Comments on: What is the effect of disbelief on war? http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/ She escaped from the belly of the liberal beast Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:57:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Don Carlson http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13267 Don Carlson Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:50:01 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13267 I’m not convinced that the Jihadist or the suicidal terrorist has anything that can be called faith. Willingness to die and murder is not proof of faith in Allah anymore than attendance at church every Sunday is proof that one lives a Christian life. Is faith synonymous with belief? ‘Belief’ bespeaks a kind of surety--one believes a thing to be true. Perhaps one can only have faith in what one has reason to doubt. I believe the terrorists are motivated and strengthened by a collective hate, not faith. Collective hate may be what their religion has become to them. A collective emotion, one shared among a group in which the individual is subsumed, is powerful indeed--it is the surrender of identity and volition. Is it possible to have faith outside of religion? Belief in some sort of life after death is not a proper criterion for faith, I think, but perhaps the idea that our life serves a purpose, has an importance that is beyond our grasp, may be. I think that to feel life is purposeful is the essence of faith, and I think that to value life, one’s own and others’, is its inevitable consequence. This is a gossamer faith, of course, and perhaps easily lost, but perhaps it's loss is telling. Loss of faith among American liberals is manifested in their cynical views of American history and the country’s original political heritage, but it is not clear that this has anything directly to do with religion. I was surprised once by a friend’s wholely negative defense of capitalism: “…capitalism’s virtue is that it exploits man’s selfish (also known as ‘survival’) instincts in a way that can, at least, be broadly beneficial to the collectivity.” This at first seems mild and reasonable, but then one sees that it bespeaks a dark evaluation of humankind—that human self-interest is in some way wrong. And, as it turned out, my friend did believe that people are motivated purely by greed, but that their greed can be turned to good by taxing its product to fund the goals of the welfare state. He was unhappily resigned to the notion that, because of their general lack of intelligence, people are thoughtlessly self-serving and can never be harnessed to a truly socialist state and still be productive. He told me that this is the enlightened view of higher-class Europeans, and therefore the American idea that Europeans are still of a socialist bent is merely benighted prejudice. He was claimed his views were evidence that he was not a knee-jerk liberal but rather a member of the intellectual “citizenship of the world.” It is possible that liberals’ loss of faith lies in their deprecation of people’s lives instead of in a rejection of religious belief. An effect of this loss of faith might be collective cowardice. Where life cannot be valued for its own sake, it cannot be worth fighting for. It is common for liberals to denounce all violence and to rail against those who advocate a military response (or even the threat of one) as brainless war mongers. In support of this outlook they claim that violence is always the fault of every party concerned—those attacked as well as those attacking. They see violence as a sign of failure to reason, to converse as human beings, to negotiate. They sometimes add to this the assertion that no one's way of life can ever actually be better than another's, and that if America is hated, America must figure out what it has done to deserve being hated. From here it is but a half-step to belief in the moral equivalence of America and its enemies—-something one hears openly in leftwing blogs and can intuit in the Democratic Party’s and the New York Times’ pronouncements about America’s war in Iraq. Liberals are not unusually reasonable people, but they are passionate in their belief in reason. They believe profound religious belief, in an American, to be irrational. They believe that if society were reasonably organized all injustice and inequity would dissolve away. They believe that if our enemies were spoken to politely, reasonably, and at length, they would accept our tribute in exchange for peace. But, ultimately liberals have no faith that America is worth fighting for. I think they have no faith in the individual American’s judgement or his capacity for decency or generosity toward his fellow man. I think, in the end, they will not fight for America--or allow America to fight for itself. I’m not convinced that the Jihadist or the suicidal terrorist has anything that can be called faith. Willingness to die and murder is not proof of faith in Allah anymore than attendance at church every Sunday is proof that one lives a Christian life. Is faith synonymous with belief? ‘Belief’ bespeaks a kind of surety–one believes a thing to be true. Perhaps one can only have faith in what one has reason to doubt. I believe the terrorists are motivated and strengthened by a collective hate, not faith. Collective hate may be what their religion has become to them. A collective emotion, one shared among a group in which the individual is subsumed, is powerful indeed–it is the surrender of identity and volition.
Is it possible to have faith outside of religion? Belief in some sort of life after death is not a proper criterion for faith, I think, but perhaps the idea that our life serves a purpose, has an importance that is beyond our grasp, may be. I think that to feel life is purposeful is the essence of faith, and I think that to value life, one’s own and others’, is its inevitable consequence. This is a gossamer faith, of course, and perhaps easily lost, but perhaps it’s loss is telling.
Loss of faith among American liberals is manifested in their cynical views of American history and the country’s original political heritage, but it is not clear that this has anything directly to do with religion. I was surprised once by a friend’s wholely negative defense of capitalism: “…capitalism’s virtue is that it exploits man’s selfish (also known as ‘survival’) instincts in a way that can, at least, be broadly beneficial to the collectivity.” This at first seems mild and reasonable, but then one sees that it bespeaks a dark evaluation of humankind—that human self-interest is in some way wrong. And, as it turned out, my friend did believe that people are motivated purely by greed, but that their greed can be turned to good by taxing its product to fund the goals of the welfare state. He was unhappily resigned to the notion that, because of their general lack of intelligence, people are thoughtlessly self-serving and can never be harnessed to a truly socialist state and still be productive. He told me that this is the enlightened view of higher-class Europeans, and therefore the American idea that Europeans are still of a socialist bent is merely benighted prejudice. He was claimed his views were evidence that he was not a knee-jerk liberal but rather a member of the intellectual “citizenship of the world.”
It is possible that liberals’ loss of faith lies in their deprecation of people’s lives instead of in a rejection of religious belief. An effect of this loss of faith might be collective cowardice. Where life cannot be valued for its own sake, it cannot be worth fighting for. It is common for liberals to denounce all violence and to rail against those who advocate a military response (or even the threat of one) as brainless war mongers. In support of this outlook they claim that violence is always the fault of every party concerned—those attacked as well as those attacking. They see violence as a sign of failure to reason, to converse as human beings, to negotiate. They sometimes add to this the assertion that no one’s way of life can ever actually be better than another’s, and that if America is hated, America must figure out what it has done to deserve being hated. From here it is but a half-step to belief in the moral equivalence of America and its enemies—-something one hears openly in leftwing blogs and can intuit in the Democratic Party’s and the New York Times’ pronouncements about America’s war in Iraq.
Liberals are not unusually reasonable people, but they are passionate in their belief in reason. They believe profound religious belief, in an American, to be irrational. They believe that if society were reasonably organized all injustice and inequity would dissolve away. They believe that if our enemies were spoken to politely, reasonably, and at length, they would accept our tribute in exchange for peace. But, ultimately liberals have no faith that America is worth fighting for. I think they have no faith in the individual American’s judgement or his capacity for decency or generosity toward his fellow man. I think, in the end, they will not fight for America–or allow America to fight for itself.

]]> By: Keiki http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13268 Keiki Sun, 29 Jul 2007 02:15:42 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13268 I concede that my understanding of the Crusades is nebulous, but I still hold that it was a time of some very corrupt Popes, with an interest in material wealth and power that could be a distraction from providing spiritual guidance to the flock. As such, I believe there's an unhealthy portion of greed and desire for self-maintenance in Church encouragement of the crusades, although it may have been tempered by more legitimate goals, such as defense (thank you, Mr. Lemieux) and worship (thank you, ymarsakar). And pacifus, you've hit on the other great threat to us posed by the current situation: overcommitment. Just as the arms race forced the Soviets into untenable defense spending, I worry about our assumption of inefficient, bloated beauracratic overhead with little payoff: the pattern of demanding resource-draining exhaustive measures such as the passport fiasco and just about anything touching DHS. I concede that my understanding of the Crusades is nebulous, but I still hold that it was a time of some very corrupt Popes, with an interest in material wealth and power that could be a distraction from providing spiritual guidance to the flock. As such, I believe there’s an unhealthy portion of greed and desire for self-maintenance in Church encouragement of the crusades, although it may have been tempered by more legitimate goals, such as defense (thank you, Mr. Lemieux) and worship (thank you, ymarsakar).
And pacifus, you’ve hit on the other great threat to us posed by the current situation: overcommitment. Just as the arms race forced the Soviets into untenable defense spending, I worry about our assumption of inefficient, bloated beauracratic overhead with little payoff: the pattern of demanding resource-draining exhaustive measures such as the passport fiasco and just about anything touching DHS.

]]> By: ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13269 ymarsakar Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:17:57 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13269 Historically, the Pope didn't like how pilgrims to the birthplace of Christ and all that were denied access. Their religion was very important to them, and therefore anyone stopping them from going to their most holy places would have eventually caused a war. Politically, it was never as simple as that however. Historically, the Pope didn’t like how pilgrims to the birthplace of Christ and all that were denied access. Their religion was very important to them, and therefore anyone stopping them from going to their most holy places would have eventually caused a war.

Politically, it was never as simple as that however.

]]> By: pacificus http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13270 pacificus Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:22:41 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13270 Kieki, quoting you: "Faith is the means by which this population is inflamed, but we have other means of reducing our own risk. As such, it might not be totally necessary to understand their faith, itself" I think you're wrong on this assertion; I think the total misunderstnading by policy makers, including GW Bush and his circle, of the actual anture of Islam is at the root of our precarious situation at present--we are far from out of danger. We are facing a pincer movement of sorts; the threat of actual terror makes us expend enormous amounts of money, attention, and political capital--it amounts to an opportunity cost, in the sense economists mean. But the other pincer, far more insidous and dangerous I believe, is the legal assault--termed by someone as "lawfare", whereby these well funded Islamist front groups sue in our courts, using our freedoms, to place themselves at the head of the table. Failure to understand the faith--its utterly totalist claims to rule for the prime example--allows this camel's head under the tent. Given the state of our federal judiciary, the hard left tilt of the legal bar and associated groups (ACLU, NAACP,CAIR, PAW) and the incestuous relation between them all, the misunderstanding of Islam as the religion of peace will be its main instrument in facilitating their charge to the head of the line in the West. They intend to make us submit to their law an their prophet; it is not a matter of them wanting peaceful coexistence, unless you understand as they do that peaceful coexistence means utter submission. Maybe those Crusaders knew some things we are overlooking. Kieki, quoting you:

“Faith is the means by which this population is inflamed, but we have other means of reducing our own risk. As such, it might not be totally necessary to understand their faith, itself”

I think you’re wrong on this assertion; I think the total misunderstnading by policy makers, including GW Bush and his circle, of the actual anture of Islam is at the root of our precarious situation at present–we are far from out of danger. We are facing a pincer movement of sorts; the threat of actual terror makes us expend enormous amounts of money, attention, and political capital–it amounts to an opportunity cost, in the sense economists mean. But the other pincer, far more insidous and dangerous I believe, is the legal assault–termed by someone as “lawfare”, whereby these well funded Islamist front groups sue in our courts, using our freedoms, to place themselves at the head of the table.

Failure to understand the faith–its utterly totalist claims to rule for the prime example–allows this camel’s head under the tent. Given the state of our federal judiciary, the hard left tilt of the legal bar and associated groups (ACLU, NAACP,CAIR, PAW) and the incestuous relation between them all, the misunderstanding of Islam as the religion of peace will be its main instrument in facilitating their charge to the head of the line in the West. They intend to make us submit to their law an their prophet; it is not a matter of them wanting peaceful coexistence, unless you understand as they do that peaceful coexistence means utter submission.

Maybe those Crusaders knew some things we are overlooking.

]]> By: Danny Lemieux http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13271 Danny Lemieux Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:00:27 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13271 Your take on the Crusades may be politically correct but it is faulty in this respect, Keiki - the Crusades were not about Christians "owning" the Holy Land but about repelling invaders (the Arab and Turkish Muslims) from Christian lands. That's not to deny that many Crusaders behaved very badly during the Crusades, by today's standards, but the fact remains that they were defensive wars, not wars of conquest. Your take on the Crusades may be politically correct but it is faulty in this respect, Keiki - the Crusades were not about Christians “owning” the Holy Land but about repelling invaders (the Arab and Turkish Muslims) from Christian lands. That’s not to deny that many Crusaders behaved very badly during the Crusades, by today’s standards, but the fact remains that they were defensive wars, not wars of conquest.

]]> By: Keiki http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13272 Keiki Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:54:24 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13272 Oh, and Americans don't die for *Iraq* nor *Afghanistan*, per se. Death to assert another country's sovereignty is actually the subject of an Onion article. When Servicemen say they're serving for the American ideals, and people wonder, "How the heck is 'freedom' about triving tractor-trailers through a foreign desert?" that question is totally legitimate. Since the military is part of the Executive Branch of government, we serve (and sacrifice) so that when America's elected officials determine that foreign policy necessitates physical presence and commitment, we make it possible for the will of the American people (as interpreted by those officials) to be executed by boots on the ground. America can put action behind her ideals because men and women make the commitment unto their lives that they will undertake the burden of pursuing her stated intent. And so, we sacrifice and serve for America, although we often state the ideals we individually see as best about America (and which motivate us personally). Me? I serve for hope. Oh, and Americans don’t die for *Iraq* nor *Afghanistan*, per se. Death to assert another country’s sovereignty is actually the subject of an Onion article.
When Servicemen say they’re serving for the American ideals, and people wonder, “How the heck is ‘freedom’ about triving tractor-trailers through a foreign desert?” that question is totally legitimate. Since the military is part of the Executive Branch of government, we serve (and sacrifice) so that when America’s elected officials determine that foreign policy necessitates physical presence and commitment, we make it possible for the will of the American people (as interpreted by those officials) to be executed by boots on the ground. America can put action behind her ideals because men and women make the commitment unto their lives that they will undertake the burden of pursuing her stated intent.
And so, we sacrifice and serve for America, although we often state the ideals we individually see as best about America (and which motivate us personally).
Me? I serve for hope.

]]> By: Keiki http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13273 Keiki Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:44:48 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13273 I'm actually genuinely surprised that nobody has brought up the Crusades, yet. I acknowledge that invocation of the Crusades is sometimes a fallacy of oversimplification for all anti-American arguments, but there is a genuine congruity that can be explored: Abuse of faith to rally popular passions for political goals. Faith is one of the ingredients of the primordial stew that makes these types of conflicts possible, but as with any war, the end goals are all political and personal buy-in is largely economic. For example, Crusaders wanted Christian ownership of the Holy Land and they were pretty hot on the looting potential (going kind of overboard along the way in the Byzantine lands). Now, suicide bombers want the end of Western influence on their culture and are mostly at stages in their lives where they're not invested in improving their social status (in countries with high unemployment which in turn means difficulty competing for wives in polygamous societies). Faith is the means by which this population is inflamed, but we have other means of reducing our own risk. As such, it might not be totally necessary to understand their faith, itself I’m actually genuinely surprised that nobody has brought up the Crusades, yet.
I acknowledge that invocation of the Crusades is sometimes a fallacy of oversimplification for all anti-American arguments, but there is a genuine congruity that can be explored:
Abuse of faith to rally popular passions for political goals.
Faith is one of the ingredients of the primordial stew that makes these types of conflicts possible, but as with any war, the end goals are all political and personal buy-in is largely economic. For example, Crusaders wanted Christian ownership of the Holy Land and they were pretty hot on the looting potential (going kind of overboard along the way in the Byzantine lands). Now, suicide bombers want the end of Western influence on their culture and are mostly at stages in their lives where they’re not invested in improving their social status (in countries with high unemployment which in turn means difficulty competing for wives in polygamous societies). Faith is the means by which this population is inflamed, but we have other means of reducing our own risk. As such, it might not be totally necessary to understand their faith, itself

]]> By: ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13275 ymarsakar Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:47:14 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13275 <B>Your robust defense of the possibility of the necessary virtues for survival (which you demonstrate that you have) are not to be found very often on your side of the aisle, meaning the divide between believers and agostics/atheists.</b> That's because non-believers are divided between the Humane and the Left. Your robust defense of the possibility of the necessary virtues for survival (which you demonstrate that you have) are not to be found very often on your side of the aisle, meaning the divide between believers and agostics/atheists.

That’s because non-believers are divided between the Humane and the Left.

]]> By: Don Quixote http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13274 Don Quixote Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:13:18 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13274 Elwing & pacificus, You both make valuable contributions here and I deeply appreciate your intelligent and measured responses. Elwing, your standards are very well thought out and I believe you completely. But I wonder whether you think that most non-believers would share you view or the view the pacificus ascribes to them? I tend to agree with pacificus, especially about what is taught in American high schools and colleges, but I'd be very interested in your point of view. Thanks, DQ Elwing & pacificus,

You both make valuable contributions here and I deeply appreciate your intelligent and measured responses. Elwing, your standards are very well thought out and I believe you completely. But I wonder whether you think that most non-believers would share you view or the view the pacificus ascribes to them? I tend to agree with pacificus, especially about what is taught in American high schools and colleges, but I’d be very interested in your point of view. Thanks, DQ

]]> By: pacificus http://www.bookwormroom.com/2007/07/25/what-is-the-effect-of-disbelief-on-war/#comment-13276 pacificus Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:57:32 +0000 http://proto2.webloggin.com/?p=1598#comment-13276 Elwing, Your comments are the most intelligent on this topic, but you are I believe missing an essential point. Your robust defense of the possibility of the necessary virtues for survival (which you demonstrate that you have) are not to be found very often on your side of the aisle, meaning the divide between believers and agostics/atheists. To the extent that belief obtains in the Western, and more specifically American, values you mention, they are a residual effect of the strange mix of Christian and Enlightenment modernity that forms the nexus of American freedom. The logic internal to Enlightenment rationality however has shown it to run to the postmodern nihilism that dominates not only the Academy but all of the upper tiers of all Western societies. Proclaiming that there are no "foundations", no ground for truth about anything, there remains no basis for belief in any claim to truth, which of course rules out any religious belief, but more important for this discussion, any cultural or political values as well. This is why the loss of belief is especially worrisome in Europe--most people no longer believe in the superiority of their western values over any other values, and are not willing to fight for them. Just listen to what is taught about America and the West in high school and colleges--what is there to love or fight for in these presentations? I appreciate your convictions and the intelligence that stand back of them, but I think if you analyze it, you will find your convictions resting on nothing but an assetion of will, the other outcome of nihilism as handed to us by Nietzche. But it is an expression of will toward some open ended, non-specified end, since there are no metaphysical or moral absolutes or truths. If this is all the West an muster against a fanatical enemy, we will lose. Elwing,

Your comments are the most intelligent on this topic, but you are I believe missing an essential point. Your robust defense of the possibility of the necessary virtues for survival (which you demonstrate that you have) are not to be found very often on your side of the aisle, meaning the divide between believers and agostics/atheists. To the extent that belief obtains in the Western, and more specifically American, values you mention, they are a residual effect of the strange mix of Christian and Enlightenment modernity that forms the nexus of American freedom. The logic internal to Enlightenment rationality however has shown it to run to the postmodern nihilism that dominates not only the Academy but all of the upper tiers of all Western societies. Proclaiming that there are no “foundations”, no ground for truth about anything, there remains no basis for belief in any claim to truth, which of course rules out any religious belief, but more important for this discussion, any cultural or political values as well. This is why the loss of belief is especially worrisome in Europe–most people no longer believe in the superiority of their western values over any other values, and are not willing to fight for them. Just listen to what is taught about America and the West in high school and colleges–what is there to love or fight for in these presentations? I appreciate your convictions and the intelligence that stand back of them, but I think if you analyze it, you will find your convictions resting on nothing but an assetion of will, the other outcome of nihilism as handed to us by Nietzche. But it is an expression of will toward some open ended, non-specified end, since there are no metaphysical or moral absolutes or truths. If this is all the West an muster against a fanatical enemy, we will lose.

]]>