Comments on When you look at a map of the world . . . .

Go to Religion in the Modern World - Add a comment - Go to When you look at a map of the world . . . .

Well ...

I was just taking a look at the map of the world, and I've observed thus far on this day that Europe is completely over Africa. Spain, in particular, seems to be always thinking that Africans get women drunk, and is therefore giving them a swift kick with their Italian boot.

As for America, I've never been to South AmErica, and north of the U.S. border is a bit cold for my thinking. (Eric was a guy I knew in college.)

But what does this have to do with the relevance of my continued living of life and subsequent blogging?

posted by Jenasis on January 26, 2007 at 8:13 AM | link to this | reply

cantey_1975 -I have to agree with that, I've always said that our religious

crazies are much better than their religious crazies.

arGee said it earlier, there is no counterpart to the muslim extremists in the (predominantly Christian) western world. Comparing the attrocities perpetrated by the Christian religions from ancient history to what the muslim extremists are doing today, only demonstrates how backwards and out of step with the modern world that the muslim extremists are. The crusades are over, the bible thumpers clued into that one 800 years ago . . . some of the Koran thumpers still haven't caught on.

posted by gomedome on January 25, 2007 at 6:16 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - I'll address your two most recent comments in reverse order

For the second one dealing with the elected president of Iran, I have but one word: oops . . . . that'll teach me to speak of another country's history from memory.

As for your preceding comment. You are worried about stereotyping the innocent of a community that has a fringe extremist element within it? That's a nice sentiment and no one can argue its merit but one undeniable truth remains: the moderate muslims have the most to lose from the actions of the extremists. The Islamic world as a whole is not doing enough to distance themselves from and to isolate the extremists, let alone helping in bringing terrorists to justice.

posted by gomedome on January 25, 2007 at 6:09 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - These are words I have muttered to myself for nearly 30 years

"These are people who don't comprehend compromise, who see negotiation as weakness, and reason as blasphemy."

The reality that this sentence encapsulates is the foundation of my sentiments towards those who would terrorize us.

posted by gomedome on January 25, 2007 at 5:53 PM | link to this | reply

You have put your finger on a truth, Cantey...

That goes well beyond this discussion. Please take the time to read the following article that I posted last July: Through a Glass Darkly. You will see what I mean, and how well you state it. Feel free to leave a comment here or with that article.

posted by arGee on January 25, 2007 at 4:54 PM | link to this | reply

I dont understand how otherwise intelligent people

somehow cannot see the clear, real and present lethal threat of islamic facism that is ever growing, instead they continue to apoligize for it and point out christian transgressions over the centuries as if that excuses and nullifies the present danger; which is posed primarily by radical muslims of middle eastern descent.

to me, people who do this are unwittingly digging their own grave.

posted by calmcantey75 on January 25, 2007 at 3:34 PM | link to this | reply

I am not stereotyping, Xeno...

when I state that every significant act of terrorist violence in the last 25 years has been perpetrated by Muslim extremists, except for some IRA activity, and some Communist hold-outs from the Cold War. Read the entries in my ISLAMIST VIOLENCE blog here on Blogit. Start at the end and move forward.

Make comments as you feel inspired. I am set up to receive notification of your comments, and will respond accordingly. When we have moved the discussion to the front of the entries, I will begin to feed you current information I have about what is happening, and what I believe we must do about it in order to survive.

The irony is that should these guys prevail, because we don't exhibit sufficient toughness and resolve to do what is necessary, they will kill me, for certain, but they will kill you as well, even though you see yourself as moderate and willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. These are people who don't comprehend compromise, who see negotiation as weakness, and reason as blasphemy.

posted by arGee on January 25, 2007 at 3:25 PM | link to this | reply

here's a link

http://www.angelfire.com/home/iran/gallery/mossadegh.html

here, from wikopedia

Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (Mossadeq (help·info))(Persian: محمد مصدق‎‎ Moḥammad Moṣadeq, also Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq) (19 May 1882 - 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected^[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament ^[2]. Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry which was dominated and exploited by the British through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum (BP)).

He was later removed from power by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in a CIA orchestrated coup^[3], supported and funded by the British and the U.S. governments. The coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.^[4]^[5], the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax^[4], by its secret CIA cryptonym and the "28 Mordad 1332" coup, by its date on the Iranian calendar. ^[6]^[7]

posted by Xeno-x on January 25, 2007 at 2:33 PM | link to this | reply

what is termed moslem violence --

first, it stereotypes.

second, it tries to exclusivize moslems as the only purveyors of violence when in fact Christians have killed untold numbers in the name of religion, including other christians.

i think this is cultural more than anything, with religion as the fuse, if you will. not culture against culture, but a culture that is emerging from an archaic state without much to offset it.

Christianity has had offsetting factors -- like the realization by many that violence is not the answer -- first, the Reformation, which dissipated the Church's iron-bound control over belief and even secular matters, then movement toward democratic forms of government, where the Divine Right of Kings and Popes was no longer recognized, where the common person was equal to anyone. This arose, not from the traditional Christianity, as so many here are wont to insinuate, but from a new recognition of the dignity of humankind and interpreting god and religion and human affairs in a new way.

And continually new realizations. We are being enlightened by those who see that religion has been residing in Plato's "cave of shadows".

But look around in the United States -- there are factions of Christianity that operate on much the same level as these Moslems that they are so eager to condemn; heck, look on Blogit -- the same violent and ready vengeance state of mind is so obvious in so many bloggers' writings when they speak of the Moslem World.

It is all so stupid and uninformed.

And too many persist in resisting being informed. Until they can move away from those discordant attitudes, we will never have peace.

posted by Xeno-x on January 25, 2007 at 11:00 AM | link to this | reply

arGee -- we are dong a lot of arguing here over political subjects

maybe i can comment to you on your blog or you to me on mine -- this arguming can go on incessantly -- so we might as well give each other the clicks

unless of course gomedome doesn't mind the clicks here.

posted by Xeno-x on January 25, 2007 at 10:47 AM | link to this | reply

I wrote an article back in 1987, Gome...

And reproduced an updated version of it here on Blogit in 2003: War and Religion: Islam’s Embrace of Violence. It is well worth reading within the context of our current discussion. Note especially my last sentence: "There is no doubt in my mind how such a Holy War will end."

Although I wrote this ten years ago, it is even more pertinent today than it was back then, and we seem to be plummeting ever closer to the ultimate Jihad.

posted by arGee on January 25, 2007 at 8:22 AM | link to this | reply

arGee - as I mentioned and as you reiterate - we are headed for a drastic

outcome with the Islamic world.

It is not my nature to be pessimistic but at the same time I attempt to be a realist. The state of affairs emanating from the middle east and spreading across the globe is simply one big complicated mess with no easy solutions. I also do not pretend to understand the mind set of the people that have declared themselves our enemy, nor do I have any suggestions as to how to deal with them, let alone solutions. I do know however that a conventional army using conventional weapons, will never completely defeat a guerilla army utilizing terrorism. Especially when that underground army utilizes a suicide element and has grassroots support. I cringe every time I hear the words "stay the course" .....the course can only be a path to oblivion.

You did not know me in March of 2003 but back then I was rabid about the USA not entering Iraq. My limited exposure to that part of the world had convinced me that there was no winning over there. There is no military solution short of complete destruction of the region but I may as well have been talking to trees back then. As I stated earlier; we will inevitably be faced with perpetuating actions that lie outside of our inherent values. Utter ruthlessness and the will to take any actions necessary have been the only successful means of controlling the competing factions in that part of the world. Unfortunately this is unpalatable to our western sensibilities. We want them to embrace democracy and our values . . . there are still people on this side of the world that are wondering what's taking them so long to see what a valuable gift we have given them . . .

posted by gomedome on January 25, 2007 at 7:42 AM | link to this | reply

I got it, Gome...

And I really do understand your analogy. I have reservations, however, about its accuracy.

One of the problems science fiction writers face when depicting first contact between humans and an alien intelligent race, is conveying the vast gulf that necessarily separates them from us. Typically, writers will look for a Rosetta Stone analog to begin the bridge. More often than not, this bridge is the framework of the universe itself. That is to say, in both worlds oxygen combines with carbon to form carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. In both worlds energy equates to mass multiplied by the square of light velocity, and so on.

These commonalities eventually lead to an ability to discuss things we have in common – science and engineering. It is still a huge step, however, from this kind of communication to a discussion of belief systems, god, good and evil, etc. In fact, it may be that we can never completely understand the perspective of another race of sentient beings.

While I think gaining such an understanding between differing human cultures is more likely, it still is a daunting task. When we presume to infer motivations from behavior we observe in a member of another culture, based upon our own motivations, we can be staggeringly wrong.

Two short examples: The ancient Chinese viewed the world holistically. Parsing the world into small, manageable parts in order to study them, was – literally – unimaginable. The language and thought patterns simply would not allow it. No one went there, because there simply was no there there. It never crossed their minds. The ancient Greeks, on the other hand, saw the world atomistically, a whole as a sum of many parts. Parsing the world into small, manageable parts in order to study them, was as natural as breathing. The end result is that "we" developed technology while "they" developed mysticism.

We see government as a means of bringing order to a chaotic assembly of individuals, creating a framework within which individuals can interact with safety and predictability. Typically, we separate government and religious faith. Islamists, on the other hand, view government as an extension of Allah, a manifestation of his presence. Government and religion are indistinguishable. Shari'a simply is. A line of demarcation between civil and religious is incomprehensible.

The simple fact is, Gome, we do not even begin to understand Islam, and Ahmadinejad and all like him do not begin to understand us, not even at a superficial level. We believe otherwise at great risk to ourselves and everything we love and cherish.

I agree with you that the final outcome will be horrific. Because we possess the technology, ultimately we will prevail. But the process and outcome will be much like the battles depicted in the The Lord of the Rings. In the final analysis, the only way we will stop our own annihilation will be the total annihilation of the other side, the slaughter of tens of thousands of people who will cast themselves against whatever we throw up against them, until we finally "push the button" and solve the problem with a finality that will haunt us for generations to come.

posted by arGee on January 25, 2007 at 6:24 AM | link to this | reply

You don't have your countries mixed up so much, Xeno...

As you, yourself, appear to be mixed up. In your series of comments you managed to regurgitate most of the talking points of the far left. Intelligent discussion becomes impossible when expression reverts to sloganeering.

I am the product of the Cold War. I served in submarines during part of my military career, followed by saturation diving activities related to the deep underwater espionage activities detailed in the book Blind Mans Bluff. I was personally acquainted with the members of the wardrooms of two Persian Destroyers. These gentlemen were guests in my home on both coasts – in Philadelphia and in San Diego. I got to know them as people. They were decent, patriotic people who loved their country, respected the rule of law, and were good friends of the "Free World." Following the Khomeini take-over, I never heard from them again. I think you know why.

Xeno – governments are NOT necessarily equal. Cultures are not necessarily equal in value. Even national sovereignty is not necessarily comparable. By any measure I know, Ahmadinejad was and is a thug who uses intimidation and violence to force his narrow religious views on his world. Even though you believe that drinking water from a well located near an outhouse is cool, Xeno, I don't believe you are so far removed from reality that you can't understand the threat Ahmadinejad and his kind pose to people everywhere.

On the other hand, you said that you think President Bush was (is) dangerous, and compared him negatively to Michael Moore, so I may be wrong in my assessment of your grip on reality. One thing you can be truly thankful for, however, is that people like me continue to put our lives at risk so people like you can spout off without fear of anything worse than a good tongue lashing. Be glad you live in America, Xeno, because in most of the rest of the world yo would not likely have survived this long.

posted by arGee on January 25, 2007 at 5:46 AM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - I think you have your countries mixed up

It is true that much of the anti west resentment apparent in modern day Iran eminates from foreign government meddling and support to keep the Shah in power. ...but where the USA eventually became the biggest player, they were not the only country involved in this meddling. The USSR and Britain put the Shah in power in 1941, having him take over from his father who was feared to be a Nazi sympathizer. The free elections you speak of, I'm not sure about, unless you are speaking of the coup/countercoup supported by Britain and the USA in the 50's.

posted by gomedome on January 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM | link to this | reply

but it's this action that spawned Iran's hatred for the U.S.

problem is it has the weight of religion, which, as we all know, can cause people to act irrationally.

posted by Xeno-x on January 24, 2007 at 3:10 PM | link to this | reply

gomey -- Iran had a duly elected president in the 50's

the U.S. deposed him and installed the Shah.

posted by Xeno-x on January 24, 2007 at 3:09 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - as for Michael Moore being dangerous

Mentalities eminating from both sides of the political spectrum harbor inherent problems if allowed to run rampant without checks and balances. In the case of Michael Moore, I would hope that a private citizen, albeit a celebrity, would not have near as much clout or influence as the President of the United States.

posted by gomedome on January 24, 2007 at 2:10 PM | link to this | reply

Xeno-x - you lost me here - when you said this........................

"Let's see, how would Americans feel about some outside entity deposing our duly elected president and replacing him/her with an oppressive dictator and training torture squads"

Are you speaking of the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein? There were no elections ever held in Iran. The term "Shah" means king, the Shah of Iran was the rightful heir to the Iranian monarchy. Certainly his constituency was propped up by American support but those were cold war times and completely out of context with today.

posted by gomedome on January 24, 2007 at 1:55 PM | link to this | reply

and about the religious side of it.

i have to admit that we do have here a case of raging fanaticism.

posted by Xeno-x on January 24, 2007 at 1:48 PM | link to this | reply

and Michael Moore isn't half as dangerous as Pres. Bush once was

there was a time when opposing his actions was considered downright unpatriotic -- and most of the country believed his lies.

posted by Xeno-x on January 24, 2007 at 1:47 PM | link to this | reply

love ArGee's limited point of view

at the time of the hostage crisis in Iran, that country had just liberated itself from The Shah, a regime probably as repressive as Saddam's was in Iraq.

A regime backed by the U.S. Whose goon and torture squads were trained by the C.I.A.

A regime put in power by the U.S., after the U.S. deposed a duly elected president whose only sin whas that he want Iran to remain neutral in the Cold War of the 50's, and the U.S. just couldn't have that.

Let's see, how would Americans feel about some outside entity deposing our duly elected president and replacing him/her with an oppressive dictator and training torture squads

posted by Xeno-x on January 24, 2007 at 1:45 PM | link to this | reply

Tonyzonit - I feel it is not sufficent to say that the extremists are a

minority fringe element.

Their support is far reaching throughout the Arab Muslim world as well as in other regions. We are obligated by our own self interests and preservation to examine the causes of this increasing polarization against us. We are also obligated to change or influence the causal factors of this growing hatred that we are able to. Unfortunately, the west seems at a loss as to how to do this. We still insist on viewing that part of the world through lenses distorted by our own values and mentalities, when our self declared foe does not view the world in the same manner. There is no doubt that they feel righteous justification in what they are doing in actions against us and certainly some love of motherland or patriotism is a factor when coupled with their religious ferver. Attempting to look at the situation objectively is very difficult.

posted by gomedome on January 24, 2007 at 1:23 PM | link to this | reply

Gomedome - I think it's a very valid point, specifics of politics aside.

Generally speaking, our 'enemies' see us as their enemies, for slightly different reasons but nonetheless valid ones from their point of view. Just because some of those 'enemies' might indeed hold loony religious views and plan sick events like 9/11 does not invalidate the rational patriotic fervour of some of their supporters. After all, a lot of Bush's supporters may not think he's a fgreat intellect or even be Christians in anything but name, but they can still see what he was tring to do, i.e. defend and promote the interests of America, which is his job. It's just how you go about doing it that you are judged on. If he had been more successful in Iraq, militarily, there's a strong case for supposing that he would have been even more despised in the Middle East than he is now, just as the 'success' of the 9/11 plot increased the hatred of Muslims among westerners. The key to the hatred comes from economic exploitation. Everything flows from that. The religion and patriotism is just a vehicle for mobilising minds on both sides of the divide. Neither is morally superior.

posted by Antonionioni on January 24, 2007 at 12:45 PM | link to this | reply

arGee - I tried to qualify the parallel I was drawing

By using terms such as "....justified (to them)...." I have to agree that there is no western counterpart to the religious fanaticism that motivates these people. We simply will never understand their mind set completely. People such as ultra left Michael Moore don't get it either and ultimately do more harm than good with their insistence that our values can be transplanted onto them to bring everyone to the table in some form of fairyland progressive dialogue. Wishful thinking is no solution, nor is doing more of the same. Only attempting to fully comprehend the situation, with that comprehension devoid of propaganda, hatred, misconception and our inane desire to wish that they would think as we do. I am speaking of clear headed, rational thought devoid of emotion and partisanship. They have goals, just as we do but the reality is that there are no solutions other than actions that lie outside of our values.

Many people did not appreciate the parallel drawn by Michael Moore but I feel the analogy is not entirely without merit when speaking solely of the feelings that compel these people. They do think that they are repelling an aggressor from their lands. Where the balance between religious ferver and patriotism is skewed in favor of religious considerations, they do view us as imperialists.

I also believe that the conflict(s) will inevitably have a drastic outcome.

posted by gomedome on January 24, 2007 at 11:50 AM | link to this | reply

arGee, I don't think they'll blow up the malls

If they did, our good little consumers would be clamoring for a surge that would make 20,000 barely a good start.

posted by SuccessWarrior on January 24, 2007 at 11:08 AM | link to this | reply

I'm not entirely sure, Gome...

How to take this article. I've known you sufficiently long to have some understanding of how you think, so I don't believe for a minute that you really believe Ahmadinejad is motivated by patriotism, or that the Afghani resistance is just another Minuteman analog.

Remember that Ahmadinejad was one of the fanatical student revolutionaries during the Iran hostage crisis – a leader, in fact. And the Taliban are motivated by a passionate religious fanaticism that has no western counterpart. So, I'm going to assume irony here, and continue to believe that you are firmly planted in reality.

What makes Michael Moore so frigging dangerous is that he doesn't seem able to distinguish these differences, and many movie goers believe what they see on the screen. Thus, it becomes a real problem that won't go away until suicide bombers begin blowing up Americans and Canadians in malls across our great lands.