect built up over the years in multilateral trade agreements and mutually beneficial economics is being poured away by high handed unilateral like it or lump it attitudes. it's sad to see.

We're certainly in moral decline, economic decline has yet to be fully seen. When I see major amounts of citizens leaving the US instead of trying to bust the borders down to get in and be part of this nation I'll worry about our reputation.

Still haven't got round to looking KA up but my inclination is to agree with jester but for completely different reasons. There are a lot of religious writers who seek somehow prove that monotheistic religion has always been a force for good-the clearly fallacious belief that there can be no morality without religion. It irritates the life out of me because they ignore or dismiss anything that suggests otherwise.

Well for the record I do agree there is great number of moral without religion, it just doesnt make any great difference in the world.

I would point out to both of you that the driving force of the present situation in the middle east and Afghanistan is fundamentalist on both sides that want to fight a good war and call for the destruction of he other side. Economics, religion and warfare. Always a potent brew. Love thy neighbour and forgive those who trespass against you. What happened to that?

I disagree, fundamentalism has nothing to do with it, Islam is a philosophy of thuggism, a man made ideology that allows for the destruction of others in the name of God, whiel at the same time simply ignoring all Gods basic mandates, its a selfserving lie to justify evildeeds in thier own hearts. Love thy neighbor doesnt exist in the economoc of greed and selfish lust.

[Clint]

If you put 100 people in a room and leave them there indefinitely someone in the room will begin building alliances with the others. Soon that individual will be seen by everyone in the room as the most powerful and one possessing more than the others. As a result that person will be accused of all kinds of things by those who are jealous or angry because their attempts to be seen as the most powerful failed. Some of the people in the room will accuse the powerful one of cheating to get the power, others will say there was a conspiracy and there will be those who will constantly predict his downfall… some will say he is supported by fringe groups called fundamentalists or some such thing. Those who feel disenfranchised will always find reasons for their predicament that don’t include their lack of ability to lead.

At the same time everyone is complaining, if someone in the room is in need or a conflict breaks out, they will go to the one seen as powerful for help or resolution.

[Ted]

jester

I think that gmc is correct in his assumption that international law is for America a convenience. When it suits it refers to it. When it doesn't suit it denies it. What it says is that America doesn't have to go along with everyone else. It can do as it pleases regardless of others; witness Guantanamo Bay. This prison has been declared illegal by the US supreme court and by many countries around the world. This says that the president can even ignore his own supreme court when it suits his purpose.

If all America is trying to do is to establish democracies than why do the help install and prop up dictators. Democracy is a wonderful word for those who want to misuse the term.

"A first example. 'The Bible is my Road Map,' declares an Internet petition circulated by Robertson, Falwell and LaHaye in opposition to a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 'Peace and peace plans in the Middle East ae a bad thing, in the view of fundamentalist Christians because they delay the count-down to Christ's return' policy toward the Palestinians and Israelis? Is that why it has a map and a road but no progress and no traffic"? p201, "God and Empire", D. Crossan.

In my opinion and obviously those of others these men are jerks but dangerous ones. Perhaps as the Brits would say "nutters".

A close reading of both Micah and Amos will show that when we oppress, ignore, permit poverty to arise, illegally imprison, fail to help those in need, allow injustice to happen ignore the sick and dying anywhere in the world we are committing sin.

The politics of fear is alive and well in the world and is being used as a tool to remove the normal and natural freedoms to which people are entitled. The politics of fear leads to injustice and even murder.

Shalom
Ted

[quote=Ted;903703]jester

I think that gmc is correct in his assumption that international law is for America a convenience. When it suits it refers to it. When it doesn't suit it denies it. What it says is that America doesn't have to go along with everyone else. It can do as it pleases regardless of others; witness Guantanamo Bay. This prison has been declared illegal by the US supreme court and by many countries around the world. This says that the president can even ignore his own supreme court when it suits his purpose.

As I said before, all nations interpret international law and does what suits them best. Any sovoriegn nation on earth doesn't have to go along with anyone else, not your country, not mine.

You just dont like what the US does so its easy for you to draw this concluision and hold it as your opinon, which is fine for you.

If all America is trying to do is to establish democracies than why do the help install and prop up dictators. Democracy is a wonderful word for those who want to misuse the term.

We're a sovoriegn nation and we look after our own first, thats the way it should be. There's all kinds of circumstances around every so called dictator we helped gian power. I dont always agree with letting them come to power or helping them come to power but hey its not my call is it. I happen to be more of an isolationist when it comes to such things, but its not that simple, in some cases the ones we help originally part from our advice and then become powerful poeple and it comes back to bite us in the hiney... no one in our government sets out to place a tyrannical dictator over an innocent poeple. On the other hand no one can say we didnt take out the ones who got out of control.

"A first example. 'The Bible is my Road Map,' declares an Internet petition circulated by Robertson, Falwell and LaHaye in opposition to a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 'Peace and peace plans in the Middle East ae a bad thing, in the view of fundamentalist Christians because they delay the count-down to Christ's return' policy toward the Palestinians and Israelis? Is that why it has a map and a road but no progress and no traffic"? p201, "God and Empire", D. Crossan.

Excuse me you said:

Posted by Ted in the OP:...'Fundamentalism is to be found in all of the great faiths of the world. It is a very dangerous position as can be seen by Islamic terrorists or Sikh terrorists or those within Christendom that call for the assassination of presidents or shoot abortion doctors or call for the execution of folks like gays and the handicap. Such an approach could even lead to a world conflagration when some leader decides to hasten the "second coming" by instigating a nuclear war.'

First of all, I asked for a link to a statement regarding Mr Fallwell stating any of the things in your original post. What you posted above the quote regarding Mr Falwell and a petition is hardly any of those things in which you used his name so disparigingly. Second, stateing an opinon regarding US policy is hardly an earthshattering event towards terrorism in the middle east nor does it align Mr Falwell to terrorism. Third, I googled 'pettitions and Mr Falwells nam and found no such petition, do you have a link to something he actually said that links him to any thing even remotely related to what you said about him?

In my opinion and obviously those of others these men are jerks but dangerous ones. Perhaps as the Brits would say "nutters".

Opinion, thats good, say what you want about those other men, but lets keep statments to opinon regarding Mr Falwell since you cant prove what your saying.

A close reading of both Micah and Amos will show that when we oppress, ignore, permit poverty to arise, illegally imprison, fail to help those in need, allow injustice to happen ignore the sick and dying anywhere in the world we are committing sin.

You need to list chapter and verse, this is too broad of a statement to either agree with or disagree with. Can you narrow down what your referencing, two entire books is a bit difficult to assume what your reading. Ive learned your a master at mentioning the bible then referencing someone elses opinon about what it says, then come to find out most of its the mans opinion and not proper biblical interpretation.

The politics of fear is alive and well in the world and is being used as a tool to remove the normal and natural freedoms to which people are entitled. The politics of fear leads to injustice and even murder.

I fully agree, many evil nations exist and men too, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Venezualea, to name a few, Then of course the groups of evil people who consistantly use fear and intimidation torture and murder... factions of Islam, and loosely tagged 'muslums' from around the world who simply borrow the philosophy of Islam to control things the way they want to.

But incase you havn't noticed, for the most part the US is fighting against those evil groups. So while your bashing the US foriegn policy and our estimation of international law you might want to think about what the world would look like if the US had never interveined in world politics. We've done far more good than evil.

I think given our track recornd in WW1 and WW2, most countries would be speaking German instead of english.

[Ted]

jester

I gave the book reference for Falwell. Check it out.

For Micah or Amos you want chapter and verse? They are both short books. Read them. Micah 7 chapters if I remember correctly and Amos 9.

That the US does what it wants is quite clear. The rest of the world matters not unless it is pro US. The international court is composed of independent counsels from a wide variety of countries. It is not and will not be the pawn of any country and that is part of what concerns the US. It does not like being subject to the scrutiny of others. That the US does what it wants is precisely the same as an empire.

The "we come first" attitude is one that is foreign to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It is foreign to an honest Christian. He always put others first even at his arrest. If fact Jesus himself said that he came to serve. This message is also clear in both Amos and Micah. His message was "for all people."

As for Falwell, I've listened to him. He was dangerous and wrong.

Now don't get me wrong I am not anti-American people. Far from it. There are many delightful and honest Americans as well as those of less virtue. The same here in Canada. American foreign policy is another matter. If America is being called the new Rome than perhaps its should take a look at why. If these people are wrong than the US should help enlighten them and if they are right the US should take a look at itself. Bill Gates suggested as much and was totally ignored.

We live in a world that has become so small that no country can exist in isolation without imperiling the whole world.

Shalom
Ted

[quote=Ted;905861]jester

I gave the book reference for Falwell. Check it out.

I did check it out its not acceptable to me, I want a quote of Falwell's that puts him in the action of the things you listed in your original post.

For Micah or Amos you want chapter and verse? They are both short books. Read them. Micah 7 chapters if I remember correctly and Amos 9.

Yes I'd appreciate a verse designation, rather than a global overall opinon of the book, even the small ones.

That the US does what it wants is quite clear. The rest of the world matters not unless it is pro US. The international court is composed of independent counsels from a wide variety of countries. It is not and will not be the pawn of any country and that is part of what concerns the US. It does not like being subject to the scrutiny of others. That the US does what it wants is precisely the same as an empire.

ahahahahahahahahahaha you have to be kidding me? Justice amongst a small group that claims independence? I'll take those on a case by case basis taking into consideration the motivations of each group and issuance of court.

as to your comment about empire doing what it wants... then ALL nations are empires. Every nation on earth does what is right in their own eyes... same with individuals, with only rare exception do individual persons step off of self and benifit others, and even then its difficult to determine who is doing it with the unselfish motive of pure love

The "we come first" attitude is one that is foreign to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It is foreign to an honest Christian. He always put others first even at his arrest. If fact Jesus himself said that he came to serve. This message is also clear in both Amos and Micah. His message was "for all people."

Absolutely true I have no problem with that statement, but you applied that to nations, where in Micah or Amos does it specifiy national actions other than to/out from Israel? No other nation has ever been called to a standard like them and the new testament is based on the fulfilling of the law in individuals. I'm very surprised you'd quote from any of those books or give them any ligitimacy anyway since they are full of judgement. I can see the application to nations if the majority of those individuals were one religion and the religious dogma applied to all, but the Uinited States is NOT a christian nation. All are called too few follow to make it so. What is it you expect of the US that makes us any different form any other country?

As for Falwell, I've listened to him. He was dangerous and wrong.

I'm sure he was in some things he was after all just a man, again, you alighend him wiht some whackos and some whacko statements that he did not make nor advocate, as before I asked you for proof of that, if you dont have a quote from falwell that proves what you say I ask you to withdraw that or make it clear its your opinon.

Now don't get me wrong I am not anti-American people. Far from it. There are many delightful and honest Americans as well as those of less virtue. The same here in Canada. American foreign policy is another matter. If America is being called the new Rome than perhaps its should take a look at why. If these people are wrong than the US should help enlighten them and if they are right the US should take a look at itself. Bill Gates suggested as much and was totally ignored.

Again, america can be called an empire, it can be called satan it can be called a ywellow banana with greasy black spots, it dont make it so. If you want to call us an empire so be it, but every other country is an empire under your definition, at least call us all an empire and not sepreate us out alone in that since thats what your apperaing to do is just bash the US. If you want to narrow that to US foriegn policy its pretty much all the same, and I dont mind that so much, but lets not forget what you started this thread with your specific point was that the religious fundamentalism (in the US, phelps, robertson etc.) was somehow connected to what it is your complaining about... and to date I havent seen you make a viable connection between the two.

We live in a world that has become so small that no country can exist in isolation without imperiling the whole world.

Thats the lie of the humanists... and I'll say the devisl lie too...the world is huge, and we can live in isolation and many poeples and groups do and are better off for it. The entire worlds population can stand individually on 2 square feet of the earth surface and fit shoulder to shoulder on land 3/4' the size of the city of Jacksonville Florida (some 250 square miles). now get the picture... the world is NOT over populated it fact we can spread out on the usable earths surface and have to travel signifiganty to even see the next person.

[Ted]

jester

For now I will respond to your last section. If America can live in isolation than why does it need oil from many countries around the world? Why does it want to buy our water? Why is it in Iraq and not Darful or chasing Mugabe out? Perhaps it is because these countries don't have major oil supplies?

No, the US can't live in isolation that is why they have bases all around the world and are seen by many as a threatening nation.

Shalom
Ted