The suicide bombings in Moscow got me thinking about the relationship between extremism and religion and patriotism. Luis Buñuel once said, “God and Country are an unbeatable team; they break all records for oppression and bloodshed.”
I think that’s pretty clear. So if we were to somehow get rid of “God and Country,” would that mean the end of extremism? Would the suicide bombings and wars stop? Or would we just find different reasons to slaughter one another?
Of course we would find other reasons. Sports fanaticism, for example. The bad thing about religion in this context is that it is frequently considered not to be subject to rational criticism.
If everyone was more apathetic towards everything, then we’d have to kill the ones who were the least apathetic.
Maybe…..
I don’t really care
But Daniel, what you are proposing — a One World Government — do you have any idea the fanaticism that might spark?!?!?!?!
:)
I’m pretty sure that we’d still find reasons for slaughtering one another – I just can’t think of any others that are so easy to (self)justify as God or country.
I think it would change to “God and Culture” (If it isn’t like that already?)
Okay, bad jokes aside.
I think that a lot (majority? not sure) of violence is fueled by the desire for power and/or money. I think that culture, ethnicity, religion, patriotism, etc. are used to sell wars to the people who find those things important enough to fight for.
I think the American war in Iraq is a fantastic example. It was sold to the public first under the guise of National/Homeland security (WMDs), as a fight against the “axis of evil,” etc., etc. But was it ultimately about any of those things? IMO, no, it wasn’t. It was about power and money — the U.S. removing a tyrant that didn’t align with its interests and replacing him with a “democracy” and oil.
I think this is right. Desire for power is the root of most conflict. “God and country” are used as a tool to dupe the masses in to going along for the bloody ride.
This makes me think of South Park. Did anyone see the one where Cartman frees himself and he ends up in the future where there is a war going on between 3 groups of atheists, and in the end, they let out that the war is over what they should call themselves?
“Praise science!”
There are a lot of other things to disagree about, and some people are just nuts enough to go out and destroy people as a statement to their ideals or to end their frustrations dramatically.
Some people, certainly, but as the old saying goes, for good people to do evil things takes religion. I think we would have far less violence in the world if people did not feel their killing was backed up by a celestial being. We wouldn’t eliminate it, but it’d take away a heck of a chunk.
Any ideology can have the same weight as religion even atheism.
I disagree – how can something with consciously finite consequences have the same weight as something with what are genuinely believed to be everlasting consequences?
Nationalism doesn’t have everlasting consequences. I do kind of think that something “above”, not necessarily supernaturally above, can cause one to perform as to the obligations to the ends of the leader, and that sort of manipulation can feel more urgent to the destructive type, whereas, say, people who crash planes into government buildings are letting out their personal frustrations. A person manipulated by feelings of worship to something might be easier to find, and work up into teams.
Cults can be formed for any reason, but I guess what it works out to be is manipulating a group of people on the basis of some small form of government or god-like persona. People acting on their own might be fewer and farther between, but they might have reasons that have nothing to do with god nor country. Without god or country, I think we’d be sneetches about something.
It depends on the practitioner. If a persons sensibility polarizes their mind they tend to become inflexible and are prone to hostility. Polarization may not be the best term, how can we avoid it? The person who thinks they are right needs some else to be wrong. It is a hostile dynamic. It is also how people typically polarize their mind.
This post, and thread, is about whether or not the absence of, God and country, would reduce our inclination toward violence. People who are right need someone to be wrong. So long as that is what polarizes our mind we will be violent.
As long as we have general ignorance in any population and/or any form of inequality and want, we will have reasons to kill each other… Although, getting rid of “God and Country” would probably be a great start towards a true peace. Getting rid of both would require understanding and reason, which, I believe, would have positive effects in the long run.
Our species was forged over millions of years of constant struggle. I find it astonishing that we are as non-violent as we are, considering how short a time ‘civilization’ has existed.
We were solving our problems by thrusting the pointy end of a stick into them for an order of magnitude longer than we’ve been living in cities. Our hindbrain is functionally the same as the hindbrain of a crocodile, with the same limited response mechanisms of “flee or kill”. Give it some time.
+10 Ty
Humanity were largely struggling with finding fruit, berries and killing game, not each other. Hunting for food is very different from warfare, which was actually rare in humanity until relatively recently.
Agreed. Conflict over resources is often the true reason for conflicts. However, even a big drop in the human population might not end all war. The temptation to attack weaker nations is always strong.
Since we would go to war when our population was 1/1000 what it is now, I too don’t think the population size would really matter.
Its not just population Daniel, its a population plus resource shortages. When the population was much smaller, it was also very difficult to travel long distances. Local shortages of any resource would drive conflict between groups who competed for them.
Exactly Ty. The enlightenment is still quite visible in our rear view mirror. We are just beginning to stand up.
As for war, I have to misquote Heinlein. All war stems from shortages and population pressure. Religion is just a great motivator and works well as a line of demarcation between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Once you define two sides, introduce a shortage, then conflict will occur.
Read up on the Stanford Prison experiment, and the Maugrim studies if you disagree. Those were the two studies that convinced me.
One of the core social problems we face today is the rapid spread of technology and therefore, the potential spread of mass destruction. For instance, I have read several experts in the field say it is impossible to keep biologic weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The technology is too accessible. I assume that most of us agree on the overarching dangers.
How do we proceed as concerned citizens? Thinking about this has prompted me to be much more open to ‘internationalism’, human rights, equity and fidelity across the planet. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences is also at play. As some of us become more committed and vociferous in our support for things like international law, a backlash inevitably ensues. It’s the yin and yang of politics and social change. And it’s very, very dangerous.
The stakes are so high and I don’t trust partisan politics, talking points or p.r. People can sense their way through that crap so easily. Yet, we have to somehow defuse the social bomb and the damn thing is very complex. There are so many different disgruntled groups that are all potential explosive fuses. Appease one group and another gets paranoid in response.
One personal change that is taking place for me is to work on lowering any unneeded tension in the culture wars by watching what I say and how I say it — while still being honest and open.
Biologic weapons were used as far as in the XV century (was it on the siege of Constantinopla?) of course they are now accesible to terrorist groups.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us, and the world will be as one.
Both spring from a POV that X is always right.
If X is always right then anyone who disagrees with X is always wrong.
Absolutism (in any form) helps to make jingoistic rhetoric and fanaticism. Its hard to foster or accept fanaticism without some sort of absolute. The absolute that most people tend to grasp for is that metaphysical absolute generally referred to as “God.” Certainly, without a god to appeal to, jingoistic fanaticism is a lot harder to keep going.
Also, without absolutes to appeal to, one realises that all sorts of abstractions (democracy, socialism, capitalism, etc.) are not as “pure” concepts as one might think– it makes that sort of Manichean view untenable. Of course, this requires THINKING. Appealing to any kind of absolutism is simply a lazy way out.
There may be some sort of Capitalistic Socialism that gives support through opportunity for all. Certainly we are not there now. In the mean time change ,as always, takes place one mind at a time. Make a difference in your mind.
The inclination of fundamentalist Christian and Islamic groups to embrace Armageddon is not helpful. Hating on them only creates more hate and then we are all culpable. As always the solution is with the individual and anything is possible.
I would say ignorance is a regular customer.
Eckhart Tolle, while a bit of an anti-science nut, makes a pretty good case that it is a matter of identity, where “identity” is the perception we have about ourselves.
Whether we identify ourselves with a religion, with a nation, with a sport team or with the way we eat, we cherish so much the concept of “Having and Identity”, while at its core it is just a way to discriminate “us” against the “others”.
To a large extent, a human being cannot harm another that he feels close.
An identity allows a human to feel different than another human and therefore to harm him.
Without an identity, you cannot divide yourself from the others, and harming them becomes a lot harder.
I would be very interested to know if someone else has proposed this view.
They’ve historically been bound up in one another. A “nation” (a “people”) has traditionally been defined as people united by common ethnicity and beliefs. It’s a hard bond to break; but with the world the way it is today, the continued survival of our civilization rests upon our ability to do so.
I am not justifying the bombings, but if the Russian Government had negotiated with the Chechens back in 1990s, instead of starting a dirty war, these bombings would not have happen. What the Russian government has been doing in Chechnya for last 20 years is far worst. But since the Russians have oil, they get a free pass.
There is an irony to most of the nationalists movement of the last 30 years, esspecially in Eastern Europe. The former Yugosolvia had a violent breakup. But as soon as the new nations were created, they wanted to join the European Union. A union that would not just let their citizens live and work in other countries, but to allow the foreign nationals live and work in their country. What then is the point of having a nation?
I saw a news report CNN. The reporter proposed a theory, that one reason for the decrease in violence in Northern Ireland is that both Protestants and Catholics are now EU citizens. People from Northern Ireland are now free to work and travel around Europe. Many of the young people now see themselves as European instead of Protestant or Catholic. One Protestant young man had returned from Eastern Europe with a Polish wife.
I have been to Costa Rica four times. Many of the Costa Rican friends would love for me to move there permanently. I might consider the offer.
People always talk about suicide bombers as though they wake up one morning and decide to kill themselves.
These people are made not born. A UK member of parliament had to resign because she said that if she’d been a Palestinian kid in Gaza she’d probably be a suicide bomber too.
If you abuse people so much that the only power they have is to use their life to take yours, then what do you expect. Not sure this has anything much to do with religion.
How would you act if you were a Palestinian in Gaza?
Religion teaches hate, first hate in ourselves, the wretched horrible sinners we are. Then once that hate is festering is is turned into judgmental-ism. It fosters hate in others by making us hate ourselves.
I think we need to teach people it is okay to like themselves for who they are and educate them to be able to create what they want. …. I know…. it’s kinda like the power of positive thinking the islam way….. okay maybe that is not a good idea… but you get the just of it right??
You can blame violence on any number of things, but the one thing for certain that is a cause of violence is nature. The fact people find various means to manipulate people is nature. You can blame religion for being a tool, but that’s like saying “fourteen year old girls who have been kidnapped and used for blackmail are the cause of violence, if people didn’t use it to manipulate other people the world would be great”.