Now, I realize there’s a bit of a language barrier, but the twisted logic of this middle eastern soldier takes the cake.
My favorite part of the rant to American reporters:
The American people want to destroy the Muslim, want to force on us their values. I cannot be a Muslim, that’s the whole problem between me and the American people. If I am a Muslim, then I am a terrorist and I am not a terrorist.
Original Article available Here.
I have two words to say. And the first one is a male bovine.
I adore people for who they are. I have no vendetta against Muslims or any other religion. And I think I represent all the American people when I say that I want peace in the Middle East, and peace on our homefront. In this case, the only apparent way to gain peace was to go to war and root out the plague infesting the communities over there.
The plague there is the same as it is here, from my point of view: Fundamentalism. People cling so tightly to completely irrational points of view, and create these enclaves of superstition and lies. When you are within the group-think of such an organization, though (and I use the term “organization” lightly — in some cases, it can just be beer-drinking buddies that convince themselves racism is a good thing or something), it’s really tough to get out.
And I don’t think Fundamentalists generally see the problem here. That’s the core of the issue: if you’re deeply involved with an irrational group, you often have no awareness of the depth of your delusion.
Note that I’m speaking of Fundamentalism in the sense of people wanting to revert to “old” values and beliefs simply because they are old. Believing the world is flat and the moon missions were faked because the sky is actually a big scroll, because that’s what’s taught in the Bible, is an example of a fundamentalist belief. It’s a belief beyond logic or reason, and it’s really tough to reach people there.
The only solution to this, from where I sit, is enlightened culture. Promotion of reading, discussion of ideals. Organized programs to introduce all of the population to discussion of philosophy and dialogue. Availability at all levels of income and education to education. Easy access to public libraries, with very reasonable costs for the area to access it.
Of course, given the level of fundamentalist, irrational belief even here in the United States, I realize this is a pipe dream. But at the very least, if we can educate leaders and critical people in these organizations, not to try to prove to them the error of their ways, but to expose them to a wider world of options, we can make a positive difference.
The initial thought that I have is that, some sort of exchange program, where adults with families from both sides are given the chance to live with one another could be a real kick in the pants. Maybe a year at a time or something, with employment provided on both sides.
Obviously, there are a ton of details that would have to be worked out to make this kind of thing work. And personality conflicts are a multi-cultural phenomenon. But, if we affected the life of just one teenager, to work for good on both sides of the pond, maybe it would be worth it.
I’ll have to stew on this a while, and figure out if it’s worth my time to pursue such a venture, or just continue to sit on the sidelines and armchair quarterback the involvement of the U.S. in the Middle East.
Why are we right ?
Why are the American ideals right? Yes "Democracy" works for us. But it may not be the correct way that another country should be run. Should we try to force Human & Social Rights? Sure. Women should have the right to be an active member in society. Humane execution of a punishment for a crime should be enforced (whether the punishment is death or just a prison sentence). I can agree with the statement that I want Peace in the Middle east as well as peace on our home front, But for that matter I want peace in South & Central America, The pacific region, Africa, Asia, etc.
Now I have another view on that the soldier that was interviewed by 60 minutes. Another quote they published is:
Now they gray area we are going to enter into is if he is a terrorist or a soldier protecting his country. Yes I agree that Saddam is a bad man. He has done unthinkable things. I agree that he should have been hunted down and killed. But the method in which this war was brought to be is completely over the top for what we are trying to represent. We had troops pre-positioned for a conflict that we were stating we were not going to have until all the inspections were complete. Let’s face it: the US was bloodthirsty. Our fight to find Osama fizzled when he evaded capture, so we decided to go after another target. The one thing I think the US failed to do was plan. They forgot their 5 P’s (Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance); that’s something we were taught in basic training.
Another point of view to think about is:
What if the UK decides that the US is nuts for running things the way we do, and think that we need to be adopted back into there parliamentary system. They decided to mount an offense to change the US. If we defend ourselves are we terrorists or patriots? If we do not want the UK to change us, yet the UK thinks that they are correct, who decides?
I am a veteran of the US ARMY. I am as patriotic as they come. I would gladly pick up my rifle and stand shoulder to shoulder with the next soldier In defense of my country. I just think that we need to get more of a coalition approach to helping Iraq out of it’s predicament than a street corner bully approach.
I agree that education is a fundamental cornerstone for any organized body (government or otherwise). I think that with the amount of money that is spent on rebuilding other countries that there could be a lot of good done at home. I think that if instead of trying to support the world we should start at home first. Instead of supporting an economy who is going to pay there workers less and bid on jobs in the us thus taking jobs from your countrymen and sending them to another country who is now not only getting our tax money, but the jobs we need to earn a living ourselves. We need to take some of this money that is going overseas to rebuild and spend it on making sure that our schools are not up to par, but far exceed the expectations. That our children do not have to share books, that they have every opportunity that we can provide them. If after we have taken care of our own here at home we have the resources to provide for other abroad, then sure, lets help out.
I will finish (my rant) by saying I believe in our country and support her in every way. I will continue to support the decisions of our leaders even if I don’t believe they are the correct ones that need to be made. However, come election time is when I can make a difference and a bad decision now will effect my vote later.
God Bless American, and GO ARMY!
The only flaw…
The only flaw I can find in your argument, really, is a logical fallacy: going to war and providing better education are not mutually exclusive options. Often, we tend to see this dichotomy, that if we were not spending so much on foreign aid or whatnot, we’d be able to spend more at home.
It doesn’t usually work that way.
The truth is, we have enough money to do enormous good in the world. Yes, a great deal of the money we give to our government is mismanaged, and poorly spent. But education is a state, not a federal, issue (by and large, certain exceptions for Title 1 and other federal grants etc.). The way we can improve education in our communities is to run for public office, vote for people who support our education agendas, and push for greater recognition of the plight of our children in schools.
And sometimes, it takes more taxes to do this. But yet again, those taxes don’t always go where we want them to go.
I’m not sure what the solution really is, but dramatically reducing foreign aid is probably not it. The deficit spending pattern we’re in definitely has to go, though, with the vast majority of that money tied up in pork. I don’t think there’s a person on the planet who could wrap their heads around the millions of government projects and really, truly understand them all.
And unfortunately, civil servants are who it would have to be. Not the elected guys that get thrown out every few years, but the people nose-to-the-grindstone responsible for implementing the solutions demanded by legislation.
That’s gonna be tough to get. Once again, I have no solutions yet. One day, I hope I will have a few answers!
Tear our wrists
I think there is a vast difference between our TACTICS of warfare and the tactics of the middle eastern soldier, and it is in this difference that I believe we have differentiated ourselves from terrorists.
We did not attack Iraq because we didn’t like the way they ran things. We don’t like the way a lot of people run things. That is the first half of my rant. The fact is Iraq has been sabre rattling at us for a decade, enraged when we call them “evil” but having no problem saying we are all satans who will drown in the fire of our own blood as they take potshots at our planes that fly in the no-fly zone that they agreed to in the treaty that ended the first gulf war. They just egged us on and egged us on and finally, we got sick of it, and yeah, we tried the inspector thing and gave up. but we tried it for years and years, and they just never cooperated. So yeah, we said enough is enough, took out the government with minimal casualties and minimal collateral damage. And WMDs, yeah, we were scared of them. Anyone who says Iraq didn’t want them, never had them and was actively trying to disarm is crazy. South Africa was the model.. they were very proactive in disarming.. iraq was not, and of that there can be no question.
So summarizing part one. Iraq said they wanted to kill us. Iraq wanted the means and was tryong to get the means to kill us. We removed that threat.. and our biggest problem is the one thing Iraq said it had no part of. Terrorists.
Part two. So what about those tactics.. We were the victims of 3000 individual murders. Not some big explosion, but the deliberate killing of civilians because the terrorists knew it would be really really scary. Terror. They did not use the civilian planes to attack army bases.. maybe then, there could have been a military idea behind it. But this was wanton murder of civilians. The UN bombing in Iraq.. civilians. The car bombs.. civilians. Bus bombs.. civilians. Lets move to Israel.. nightclubs.. civilians. Markets.. civilians. These are not civilians accidentally killed in the line of fire. they are the targets. Because that is really really scary. terror.
I know people who would be considered fundamentalists.. and for the most part, they are driven by a desire to help people.. even the ones who don’t. They are driven by a deep feeling that people will suffer if they do not try to assist them (and that goes everywhere from passive giving to very active and obnoxious evangelism). That is a very very different way of going about things than terrorism. To compare the US action iraq, which was immediately followed with food, building, water, education, water, and every possible attempt to give people the necessities of life with the tactics of people who slam planes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians in order to hurt the general population is unfair in the extreme.
ALL that being said, I agree with both of you that education is the issue. Most middle eastern muslims don’t even know its been us doing food drops. Many don’t know we were attacked at all, and they even see debates between actors playing our leaders and news anchors.. where the actors say “I hate all muslims and I want to kill them”, and that sort of thing. We are a people that want in our hearts to see peace.. and if people knew that, maybe they would hate us less.
All that being said.. who’s for hitting France?
Kidding.. really, I am.
Defining Fundamentalism…
My claims regarding fundamentalism relate specifically to an aspect of fundamentalism that is endemic to so many movements, and which, if they do not outright embrace that facet of belief, still dance dangerously close to it.
The concepts are “intolerance”, and “rejection of secularism”.
Dictionary.com definition of “Fundamentalism”:
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. 1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
In most cases, militant Islamic groups are referred to as Fundamentalist. Additionally, militant Utah groups devoted to polygamy and secession from the Union, illegal in the U.S., are also referred to as “fundamentalist”, in this case “Fundamentalist Mormons”.
It’s the mindset there that is the problem. It is that the world is “us” versus “them”. This is engendered in the belief that there are those who possess the sole truth, and others do not. Unfortunately, “Fundamentalism”, like “cult”, or “faith”, is a word with many meanings which vary wildly from accepted dictionary definitions.
In this case, I focus specifically on three aspects of fundamentalist organizations: militancy, isolationism, and moral superiority based on argument from antiquity. Many who claim to be fundamentalist, or believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, do not fit into the mold of a militant, isolationist, self-righteous bigot 🙂 Yet, one may safely characterize certain movements as embracing these principles.
The Islamic Jihad meets this definition, as do The Church Of The Latter-Day Saints (a Mormon Fundamentalist organization here in Utah), several prominent televangelist congregations, the American Nazi party, and others. They may embrace wildly different beliefs, but each believes in the moral superiority of their beliefs compared to others, and each embraces a return to some form of historical principles which may only share the common trait of antiquity.
I realized after reading your response that embracing education is only part of the picture. The opposites of militancy, isolationism, and moral superiority are peaceful relationships, free association, and religious tolerance.
One of the first real eye-openers for me in trying to get rid of my hate was religioustolerance.org. I realized you can no more build a free society of fiercely, militantly independent and self-righteous people than you can grow a garden on solid granite.
The unifying force here is, unfortunately, secularism. That is, we can choose to accept certain unifying principles because we can agree that they are in the realm of the real, and many people can agree that a thing is so because most people can equally perceive it. For instance, we agree that it is self-evident that man is free; the lack of freedom is only imposed by external forces. The U.S. Bill Of Rights is simply an acknowledgement of some few of those basic freedoms. It is difficult to build a free society where religion dominates government.
Law is reason, free from passion. I realize many Arabs may object to this type of “Westernization” of their culture, but I just don’t see how it’s possible to create a free society when the rule of law is subject to the whims of a religious magistrate; when justice is subverted by declaration of jihad; when a people are free to repress and slaughter another over philosophical differences due to the teachings of ancient scripture.
I’m not certain how coherent this explanation is (it’s 1:35 AM, and I am high on Neurontin and Lortab at the moment), and I’m definitely not trying to start an argument or even, really, engage in a debate. But the heart of freedom is rooted in recognition of the value of men’s independent decisions in an ordered, reasoned world, not the intentional rejection of progress and scientific or secular advancement engendered by most Fundamentalist movements.
However, outside of blind adherence to orthodoxy or antiquity (or general illogic, all of which I tolerate without violence, yet oppose and debate on principle), I think religion can provide valuable guidance and comfort to mankind in those areas in which secularism has no answer.
Maybe, because of its association with conservative modern-day mainline Christian sects, Fundamentalism is the incorrect word to use when describing truth-hating, intolerant Luddites. I’m open to suggestion 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Oh yeah…
By the way, I agree with you regarding the difference of tactics. That’s a key difference between them and us: our goals are purely military. That doesn’t necessarily justify them, make them right, or make them pure (Mao Tsetong’s imperialistic dreams in Vietnam were probably seen as perfectly military by his followers, too), it simply makes them on a different playing field.
We end up, though, with quite similar results. Our soldiers have murdered, or been party to the murder to, more than 1,500 non-military personnel (of course, this varies depending on whether they are casualties due to Iraqi actions, your news source, and your search engine.
Regardless of who does it, though, really, when you’re playing cat-in-the-cradle with your own intestines, it really doesn’t matter, does it? Dead is dead. Our intent is not to cause civilian casualties, yet they are guaranteed to occur and be called “collateral damage”.
I intentionally used the loaded word “murder” for soldiers above. Our intent is to fly our boys over there to kill people; we consider ours a noble cause, or at least a necessary one. So do serial killers, though.
I’m not dissing our soldiers. They are doing a really difficult, icky job, but I submit being on the giving end of a bullet has the same emotional impact regardless of whether you are soldier, policeman, or woman with a 12-gauge defending her family. Killing someone is not pleasant business (not as if I speak from experience! Just the thought literally makes me want to throw up!); our eternal moral question is simply “was it justified?”. In the case of religious soldiers, too, it may be “will God justify my taking of a human life?“.
I guess I have really, really ambivalent feelings about war. I see its necessity and loathe it at the same time. I mean, if it comes down to “him or me”, of course I’m going to pick “me”. But it’s like a far more serious version of sticking your hand in a clogged garbage disposal; you probably aren’t sure what’s there, and exactly what you’re going to have to do once your hand is down there, but you know you’re probably not gonna like it. And if you do like it, that’s definitely abnormal!
I’m glad that, if you believe in God, killing other people is a question left unanswered in our own minds. It’s a tough row to hoe no matter what, and regardless of the body count, we knew what we were getting into over there. Now we know where we need to go.
And the body count continues to mount. Tough situation to be in.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Conclict.. oW!.. Good diety.. for what is it beneficial?
Well, there are a few issues here.
One: I do believe it is a matter of us or them in this case. the Kay report today said that even if there was not imminent danger, the WMDs were being sought, and they were intended for use, possibly against us.
Two: I’m not talking about Military GOALS, I’m talking about military targets. We were putting forth significant effort NOT to kill civilians, we fessed up to a lot of our own mistakes, and to this day, we are feeling cost to us in money and human life because we are avoiding civilian deaths.
As for the necessity of war. We did not go there to kill, but killing became part of the business we had to do there. And it is awful, and I am disgusted by the thought of people, even enemy soldiers, dying.
On the other hand, we removed a regime famous for its brutality. Many of those we are responsible for killing were put in place as human shields by that regime. The regime we removed had killed and showed no signs of topping killing thousands and thousands of its own people, and we put a stop to that.
In addition, we put in education systems, free media, infrastructure and necessities. the former regime is responsible for taking a lot of that out on their departure, on purpose, to inconvenience us.
So, war is not noble.. but sometimes it is necessary. We have fought humanely against monsters in order to save lives. They play by different rules. I don’t see us as murderers because we have saved lives in the long run, saved a lot in the short run, and utilized our power with the precision of a scalpel. We could have mopped up the country and struck fear in the hearts of the world, but we didn’t.
Fundamentals 101
I like your explanation of fundamentalism. And I appreciate you distancing that term from conservative Christianity.
The fact is, anyone who has a belief thinks those with other beliefs that differ are wrong. I believe that God is real, you believe that that God is not real. Therefore, each of us believes the other is wrong. Now, the trick we have learned is to hold fast to our beliefs and discuss them openly, while respecting the other’s right to hold an opposing belief. We even thrive on those differences.
We also have found common ground for discussion. Reminiscence, music, production, family, medicine.. and even analysis of our old Christian vs. Mormon discussion. Again, we thrive on what we have in common.
The problem with Radical Fundamentalism is that it denies the discussion of the differences between beliefs, but focuses on them at the same time, making it impossible for radical fundamentalists to thrive with anyone but other radical fundamentalists.
This creates a snowball effect. Radical fundamentalists never challenge their beliefs, but their beliefs evolve nonetheless.. and since they never have a sounding board with those who differ even slightly, the evolution away from the original idea is never kept in check. So eventually, you have people who think they believe in the truth, but they in actuality are believing in what their own scripture (The Bible, Koran, or Book Of Mormon) would consider to be heresy.
I like to think I reject fundamentalism because I have faith. I want to believe the Truth of my faith as close to actuality as I can. Sometimes i have had to leave churches (most notably the Catholic and Episcopal churches) because their theology differed with scripture, and I consider that to be the closest I can get to the original intent of the author, whom I consider to be God.
That is really neither here nor there. The point is, an unexamined faith is a weak faith, and that holds true for any belief system. If someone told me they HATED Linux, but did not check out Linux from time to time, or if someone told me they LOVED the republican party but never listened to the deomocrat point of view, I would see that as weak as well.
Radical Fundamentalism, good term…
I like the term “radical fundamentalism” better than just “fundamentalism” in this case. Thanks for the idea. The use of a qualifying adjective causes people to not assume I’m speaking specifically of the Christian Fundamentalists, which as I’ve done more reading appear to actually be quite a prominent, and moderate, religious group in America. However, there are a lot of Radical Christian Fundamentalists in America, too 🙂
I disagree, though, that if someone has a belief they necessarily think other people are wrong if they have a differing belief. There seem to be shades of gray, qualifiers, based largely upon how important holding onto that belief is to the person’s self-image. This isn’t a bad thing; it’s just a thing. Holding onto certain beliefs that define your self-image, such as “child abuse is wrong”, are precious and necessary. My question arises when this diverges into other areas.
As far as me thinking you are wrong for believing in God: in this case, you’re wrong. 😉 Even though Joel roundly trashed me for misquoting him, I still love the quote, regardless of context: “Just because I think I’m right, doesn’t [necessarily] mean I think you’re wrong”. The question of religion, for me, has moved from a profoundly life-controlling environment, to a question of philosophy, where I think you very well may be right in believing in God, but I don’t think I’m wrong for questioning His existence.
The core problem with that quote (and the reason I haven’t used it much, even though I like it) is that, if a person has a vested interest in something, they often need to think you’re wrong about it if you disagree. For instance, if I’m paid by the RIAA to prosecute copyright infringers, I have to believe what the infringers are doing is morally wrong in order to self-justify the harm I am doing to them (suing them) in the name of my business. This happens a lot in the corporate world, where people justify doing horrible things for the “greater good”; they have to self-justify it, or else the ethical considerations would upset them beyond reason.
There are, of course, areas where I think such self-persuasion is required for civil society. If I were speaking to a serial rapist, there’s no question in my mind that I think I’m right, and I think he’s wrong. However, if I get to interpreting weather futures via cloud formations with that same person, suddenly he may not be wrong; we may just not agree.
That, to me, is part of the heart of what feels so wrong about war. I know that killing is wrong. And yet, we’re stuck justifying our wrong position becuase it is less wrong than allowing ourselves to be killed.
That’s just not a pleasant spot to be in. Necessary, but not pleasant.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
You may be right, I may be crazy.
BTW: I am enjoying the new look of the site more and more. Its more inviting.
I don’t think you’re wrong for questioning the existence of God. I do too, just my answer is different. Rather, to clarify, I think that God is real and does exist, thereby making me believe that anyone who has come to the conclusion that God does not exist to have come to the wrong conclusion, and they would have to believe I have come to the wrong conclusion.
If someone (and I guess I’m not sure where you fall here, I thought I was) were to say “I have come to no conclusion, God may exist, then again he may not”, then I would have no conclusion with which to disagree, and as I’ve said before, I don’t think it is wrong to question. We are not talking about belief, but conclusion about whether a fact is true or not. Because God cannot concurrently exist and not exist, ultimately, one must come to one of four conclusions (from which there are more conclusions to be made).
1: God exists 2: God does not Exist 3: I don’t care whether God exists, whether or not he does 4: I hope to one day know, and am trying to figure it out.. (which would lead you eventually to 1 or 2)
That being said, I guess I can illustrate a cool way that some of us have found to deal with this.. Matt, you believe that the LDS church is an “evil” organization and is certainly not the true way to go (apart from all the God stuff). People you love believe that the LDS is not and “evil” organization and is the way to go. You must, by that rationale think they are wrong. They must also, by that rationale think you are wrong. Despite that, you love them and they love you and you manage to discuss your differences and celebrate your commonalities without car bombs and even without too many hateful words.
That is a beautiful thing. It is the nature of religious tolerance. It is very easy to be tolerant if you don’t really disagree. But it is even cooler to disagree, get past that, and love despite that.
My position on God…
My position on God is that of a skeptic. I have come to no conclusion, however I have no more reason to believe in a personal deity than I do to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or Zeus.
I don’t say such a being can’t or won’t exist. Actually, I’ve come to realize that my beliefs appear to be perfectly consistent with a “disinterested”, or “passive” god: one that set off the Big Bang and walked away, or at simply watches what happens and does nothing to intervene (or, perhaps, has intervened, but refuses to do so now that we have acquired the scientific method or something). I think I’m going to explore that avenue more; apparently, the term for this is “Deist”, and many of the Founding Fathers embraced that form of belief. I just finished reading Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box”, and although I think many of his methods of persuasion are underhanded or shoddy, we are left with an inevitable conclusion:
Nobody can prove that “intelligent design” did not happen.
We know evolution works; we’ve seen how in a few short thousand years we’ve produced massive changes and speciation using artificial selection in various plants (such as varieties of corn that can no longer reproduce with non-bred corn) and animals (dogs, sheep, crabs off the Japanese coast).
However, there are certain microbiological structures that appear to be “irreducibly complex” — we don’t know how they got there, and there is no obvious evolutionary link between some primitive form of the structure and the modern form.
Very interesting reading! It’s fun to analyze my own beliefs and figure out where I do and don’t stand on something.
Hmm, we’ve ranged very far afield from the original topic; I guess that’s my fault for slamming fundamentalism 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson