Education is the solution
-
There is nothing wrong with religions as such. The people who practice the religions always try to use it to their advantage. I think the western world probably had their share of Christian fanaticism during the crusades. Then they had the racial fanaticism of Hitler. India has seen Hindu fanaticism. There was a mosque destroyed in north india and later caused much bloodshed in riots. Recently these hindu fanatics also killed a few Christian missionaries. But, the majority Hindu population of India has no reservations against the Muslims. Muslim countries (Afganisthan in particular) are practising Muslim fanaticism. According to a Pakistani newspaper, all activities by the government that would be difficult to impose on people are done in the name of Islam. This makes it difficult for anyone in that country to oppose it/ The idea is to have promote a 'live and let live' or 'moderate' approach to everything. People have to be 'educated' to live with other points of view that differ from theirs. But, the point is - how do we achieve this around the world? The education can be Christian, Hindu, atheist or Muslim. But, this point is the education should 'firmly implant' in the minds that the world is not made up of people, who share your point of view, but let them live with their views (without hurting others, ofcourse). -- Thomas
I hope nobody thinks I am actually supporting the more extreme views of the Islamic religion. My main point is to get people to realize we are trying to force a different set of morals on these people. In this case, I think it is justified given 'greater good' of all. Being from a religious background, I still have strong ties to it even though now I consider myself agnostic. (Personally, I hate the term atheist since part of the beauty of most of these religions is that the existence of god can't be disproved. Thus, I think it is arrogant to say there is no god.) I had a HUGE intellectual awakening when I started considering agnostics and atheists as just another form of religion. It really made me a much more tolerant person. It has also lead me to become a very strong supporter of religious freedom. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
I hope nobody thinks I am actually supporting the more extreme views of the Islamic religion. My main point is to get people to realize we are trying to force a different set of morals on these people. In this case, I think it is justified given 'greater good' of all. Being from a religious background, I still have strong ties to it even though now I consider myself agnostic. (Personally, I hate the term atheist since part of the beauty of most of these religions is that the existence of god can't be disproved. Thus, I think it is arrogant to say there is no god.) I had a HUGE intellectual awakening when I started considering agnostics and atheists as just another form of religion. It really made me a much more tolerant person. It has also lead me to become a very strong supporter of religious freedom. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Pursuing an education through out the world that promotes religious/racial/idealistic tolerance is the ultimate objective that we should strive for. Once this is achieved, the whole world is a liberal democracy. But, as put forward here, it is NOT the process. It is the ultimate objective. All people who work towards this goal will face a very difficult time in many parts of the world. Afganistan plans to execute Christian missionaries for practising Christianity in their country. How can we ever sell this concept to them? This is too alien a concept for them to even understand. Probably will need a long time and a really powerful and progressive leader in that country to pull it off. International pressure will bring more resentment and more acts to vent the resentment. It has to come from within. As of what the democratic world can do, they can be equivocal and tell these people - "We live our way. You live your way. Please do not interfere in our way of living. If you do, be ready for consequences". Every nation has the right to deal or not deal with others. So, the nations with gross acts violating human rights can be isolated by the democratic ones, where every individual (irrespective of religion, sex, sexual preferences, caste, creed, race or status in society) has the same rules and rights. -Thomas
-
There is nothing wrong with religions as such. The people who practice the religions always try to use it to their advantage. I think the western world probably had their share of Christian fanaticism during the crusades. Then they had the racial fanaticism of Hitler. India has seen Hindu fanaticism. There was a mosque destroyed in north india and later caused much bloodshed in riots. Recently these hindu fanatics also killed a few Christian missionaries. But, the majority Hindu population of India has no reservations against the Muslims. Muslim countries (Afganisthan in particular) are practising Muslim fanaticism. According to a Pakistani newspaper, all activities by the government that would be difficult to impose on people are done in the name of Islam. This makes it difficult for anyone in that country to oppose it/ The idea is to have promote a 'live and let live' or 'moderate' approach to everything. People have to be 'educated' to live with other points of view that differ from theirs. But, the point is - how do we achieve this around the world? The education can be Christian, Hindu, atheist or Muslim. But, this point is the education should 'firmly implant' in the minds that the world is not made up of people, who share your point of view, but let them live with their views (without hurting others, ofcourse). -- Thomas
Just a double check. Did you mean what this sounds like? If so, your statement requires a belief that tolerance is more important than anyone else' religious belief. Meaning, you would then be intolerant of religions that don't fit your view of tolerance... In other words, your belief system is more important than theirs, and they must change. Sounds religious, doesn't it? Maybe that's not how you look at it. If so, please correct me. :) Some people definitely do look at things that way, and the real problem then is that they want morals without religion. However, it's just not possible. John
-
Pursuing an education through out the world that promotes religious/racial/idealistic tolerance is the ultimate objective that we should strive for. Once this is achieved, the whole world is a liberal democracy. But, as put forward here, it is NOT the process. It is the ultimate objective. All people who work towards this goal will face a very difficult time in many parts of the world. Afganistan plans to execute Christian missionaries for practising Christianity in their country. How can we ever sell this concept to them? This is too alien a concept for them to even understand. Probably will need a long time and a really powerful and progressive leader in that country to pull it off. International pressure will bring more resentment and more acts to vent the resentment. It has to come from within. As of what the democratic world can do, they can be equivocal and tell these people - "We live our way. You live your way. Please do not interfere in our way of living. If you do, be ready for consequences". Every nation has the right to deal or not deal with others. So, the nations with gross acts violating human rights can be isolated by the democratic ones, where every individual (irrespective of religion, sex, sexual preferences, caste, creed, race or status in society) has the same rules and rights. -Thomas
-
Just a double check. Did you mean what this sounds like? If so, your statement requires a belief that tolerance is more important than anyone else' religious belief. Meaning, you would then be intolerant of religions that don't fit your view of tolerance... In other words, your belief system is more important than theirs, and they must change. Sounds religious, doesn't it? Maybe that's not how you look at it. If so, please correct me. :) Some people definitely do look at things that way, and the real problem then is that they want morals without religion. However, it's just not possible. John
To a degree this is true. Which was a point I was trying to make. If a religion falls too much outside the accepted norms of an area (in this case the world), it is common that it is forced to change. My point was that it was not about education, but about changing someone's ethical or moral beliefs. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Just a double check. Did you mean what this sounds like? If so, your statement requires a belief that tolerance is more important than anyone else' religious belief. Meaning, you would then be intolerant of religions that don't fit your view of tolerance... In other words, your belief system is more important than theirs, and they must change. Sounds religious, doesn't it? Maybe that's not how you look at it. If so, please correct me. :) Some people definitely do look at things that way, and the real problem then is that they want morals without religion. However, it's just not possible. John
Hi John, I can have a belief system that says that "All men below 6 ft should be killed". It is not a constructive belief system. Any form of belief that puts one above the other based on broad criteria like sex, religion or race has led to wide spread oppression in the world. The examples are plenty - Nazi Germany, Apartheid in South Africa etc. There is always some sort of belief system that should prevail. I think that it should be one where every individual can live without fear in a dignified manner. Civil liberties should be based on individual rights and any belief that does not violate that is acceptable in a liberal democratic society. That is the foundation of all democracies in the world. If we are willing to compromise on that, there is no civilization. In our societies, the struggles have changed from one of physical dominance to one of economic dominance, that come about through excellence. We also try to make sure that we have social security structures in place that people do not suffer and have the basic amenities of life. I know that the democracies around the world have not been successful in doing those, but I believe that if anyone of us is given a choice to live in any part of the world, it will a democratic one, where you know that you have rights. Atleast, no one has come up with a better option. The question of tolerance: We should be tolerant to the tolerant. If we try to be tolerant to the intolerant, we are dead! Because intolerance means that they are not going to tolerate us because of our beliefs. We remain tolerant to the intolerant by never initiating violence. But, if we are forced to choose between 'being tolerant' and 'being existent', I believe the latter would be an obvious choice for many of us. This is my view and I believe the basic tenets on which democratic societies of the world function. - Thomas
-
There are many poor people in the world but few commit suicide attacks...way...? If you teach little childrens that the US is the big satan and Israel is the small one just because they admire freedom you will get a suicide terrorist Words can make more damage than bullets. Education is the solution to terrorism. Tomer Dror Israel
Well, it seems that those terrorists were pretty well educated. They knew how to fly planes. And that's exactly what made them so deadly efficient. Education will not transform a barbarian into a civilized man instantly. It takes much more than technology to perform that. And it's callsd time. Lots of it. Generations. Dejan
-
Well, it seems that those terrorists were pretty well educated. They knew how to fly planes. And that's exactly what made them so deadly efficient. Education will not transform a barbarian into a civilized man instantly. It takes much more than technology to perform that. And it's callsd time. Lots of it. Generations. Dejan
'Educated' is not the right word. It should rather be 'civilized' meaning 'fit for living in a civil society' - honouring the liberties of other individuals, irrespective of who or what they are and the willingness to 'act', if these tenets of the society is under threat. To inculcate these in people takes more than just time. It takes great people also. Europe and America had their share of great people, who having the power to suppress people, believed in civil liberties. Let us hope all peoples of the world get many of such men and women. - Thomas
-
Ok, I don't get it. On one hand you say education is the key, but on the other you say are not teaching anything. Which is it? The only way for education to be the key is if you attack the heart of some of the more fundamental elements of the Islamic religion. You can't have it both ways which is my point. In your idea of an educated solution is to remove elements of a religion you don't agree with. By doing that you are in fact forcing your own religious beliefs on someone else. Which is EXACTLY what so many atheists whine about. Your argument makes no sense. You are trying to say that religion free education will change theses people. How? The only way you will change their minds is by changing their religious and moral views. Now many have tried to argue that schools can teach ethics. They make the claim that ethics exist outside of morals. Morals, of course, are most commonly associated with religion. Unfortunately, this argument is grossly flawed since the difference in ethics and morals is semantic at best and over exaggerated by people who try to distance themselves from religion. So, since ethics and morals are basically the same thing, then schools are teaching morals. The morals which you wish to impose are at odds with the morals of the Islamic religion. So, I ask again, which religion should be the standard for all education? (Oh, and just in case you are wondering, I am agnostic.) Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Tim I would be interested to hear how Atheism is a religion. I am an atheist and to me it just means that there is no God or Omnipresent Being looking after the world and it's people. No religion and no trying to force the ther is no God message down anyones throat. Isn't being agnostic just the same as fence sitting. Not wanting to take a stance in case it pisses someone off, playing it safe for the second coming of Christ. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Tim I would be interested to hear how Atheism is a religion. I am an atheist and to me it just means that there is no God or Omnipresent Being looking after the world and it's people. No religion and no trying to force the ther is no God message down anyones throat. Isn't being agnostic just the same as fence sitting. Not wanting to take a stance in case it pisses someone off, playing it safe for the second coming of Christ. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
Tim I would be interested to hear how Atheism is a religion. I am an atheist and to me it just means that there is no God or Omnipresent Being looking after the world and it's people. No religion and no trying to force the ther is no God message down anyones throat. Isn't being agnostic just the same as fence sitting. Not wanting to take a stance in case it pisses someone off, playing it safe for the second coming of Christ. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Nope, try the dictionary again. Agnostic: 1) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Is true in my case. 2) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. Which is true in my case. Given #1, #2 sort of follows. 3) One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. My only commitment about the existance of god is that I don't know. I see nothing about not wanting to piss people off or playing it safe for the second coming of Christ. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Education is the answer? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA "Make love not war" "Imagine Peace" "All we are saying is give peace a chance" Which all sounds really GREAT, until some rogue moron comes along and kicks your ***. All this junk assumes that we can get everyone thinking the same way. It will never happen. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
Hi John, I can have a belief system that says that "All men below 6 ft should be killed". It is not a constructive belief system. Any form of belief that puts one above the other based on broad criteria like sex, religion or race has led to wide spread oppression in the world. The examples are plenty - Nazi Germany, Apartheid in South Africa etc. There is always some sort of belief system that should prevail. I think that it should be one where every individual can live without fear in a dignified manner. Civil liberties should be based on individual rights and any belief that does not violate that is acceptable in a liberal democratic society. That is the foundation of all democracies in the world. If we are willing to compromise on that, there is no civilization. In our societies, the struggles have changed from one of physical dominance to one of economic dominance, that come about through excellence. We also try to make sure that we have social security structures in place that people do not suffer and have the basic amenities of life. I know that the democracies around the world have not been successful in doing those, but I believe that if anyone of us is given a choice to live in any part of the world, it will a democratic one, where you know that you have rights. Atleast, no one has come up with a better option. The question of tolerance: We should be tolerant to the tolerant. If we try to be tolerant to the intolerant, we are dead! Because intolerance means that they are not going to tolerate us because of our beliefs. We remain tolerant to the intolerant by never initiating violence. But, if we are forced to choose between 'being tolerant' and 'being existent', I believe the latter would be an obvious choice for many of us. This is my view and I believe the basic tenets on which democratic societies of the world function. - Thomas
I think you're just barely missing the point. (You admit that tolerance can't always be tolerant, lots of people don't get that.) The real issue is -- What makes you right and them wrong? or Why is tolerance better than intolerance? or What makes anything better than anything else? Somewhere along the line we _must_ believe in some form of truth which we treat as absolute. People just can't work in any other way. So, if one group says that they know an "absolute" truth that leads them to do one thing, and another group knows an "absolute" truth that directly conflicts -- who's right? Simply stating that you are right will never be enough. Neither will a bunch of stories illustrating the "bad" parts of someone else's belief. ("Bad" was in quotes because they think it is right.) Now I could be one of those people who believes in the absence of absolute truth, but that's a cop-out. By saying that there is no absolute truth, I would be effectively saying, "The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth." No proof for that at all, AND it's logically impossible to hold that belief. So, what do I believe? People who take the time to apply themselves to a _fair_ (not pre-judged) study of the Bible (using common logical, legal, historical methods of determining objective truth) will realized that the Holy Bible is the exact words of the perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present God who created this world -- He is the source of absolute truth. There is a lot of other absolute truth that comes from that, like 1) every single human on the face of the earth is responsible to this God 2) we have all sinned against him by not doing what he requires 3) God loved us so much that He became a man called Jesus Christ, died to take the punishment for our rebellion, and rose from the dead to prove His power over life and death 4) Until we each realize how wrong our rebellion is and rely on Jesus Christ to change us, we will never be free from the effects of sin. Having said all of that, I think the place you're really trying to reach with your view of tolerance is more like the Bible says it -- Love each other as Christ loved you. If we're all willing to do anything (even die) for the benefit of _everyone_ else, no matter how wrong the other person's theology, philosopy, or religion, we won't be going to war, performing terrorist acts, or otherwise harming people to support our own beliefs. And this won't make us shut up and hide in a corner, while letting everyone else believ
-
Tim I would be interested to hear how Atheism is a religion. I am an atheist and to me it just means that there is no God or Omnipresent Being looking after the world and it's people. No religion and no trying to force the ther is no God message down anyones throat. Isn't being agnostic just the same as fence sitting. Not wanting to take a stance in case it pisses someone off, playing it safe for the second coming of Christ. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Unfortunately for the agnostic, sitting on the fence will not play it safe at the second coming of Christ. You either accept christ before the event or deal with the consequences. Fortunately you'll have some time as things fall apart before the actual second coming. Read revelations. BTW, I understand that those of you who aren't Christian don't believe me. I am simply correcting the incorrect statement that the agnostic 'Christian' can be saved under the principles of Christianity. When religion and politics help drive the same cart, they tend to drive faster and faster until it is too late to stop when they see the cliff ahead -- Frank Herbert.