Torture, Religion and the Mid-term Elections

I didn't mean to imply in my last post that criminal activity should be accepted, or that one shouldn't protect one's own in self-defense, I wanted to merely point out that these two arguments are often abused in the name of further atrocities.

The methods employed for achieving what are usually lofty goals are what makes one's actions either solutions or complications or even greater crimes than the instigator's. Waterboarding or any kind of torture contaminates any claims to a higher purpose, as does any action that undermines human life, dignity or wellbeing. Pre-emtive strikes, attacks on foreign soil, these are the things we often condemn when launched by "the other side". What differentiates who's who is not who's labeled as part of some "axis of evil", or who's a "demonic imperialist empire"... These are oversimplistic terms. In anybody's view "we"(meaning us or they)are always the "good guys"... So it is through our actions that we define who we are.

Unfortunately, here in the US, as in other countries, deep-rooted and easily manipulated xenophobia sometimes lurks under the veil of faith. But if one believes one's god to be generous, pure, understanding, and above all else good, wouldn't He despair at our discrimination and our hostility towards other human beings? Wouldn't He, (I'm using the Christian religion as an example) in his infinite kindness, encourage our benevolence towards our fellow men and women, no matter their color, their race or even religion?

I don't think it's very pure, benevolent or compassionate to consider anybody who doesn't share one's religion a sinner who should be looked down upon, or worse prosecuted. Even if you were the type of Christian, for example, who considers believers of different religions a lesser kind wouldn't isolation, discrimination and prosecution go against Jesus's treatment of Mary Magdalene? (Please note, I myself wouldn't make such comparison in the first place. Also, I don't want to point the finger at Christians in particular, it just so happens it is the predominant relgion where I live and as such the first example that comes to mind.) My point is that those who are worshiped were and are often revered because of the way their goodness and compassion exemplified their holiness. Isn't that at least part of what elicited adoration? Their goodness and purity, their ability for compassion?

When Einstein said that patriotism or nationalism was a dangerous human folly, or
something to that effect, I think he wasn't referring to how terrible any sense of belonging is or how terrible it is for us to love those close to us, it's not, but rather to how terrible it is when that love turns into hate towards those different than us, sometimes through the manipulation of power-hungry leaders. Hitler and the Nazis were more than likely in Einstein's mind when he denounced this.

Such tyranny, the intention to homogenize and control the world, obviously generates
resistance and if superficially successful would still leave an eternal resentment and widespread anger that would constantly pop up in a violent manner. Except for arm dealers no one would benefit from eternal war.

Since any unilateral action into foreign soil is charged with all sorts of subjective economic and political interests, it would take a more impartial multinational body representing the whole world and the common good, such as the United Nations, to prevent injustice by launching the initiatives deterring governments from invading or attacking other countries.

For one country to assume the mantle of world police would/or has led to the oppression of less powerful nations and ensuing resistance.

To blatantly bypass the United Nations, to shun the more impartial position of the international community when launching a preemtive strike without solid proof of an offense, for example, is to become the perpetrator, the offender in the eyes of the world, and even when one's economic power affords a certain degree of diplomatic immunity, the initial justification erodes, corrupted, resulting in worldwide animosity and distrust: not only abroad but also within the invading country.

I think this inner distrust was glaringly evident in the recent mid-term elections.

Our Means should Reflect our Ends: The non-Violent Answer

Yesterday the Democratic party took control of
Congress. After much patronizing and self-
delusion, Rummy had to step down.

Bush's impopular Iraq war and the recent
Republican corruption scandals antagonized
enough voters for the Democrats to "whoop" the
asses of their opposition.

I was
*almost* starting to feel like Mark Twain, who
stayed in the country only as to avoid its
foreign policies.

The US should not act like a spoiled
brat bullying in the complicated, delicate tapestry of the world
stage. To lead, your
demands should be encouraged by example?
our actions should reflect our expectations.

But most of the weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq right now are the bombs being dropped by US
war planes. Should e battle some
local tyranny by violently and needlessly inflicting a rule from outside?

You can't enforce "freedom", a contradiction in
terms, or impose your beliefs on others. Sadly,
people can be antagonized and terrorized,
oppressed and enslaved. But that won't
necessarily affect what they believe in. If your
beliefs are reasonable all they'll need to
flourish is free expression, the means themselves can
bring strength to your argument. If you're
feeling particularly righteous in your stand why
not sway more people with the example and purity
of your own behavior?

This is my opinion on any belief. I think it was
Bertrand Russell who said that the least
reasonable your argument, the louder you are
forced to shout. When we use violence to drag
some message down people's throats we're
revealing the weakness of our own arguments.
Russell did say that "The stupid are cocksure,
and the intelligent full of doubt". My
interpretation of these words is not as negative
as his,( he started that thought with "What's
wrong with the world is...") as I think doubt is
an important antidote to close-mindedness. Your
thoughts and beliefs could earn their stay in
your mind by facing your constant probing and
reflection. Faced with this adversity, ideas
will evolve and our most valuable and essential
traits will remain.

My belief is that violence begets violence and
resentment. It's a cycle that's very difficult
to break, a conflict that often isn't overcome,
it merely lies dormant in the hearts and minds
of the survivors and their future generations.
Being born into this cycle makes it even harder
to stop or "turn the other cheek". But it's a
worthwhile aspiration to try to become the best
we can be, to overcome those harmful desires for revenge

Even if we believe in an after life, or in
another world, whatever our religion or
convictions are, isn't this earth and its beings
part of that creation? ... Wouldn't we more
likely gain access to that future, peaceful
bliss some call heaven if our actions on the
ground truly reflected those same ideals?

Of course the world would benefit from equality.
I think no matter your nationality the basic
needs of all people could and should be met.
And some think that violence is required for a
successful revolution, that it is necessary to
change the unjust conditions and corruption
which may run rampant under certain regime,
national or international. But sometimes those
that acquire power through violence hold on to it
through violence, even inflicting it upon the
people they initially, supposedly, fought for.

More than the other way around, our means
justify, and reflect, our ends. Our actions
reveal our objectives. Our methods reveal our
nature.

The idea of our own welfare depending on the
physical or ideological oppression of others,
will always fuel conflict and instability.

Underneath it all, what we all need and desire
is not that different. Our long-term survival,
our safety, our equality, are all more likely to
be achieved through tolerance, dialogue and
cooperation than through violence and
brutality.