Would you ever resort to using religion?

[FireGarden]

I don't oppose democracy. So I am not a fascist.

In Britain we had the largest march ever in opposition to the war, and the war went on anyway. Any civil unrest? Why not? We had riots to get rid of the poll tax. But somehow, it's unpatriotic to not support "our boys" when the fighting has actually started.

I think patriotism works in exactly the same way as religion. Sure we have better societies today, it would be sad if Humanity didn't improve with time. But our governments still have many strings to pull, and we still dance when they play the important tunes.

the fact that they owe their power to the ballot box strongly implies they aren't "in charge."

But does not prove.
Since you like comparisons with Nazis: Hitler was voted in.

And what kind of empirical test should soldiers make if the US president declares war? Especially one that got into power so controversially. It's faith, Yahzi.

When I say the ends justify the means (and I don't deny it) I don't mean that it is OK to kill 6 million people to make an omelette.

I value large societies. Having people in charge is a price I'm willing to pay. They will no doubt want security agencies like the CIA/KGB, they may want the "right" to tap people's phones, incarcerate people without charging them, conduct experiments like the Tuskegee study on syphillis, depose democratically elected governments in other countries, ...

No doubt, a more transparent form of government will eventually be invented. But until then democracy is a good way to offset some of the dangers. Somebody should have thought of it sooner.

Shame they'd have to kill a king to put it into practice. But that's life. So call me callous if you like. But I think that it is a good thing Saddam Hussein is out of power, a shame that 3000 innocent people (and I don't know how many thousands of soldiers) died, and in the end (in spite of the current lawlessness in which more are dying) I think it will be worth it. And I say that as someone who opposed the war right up until April the 9th.

BTW

The notion that a large society cannot operate off of rational principles is just an excuse you made up to justify abandoning rational principles.

Is a strawman. I never put forward that notion. I never suggested abandoning rational principles.

I merely said that a large group needs to be able to act as one, otherwise it fragments. I gave patriotism and religion as two (equally irrational) examples of techniques that leaders use to ensure the support of their people. And I do not regard the likes of Caesar, Mohammed and Bush as inherently evil just simply because they use such techniques.

 

[Yahzi]

gave patriotism and religion as two (equally irrational) examples of techniques that leaders use to ensure the support of their people. And I do not regard the likes of Caesar, Mohammed and Bush as inherently evil just simply because they use such techniques.

Evil is as evil does.

You go round and round and round, but the simple fact is you don't object to a lie as long as achieves your goals.

I don't oppose democracy. So I am not a fascist.

What a warm, heartfelt endorsement of freedom and liberty.

Having people in charge is a price I'm willing to pay.

The issue is not whether there should be law and order, or even leaders and followers. The issue is whether the people in charge are free from any constraints of morality while pursuing their goals. You take the simple position that they should be. I take the startling position that the entire reason that the ends do not justify the means is that because so often the wrong means don't actually lead to the ends. I assert that lying your way into public order will inevitably backfire on you, in that it will teach your population that lying is the way to get ahead. I assert that we are moral for a reason, not just because we want to have a nifty nametag.

Go read "The Collapse of the Third Republic," in particular the section on the Dreyfus affair. Then come back here and tell me whether or not the French army was right to continue to frame Dreyfus long after they knew he was innocent, so as to protect their honor and public image. Wasn't their pious lie for a good end? Wasn't the life of one man worth the honor of the French military - upon whom rested so many other lives?

Leaders, however they got there, are no better than other people. They are no more entitled to immorality than we are. So either you think that people ought to lie as a matter of course (in which case you are a Leftist) or you think that leaders are special people (in which case you are a Fascist). Either way, you don't seem like a person that appreciates or understands freedom.

 

[FireGarden]

The issue is whether the people in charge are free from any constraints of morality while pursuing their goals. You take the simple position that they should be.

I do not. I do not say they are "more entitled to immorality than we are"
That is not what I mean by "the ends justify the means".
It is wrong to shoot someone, it is wrong to kill. It was wrong for Bush to kill 3000 innocent people. But he did it to get rid of Saddam, so it was worth it. That end made it worth it. That end justified the huge crime of killing 3000 innocent people. Saddam could have killed that much in a day, and at Halabja he apparently did (and without any justification that I know of). I would have preferred that Saddam be assassinated, but Bush went to war.

I will go on paying my taxes in spite of my government's part in that killing. I will go on supporting my government in spite of the fact that they too incarcerate people without charging them and without presenting evidence in a court where it can be disputed. I disagree with that policy.

If someone ran for office who agreed with me, I would vote for them. But if I don't get that choice, I'll choose from what's on offer. And I'll still pay my taxes. Because I don't have anything better.

I've written to my MP (Is that like praying to God?) but I don't intend to run for office. So call me lazy. But I'm not in favour of putting our leaders on a pedestal. I just acknowledge that the current system is the best on offer.

I'll assume that you pay your taxes.
So either you are in favour of your government's policies or you are willing to live with it for the time being because the government you have is better than the alternatives that are available to you. ie: It's a price you're willing to pay.

Or will you withhold taxes until Bush is put on trial for murder?

You go round and round and round, but the simple fact is you don't object to a lie as long as achieves your goals

Currently, my goal is to finish my degree.
I would not cheat in any way in order to achieve this goal, though I do regard it as a good goal.

But I will study. I think the goal justifies doing that.

You're forcing me to spell out a very simple idea: There are some things that people do not do unless they have a reason that justifies it. ie: Unless they have an end that justifies the means.

you don't seem like a person that appreciates or understands freedom.

I appreciate the freedom I have to write to my MP and tell him what I think. I understand the limits of my freedom in that I cannot change every facet of government policy to suit me.

I pay my taxes to an imperfect government.
Why do you pay your taxes to a government that imprisons people without trial? Could it be that you are just like me? You'd rather have change, but you don't think that the need for change justifies revolution?

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Would I ever resort to using religion?

Now lemme see...Oh yea...I once needed to roll a joint and was outa papers - so I used a page from the bible (King James version).

So the answer would have to be a qualified Yes.










Barkhorn.

 

[Yahzi]

Good Propaganda
Your last post seems quite reasonable. Of course we all make compromises, and of course the current system is the best we've ever had.

So one has to wonder what exactly your point is. Why do you think it's ok for leaders to lie about God as long as it makes people do what they want?

 

[synaesthesia]

I would sooner act religious than have my head chopped off. (Unless the religion involved having your head chopped off.)

 

[Guest]

Dear all,

What exactly does "using religion" even mean?

Sincerely,

S. H.

 

[FireGarden]

Why do you think it's ok for leaders to lie about God as long as it makes people do what they want?

The question isn't whether or not it's OK for leaders to promote this kind of thing, but whether or not they deserve to be in power in spite of telling "fairy tales" about Iraqi links to Al-Qaida and exaggerating the threat of chemical weapons and Saddam's intention to use them. There was plenty wrong with Saddam's regime. Ironically, they needed a legal cause in order to wage war. I would have supported the assassination of Saddam no matter how illegal.

And, to take the argument back to where it started:
The question isn't whether or not it was OK for Mohammed to start a religion, but whether or not he deserved to be in power in spite of telling "fairy tales" about God and an after life. I think that the Islamic empire had as much right to exist as the Roman empire. And religion proved to be a good method of uniting the many tribes of Arabia and improving their culture. (An increase in literacy and learning if nothing else. "The ink of the scholar is more holy than ... ") It may not have been impossible for them to have taken a different, secular, route. But religion is the road they went down.



Mr. Holmes
"Using religion" refers, in this case, to the manipulation of the "flock" by the "shepherd".

I do realise that religion has many other uses, and brings comfort to many. But this argument started when it was indirectly claimed that all those who use religion to manipulate people automatically do not deserve the power they gain.

Yours in imitation (and the hopes that you register - it's free)
GP

 

[Underemployed]

I would use religion if it got me the hot chicks and the cash.

Sorry, I meant to type 'if it was in the best long-term interest of society' but I slipped.

 

[Whoracle]

Well I'm a manipulator with no morals so I would use anything and everything to get my way.

 

[Yahzi]

but whether or not he deserved to be in power in spite of telling "fairy tales" about God and an after life.

It is not in spite of, but because of. I am prepared to morally excuse people who make compromises in the pursuit of the greater good. I am not prepared to morally excuse people who serve the greater good while making compromises. Intent matters.

You seem to think that Mohammed's goal was to create an orderly empire for the good of his subjects. It seems far more likely that his goal was to become rich and powerful, and to make his tribe rich and powerful.

I'm not saying he was a particularly bad ruler. I'm just saying that there were alternatives that were better. I would rather live under Roman rule than under any theocratic society known to history. How about you?

I think that the Islamic empire had as much right to exist as the Roman empire

So you think there is no distinguishing characteristic between Rome and Medina?

If given the choice between living in one of those empires, you couldn't choose? The whole notion of a "Senate" just doesn't really mean much to you?

And religion proved to be a good method of uniting the many tribes of Arabia and improving their culture

Anti-Semitism proved to be a good method of uniting Germany and improving their economy. Does that make it any less morally objectionable?

But religion is the road they went down.

Well, then I guess that erases all moral questions. O.J. might have found some other way than killing Nicole, but that's the road he went down, so all further questions of possible moral judgement must now be abandoned.



What, exactly, is your point? I thought the question was whether or not lying to people was morally justifable. Not whether it happened.

Answer this simple question: is it ok to lie to people for their own good? Or, more to the point, is it ok for me to lie to you for your own good?

 

[FireGarden]

It is not in spite of, but because of.

You've misunderstood me here.
I did not mean to imply that religion in any way hindered Mohammed's rise to power. He became powerful because of religion.

But "in spite of" is the correct phrase because I am not saying that he deserved to be in power "because of" his method of attaining it. Instead, I am saying that he deserved to be in power because of the improvements he made to his culture with that power, and is still deserving in spite of the dishonest way he attained power. (But notice that he didn't invent religion itself, he invented yet another and gave it to a people that had never been without one. Which surely lessens the crime, and makes it easier to justify)

You seem to think that Mohammed's goal was to create an orderly empire for the good of his subjects. It seems far more likely that his goal was to become rich and powerful, and to make his tribe rich and powerful.

Then he chose a counter-intuitive way to proceed.
The rulers of Mecca (Mohammed's tribe, the Quryash, though he belonged to a poorer clan of it: the Hashemite) were worried that replacing 300 gods with one would lead to a loss of revenue and remove Mecca as a religous (and trading) centre for the other tribes of the area. (Especially since this new god was supposed to be everywhere at once). Some of the rulers of Mecca only joined Islam when it was already clear that that was where the future lay. From Encarta98: Khalid ibn al-Walid was instrumental in the Meccans' early defeat of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad at the Battle of Uhud in 625. Faced with the Prophet's growing power, however, Khalid later converted to Islam.

I know that we can doubt everything that the victors write about themselves, but even the Christian scholars (that I linked to earlier - on the "fairy tales" thread) agree that Mohammed was offered power by the rulers of Mecca and turned it down. Maybe the offer wasn't generous enough, but then again, maybe power wasn't the only goal.

I would rather live under Roman rule than under any theocratic society known to history. How about you?

What? And have some of my neighbours fed to the lions? I'm not aware of this kind of entertainment being part of the Islamic empire.

Both empires conquered by sending out armies to fight.
Both empires gave special privileges to a select group of their citizens/subjects.
And (to counter your point about democracy) Since when did the Romans have universal suffrage?

Which would I rather live in?
That's easy. The Islamic empire. It wasn't any worse, and it's easier to pretend to be Muslim than it is to pretend to be Roman.

Omar Khayyam lived in that empire. He didn't entirely please the faithful (he'd apparently "drowned his honour in a shallow cup and sold his reputation for a song" by spending too much time studying things other than religious doctrine). But he managed to live to a ripe old age without any horrific persecution and was a productive member of the culture.

I reckon that there are plenty of places and times in the Islamic empire where I would have had the same opportunity, even as the son of a tent-maker. Because there were more centres of learning and more books in circulation than in the Roman empire.

And then you're back to Germany....
Becoming rich and powerful while improving the lot of almost everyone in your culture is worth the cost of replacing existing religions with a new one. But it is not worth killing six million unarmed people for.

And your OJ example is even more confusing.
The killing was wrong (I didn't even watch the TV trial, so I wouldn't know if he was guilty). The killing would have been justified if it was in self defence, or the defence of someone else. (But, obviously, a less violent method of defence would be preferable.) Just as starting a religion is wrong but justified if it improves the living conditions of an entire population. (Though a more honest method would be preferable)

I'm not withholding moral judgement. I'm making a judgement based on my own subjective opinion of "what is worth it". I'm sorry that I can't turn this into an easily applied mathematical formula.

Answer this simple question: is it ok to lie to people for their own good? Or, more to the point, is it ok for me to lie to you for your own good?

I think so. EG:
There's a lot of illiteracy in even the rich Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. I would tell an illiterate Muslim that it's his Islamic duty to learn to read the Koran for himself even if that isn't the case. I would not feel bad about doing this. (And I could use my "Ink of the scholar ..." quote again!) I could add the same get-out clause as is applied to the pilgrimage, ie: you are forgiven if you cannot fulfil the duty, but you should try. That way no-one feels bad if they can't learn, but they all have to give it a go.

Learning to read is good. Tricking someone into learning is fine. (As long as you don't harm anyone or kill six million or ...... Sorry, lost it a bit there)

As for lying to me...
Isn't that what you're trying to do by implying that it's always wrong to lie?
Perhaps you're trying to save my reputation my making me an unthinking teller of the truth?

 

[Yahzi]

Good Propaganda

He became powerful because of religion

And that's ok with you. You don't care how people get their power, as long as they use it they way you like.

Some of us recognize that how people get power inevitabley affects how they use it. Apparently, you don't.

Nothing I can tell you then.