The only possible route to religious peace.

[George S]

The only way to find peace in the world is for all religions getting together and saying they are all one religion. Except for recognition of this Truth -- that there can be at most One truly Supreme Being and that all religion must, perforce, be paying homage to that singular Being, there being, in reality, no other possibility. All worship of the Ultimate Supreme Being must be worship of the One. When worshiped as the One with recognition of that One's singular reality, ritual does not matter, cannot matter -- the same God is being worshiped. In short, abandon specific religions' claims to being better than another.

[Cephus]

You may argue this point, but keep in mind; any argument which asserts that humans society cannot improve beyond it's current condition will merit none of my consideration.

But you point out that there is a trend toward extreme diversification, not toward unification, which is true, but the diversification is not open to any form of reconciliation between the religions, rather each teaches that they, and only they are right, everyone else is wrong, and everyone else is going to hell.

We note in history that the only times we had any sort of unification in religious thought is when it was forced upon people under pain of torture and death by the church.

Human society can improve, but humans simply do not choose to do so and I see no reason to think that this will change any time soon.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

We note in history that the only times we had any sort of unification in religious thought is when it was forced upon people under pain of torture and death by the church.

Sure. But then again, religious uniformity is not necessarily our goal. Peace and stability are achieved by entirely different methods.

If you have noticed, the United States is not (and has rarely ever been) a region of warring factions. Since the European colonization of the Americas, our nation has housed a vast diversity of people, each with equally diverse religious views.

On the other hand, when you consider all the past and present nations who have had a tendency to religious/ethnic conflict (Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan), the makeup of society is just the opposite. In Iraq, you are either a Sunni, or a Shiite. In Rwanda, you are either a Hutu or a Tutsi.

The more diverse a society, the more tolerant and liberal it is. Personal differences are not so divisive when everyone is different (such as in America).

The more analogous a society, the more conservative. If almost everyone in the community exhibits the same traits, but there is this minority group on the other side of town who does not conform to the norm, this minority starts to look pretty threatening to the majority, whose scope of acceptability is quite narrow. Add a little ethnic/religious misunderstanding or a government conspiracy to the equation, and violence is almost inevitable.

If you examine the cultures of the world, you will find that this rule is almost without exeption.

Believe it or not, recent decades have been the most peaceful in all of recorded human history, in that the least percentage of the human population is currently involved in armed conflict. This trend of peace correlates almost directly to the spread and diversification of worldviews brought about by factors such as globalization, the internet, and other such advances in communications technology.

The more diverse a society, the more peaceful, and (ironicly) the more unified.

Don't get sucked in by the violence/death/sexual pervert oriented media. There is plenty for people to be happy about; both now and forthcomming.

[micatala]

Sure. But then again, religious uniformity is not necessarily our goal. Peace and stability are achieved by entirely different methods.

Amen.

The more diverse a society, the more tolerant and liberal it is. Personal differences are not so divisive when everyone is different (such as in America).

Absolutely. For example, people are much less likely to be prejudiced against gays, and to buy misinformation about gays, when they actually no someone who is gay.

Believe it or not, recent decades have been the most peaceful in all of recorded human history, in that the least percentage of the human population is currently involved in armed conflict. This trend of peace correlates almost directly to the spread and diversification of worldviews brought about by factors such as globalization, the internet, and other such advances in communications technology.

The more diverse a society, the more peaceful, and (ironicly) the more unified.

Don't get sucked in by the violence/death/sexual pervert oriented media. There is plenty for people to be happy about; both now and forthcomming.

Very interesting. I would not have guessed that this is really the most 'peaceful' time in history.

Perhaps it has something to do with the constant war on terror rhetoric that we are getting here in the U.S. We have spent untold billions, thousands of lives, and past and future decades of good will combatting terror.

I would like to see a calculation of the ratio of money spent against international terrorism versus the number of people killed or displaced by this terrorism, as compared to the amount of money spent on hunger and poverty programs versus the number who die of these ongoing scourges. Then we can do the same for 'local' terrorism and genocide (Darfur, Rwanda, etc.).

I think we would find that it would have made much more sense to essentially ignore Al Qaeda, at least in our rhetoric and major budget priorities (while still taking prudent measures against them).

I'm glad to hear we actually have something to be optimistic about.

[Cephus]

If you have noticed, the United States is not (and has rarely ever been) a region of warring factions. Since the European colonization of the Americas, our nation has housed a vast diversity of people, each with equally diverse religious views.

It hasn't a region of openly violent warring factions, but it has, indeed, been at war between the various religious groups since the nation was founded. Religion, by it's very nature, is not accepting of other beliefs. America just would never tolerate open violent warfare, but I'll bet if they could get away with it, they would, especially the more extremist factions.

[micatala]

Religion, by it's very nature, is not accepting of other beliefs.

I would disagree that this is inherent in religious belief. Certainly it is a characteristic of many believers, but not all.

We address this issue to some extent in the My religion is right and yours is not. So there thread.

America just would never tolerate open violent warfare, but I'll bet if they could get away with it, they would, especially the more extremist factions.

I would suggest the "they" in this statement is a tiny, tiny, minority. Certainly the Klan, the neo-nazis, etc., would be happy to see this, but if the implication is that this is a fairly widespread feeling, even within fundamentalist circles, I think you are being somewhat paranoid.

[Cephus]

I would disagree that this is inherent in religious belief. Certainly it is a characteristic of many believers, but not all.

The major Western religions certainly are exclusionary. You believe what they believe or you're going to hell. Even within the religions, you have various sects that believe all the other sects are going to hell. Some Eastern religions certainly allow you to combine aspects of various religious philosophies though.

I would suggest the "they" in this statement is a tiny, tiny, minority. Certainly the Klan, the neo-nazis, etc., would be happy to see this, but if the implication is that this is a fairly widespread feeling, even within fundamentalist circles, I think you are being somewhat paranoid.

In the most fundamentalist circles, they'd be more than happy to declare open warfare against many "sinful" groups like atheists and homosexuals, just look at the rantings of people like Fred Phelps. It's not as uncommon as you'd like to believe.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Very interesting. I would not have guessed that this is really the most 'peaceful' time in history.

Niether would most others. It is certainly not a fact that the mainstream media likes to endorse!


The news outlets don't provide news. They sell stories. As it turns out, giving the public an accurate overview of the state of human society (the self-proclaimed purpose of most outlets) just is not profitable. The most profitable day in the history of the newspaper business was September 12, 2001. In contrast, the day that the Berlin Wall came down did not even crack the top ten.

I would like to see a calculation of the ratio of money spent against international terrorism versus the number of people killed or displaced by this terrorism, as compared to the amount of money spent on hunger and poverty programs versus the number who die of these ongoing scourges. Then we can do the same for 'local' terrorism and genocide (Darfur, Rwanda, etc.).

Oh wow, don't even get me started.

I would never like to see such a calculation- it would anger me too much. If I had my way, the Department of Homeland Security would be lucky to get a tenth the funding it is currently raking in.

However, I can tell you that the LRA, for one, has killed more people than Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas combined. The LRA, of course, is the only one of these four organizations that we have completely ignored. A little taster of how out of whack our international priorities are.

It hasn't a region of openly violent warring factions, but it has, indeed, been at war between the various religious groups since the nation was founded. Religion, by it's very nature, is not accepting of other beliefs. America just would never tolerate open violent warfare, but I'll bet if they could get away with it, they would, especially the more extremist factions.

Come off it.

List for me the people you personally know that, if given the opportunity, would kill over religion. I want names.

Religion can be just as accepting of dissent as any other form of opinion. You can't take all the Fred Phelp's of the world and characterize them under the broad banner of religion. A good number of modern sects not only believe that those who dissent from their personal views can be right with the Lord, but explicitly encourage this dissent, recognizing the positive influence that diversity has on society.

Tell me, did churches such as these always exist?

Such movements characterize the direction modern religion is moving in. The multi-faith, all inclusive doctrines they tout are now shared, in certain degrees, by pretty much every denomination.

The days of religious animosity are comming to an end. But that's not just me talking; the statistics have my back. The trend even dips back into ancient times.

No two democratic nations with GDPs over $10,000 dollars have ever went to war. As the number of nations in this category continues to rise, it should logically follow that increasing global stability will ensue.

[micatala]

No two democratic nations with GDPs over $10,000 dollars have ever went to war. As the number of nations in this category continues to rise, it should logically follow that increasing global stability will ensue.

This implies we have good news and bad news with respect to our "axis of evil"

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa ... 4rank.html

Statistics from the above site indicate that Iran was at $8300 per capita GDP in 2005, while North Korea was at $1700. Iran is arguably a democracy and if they can only get a little richer, we should not be going to war with them.

North Korea, on the other hand . . . .

Also, the article PP cited explains the phenomenon by noting that nations with higher PC GDP tend to have economic ties with other nations. This would seem to indicate that sanctions against countries, especially if they are long term sanctions, might actually be counter-productive to peace. The rational strategy might actually be to increase economic ties, to become friendlier with your potential foes.

With respect to Iran, maybe we should be encouraging their nuclear program !!???!?!?!? Large scale capacity to produce nuclear energy would allow them to export more oil, and thus increase their GDP. As oil prices climb, this will only be better for them.

Such a paradoxical move would also take the air out of Ahmadinejab's anti-west rhetoric. There would no longer be a need to 'stand up' to the west. Perhaps his more moderate countrymen would then be able to relegate him to a less prominent role in the government.

Given our recent history in NOrth Korea, I am less and less optimistic that we will be able to keep the nuclear genie from making an appearance in Iran, and even more places in the future. Unless we can bring these other nuclear nations into the realm of 'rational regimes', we could be looking at major problems in the not too distant future.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Micatala, you could have read my mind.


The recent nuclear fiasco must be the most rediculous international diplomatic encounter I have ever witnessed.

Here we have the world's nuclear club (with enough weapons between them to obliterate the entire solar system) lecturing Iran and North Korea on the dangers of nuclear weapons.

If that were not enough, just months before President Bush was visiting India, condoning their nuclear program.

For an analogy, try to imagine Bob Marley lecturing you on the dangers of smoking pot. Yeah.



When the nuclear non-poliferation pact was signed, the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France sealed for themselves a spot amoung the world's elite. It was not so much protecting the world's citizens- it was about protecting their military dominance from any challengers.

Then we have North Korea and Iran. One a poor, insignifigant nation tossed aside from world affairs. The other encroached by recent western advances on the region, feeling it's signifigance constantly slipping away. How do you think the citizens of these nations felt when their governments announced that their nation's would be vying for a spot amoung the nuclear elite?

We are just as responsible for this problem as the corrupt administrations of N. Korea and Iran. As you said Micatala, keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. We have failed in our diplomatic responsibilities. We have alienated far to many people in our quest for power.

All that aside, absolutely nothing is going to come of this. What are people thinking? That if Korea gets nukes it is suddenly going to go ape on all the civilized societies of the world? Kim Jong's administration may be inept, but it's not stupid. Every weapon in the world is going to be pointed at North Korea if they get their stash. Their vye for weapons is just a cry for attention (and boy, are they getting it).



Now, for a little more good news:

Wars on the Wane Worldwide

[micatala]

I think the main concern with North Korea is not that they will launch missiles, but that they will serve to proliferate to other nations or non-national groups, especially if they are hurting for cash.


On Iran, as you say, we helped make that problem. It is amazing how easily we forget our history.

We overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader in the 1950's. Why?

Oil.

What did they get instead? The Shah of Iran. Now I don't have the stats, but my guess is that the Shah was at least in the same general league in brutality with Saddam.

. . . and people wonder why they had a revolution in 1979. For them, this was arguably the equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down,

. . . . with the U.S. playing the role of the communist oppressors.

From the article you cited.

Published by Oxford University Press, the Report argues that the single most compelling explanation for these changes is found in the unprecedented upsurge of international activism and peacekeeping spearheaded by the UN in the wake of the Cold War.

Hmm. You mean the UN that everybody in neo-con circles describes as corrupt, inept, and irrelevant?