h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Matholwch,
I agree to a very large extent with your sentiments in post 518, but not those in 517. Firstly, lets deal with the issue of Eugenics and Nazism. The former has been comprehensively rubbished, the latter universally condemned. But in fact, the whole point about Hitler hating the Jews, Gypsises and Poles and whomever else couldn't claim true Aryan descent was that they had a very well developed sense of racial identity, and were therefore very visible targets for ostracism and victimisation. They were someone very convenient to blame when things went wrong.

Regarding going to war to preserve our 'scientific edge', as you put it: I don't think that this is anywhere near the truth. Saddam Hussain is a total psychopath. He has hanged children, dropped nerve gas on Iranians and his own people, had innocent civilians tortured, raped and killed, and squandered the lives of millions of young people in pointless and devastating wars. He has quite happily seen his own poeple starve rather than give up the opportunity to acquire more deadly toys. Leaving this man the capability to develop weapons of mass destruction would be an act of wanton neglect and breathtaking stupidity. I'm disappointed we didn't finish the job properly after the Gulf war and I wholeheartedly support the destruction of this barbaric and mindless b*****d (with the proviso that civilian causualties are minmised). Being a humanist means you have to get off the fence sometimes.

Certainly, regarding science and its effect upon conflict, it has been a democratising influence; the most democratic of states tend to be the most scientifically and technically advanced. And NO two democracies have ever gone to war against each other. Disputes over scientific ideas generally end up no more bruising than Wittgenstein brandishing his poker at Karl Popper. Look at Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Ground Zero etc. for the damage that religious bigotry brings about. Science *isn't* the reason why wars are fought: it may, nevertheless enhance one combatant's chances over the other but it certainly *isn't* the reason why they start in the first place. Tell me that religion, if you can.

I think that not just the amoral pursuit of wealth and power, but the desire to see one's will prevail at all costs is a factor in the start of conflict. And that, certainly, is one of the defining characteristics of fundamentalist thought.

Respectfully,
FM

Hi Felonious .

"Saddam Hussain is a total psychopath. He has hanged children, dropped nerve gas on Iranians and his own people, had innocent civilians tortured, raped and killed, and squandered the lives of millions of young people in pointless and devastating wars."

Really? Sounds very similar to the actions of the United States in Vietnam. They went in to prop up a crumbling totalitarian regime that supported their interests. Dropped millions of tons of bombs (more than in the whole of WW2) and organic nerve agents (Agent Orange is still causing tens of thousands of still births and birth defects to this very day) on an enemy civilian population. Bombed and napalmed the civilian populations of both the country they were apparently protecting and its technically uninvolved neighbours. Approved of and supported the use of torture by its allies and its own security services. Trained and unleashed Pol Pot on the Kampucheans to keep them from helping the VC. Gunned down unarmed protestors on its own soil and destroyed the lives of thousands of its own conscript troops and their families. Net result - they lost a war they firmly believed was an easy win because of their scientific edge.

The UK has many similar stories in its history, as does France and many other civilised world powers.

As for democracies never fighting each other how about the American War of Independance and the British-American War of 1812? Never mind the many brush fire wars of the twentieth century fought by proxy on behalf of various civilised democracies.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that Saddam is probably evil, but don't make the standard mistake of painting him as a mad monster. He is extremely intelligent, and a master strategist - or he would not have survived this long. We must not underestimate him at all, but consider this. What would Saddam now gain from the use of such weapons? If the USA did not obliterate him and most of Iraq, Israel certainly would. They have already destroyed his only near-functional nuclear reactor.

I think he learnt a great lesson from the Gulf War and now his tactic is to gain influence over the region through being the heroic stalwart against 'colonialist America', rather than through force of arms. He must have been overjoyed at 9/11. In one fell stroke his only competitor, Usama Bin Laden, had destroyed himself. It also hammered the stronghold of islamic fundamentalism into the ground.

Remember Saddam is terrified by fundamentalism and has fought two terrible wars to prevent it spreading into his country. This is because once a religious idea takes hold in a population, particularly an oppressed one, it is almost impossible to stop no matter how efficient your secret police are. The Romans learn that the hard way with Christianity, as have many civilisations since.

Attacking Iraq, or continuing our present policy of starving him out, will only strengthen him. It will also lead to the deaths and suffering of countless innocents, as well as our soldiers.

This war is not going to be fought for religious, scientific or humanitarian reasons. It will be fought because it suits the political ambitions of both sides' leaders.

I, for one, will have no part in it and will work to try to get my government to oppose it also. I doubt that my word will count for much in our 'civilised democracy'.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Pacifist /|\.

Science can be manipulated by politics in war, and so can religion. Power corrupts.

I think religion can only be damaging in itself when you get fundamentalism arising. When people of one faith try to forcibly apply their dogma onto others (e.g., militant Islamic fundamentalists, creationism with fundamentalist Christians) trouble is bound to happen. Can you have fundamentalist druids Matholwch?

Shall we try to not turn this into a debate on Iraq?

Oh, and Alji, what a wonderful demonstration of the interpretation of scripture. One persons truth is the other persons heresey.

All the best,

Ste

Hey Felonious!
I knew if I posted that last one I'd remember more 'inter-democracy' wars. Let's see we have:
1. Pakistan versus India (the last time they actually went to war Pakistan was still a democracy).
2. Israel versus Egypt 1967 - both democracies at the time.
3. The British Empire versus the Boer Republics.
4. Mexico versus the United States (Mexico was technically a republic).
5. Athens versus Sparta, the founders of democracy at war.
6. The First World War. Britain and Germany were democracies with limited enfranchisement and constitutional monarchies. France and Italy were republics.
7. The American Civil War was fought between a Federal democracy and a confederation of democratic states.
8. The Irish Uprisings of 1916-1920ish. Democratically elected rebels versus the might of the British Empire.

I could probably quote a few more with a bit of research. My point is that the governmental type does not prevent war. Anyway democracies have the nasty tendency of supporting dictatorships and getting them to fight their wars for them.

Before you go hailing democracies as the best thing since sliced bread consider who sponsored Iraq against the Iranian Mullahs, who trained and armed the Taliban, who found and nurtured Pol Pot?

As for: "the most democratic of states tend to be the most scientifically and technically advanced." You're having a laugh ain't you?

What about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? Neither of them technologically backward or democratic by any definition. If we go back in history the Romans also fitted this profile, as did the Aztecs and the Maya.

I disagree with the notion that science doesn't start wars. Do you really believe that the leaders of the United States with their absolute political abhorrence of American body bags on CNN, would engage in any war, no matter how 'justified' if they didn't believe they had the technological edge?

It is because they think they can kill people at a safe distance that they even consider getting involved. As soon as the body count rises they scuttle and run (i.e. Beiruit and Somalia). They would rather bomb the innocent civilian population of a country into oblivion to get at one man, than engage a single marine.

The only time you see American groundpounders in action is when the enemy is already fleeing. If the USA ever believes that its scientific advantage will not bring victory then they will not fight.

A little known aspect of the failure of the first Gulf War is this. After the apparently successful air war phase of the operation American commanders estimated that the allied forces could roll into Bagdhad in two days with a few dozen casualties. In fact the further they got into Iraq the stiffer the resistance got. Minefields and deep bunkers were found intact. Although conscript Iraqi (and mostly Shia muslim) troops surrendered in droves, the Republican Guard (still 250,000 strong at this point) performed an orderly withdrawal to pre-prepared positions around Basra and Bagdhad, despite heavy allied air attacks. British and French Commanders calculated a casualty rate of 25-30% to complete the job and got ready for the fight ahead. The American leadership hearing this panicked. They provoked a dispute with the Arab League and then used that as evidence that the Arab nations didn't want the war to go any further than the liberation of Kuwait.

The next Gulf War will be fought because someone that the USA neither can control nor understand is close to gaining the scientific edge they hold sacred. A person who is as ruthless as they are and is not afraid of them.

My contention is still that wars are fought for power and wealth by old men with no regard for religion, humanism, morality or ethics. They will use any means to keep power be it spiritual, political or scientific.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

I do agree not everyone in the Churches are actual Christian. Christianity is not determined by who goes to Church and who doesn't. For the longest time I never went to Church, I go now because I get strength from the people and the things I learn there. You are also correct in saying that there are many ways to misinterpret the Bible, but I also believe that we should still follow the principles that the Bible teaches us. The bible is God-breathed and God made it so it would pertain to all aspects of life.
Chauncey

Hi Ste,
Sorry mate I wrote the last post while you were posting yours. I promise that is my last rant on Iraq .

You are right about fundamentalism though. But the definition of fundamentalism is difficult. The FBI said David Koresh and his followers were fundamentalists and used that as an excuse for slaughtering them at Waco. They may have been very different, paranoid and definitely isolationist - but since when has that deserved a death sentence?

Fundie Druids . I like that. You certainly get some very opinionated ones (looks at shoes) but as the path depends on each person walking their own journey to the divine and sharing what they find on the way, it might prove difficult. One newcomer once asked at a grove meeting, how many different types of druidry there were. He was told to count how many people were present to get his answer (and not leave out the attendant spirits).

Blessings,
Matholwch the fundie /|\.

Hi Chauncy,
Good to see you back in the debate .

You are absolutely right that going to Church doth not a Christian make. It is what you believe in your heart and soul that counts. However, that will not stop many Churches from treating you as an Apostate.

Back on the God-breathed Bible again? If you "believe that we should still follow the principles that the Bible teaches us", when are you going to begin stoning adulteresses? Many of the principles of the Bible are truly savage beyond reason and are utterly inappropriate in these times.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

I do not believe that they should be stoned but I do believe that they deserve a punishment of some sort. Every sin whether small or big is the same in God's eyes.
Chauncey

Hi Matholwch,
I think we have to look at the moral justifications of *this case*. Certainly, as you so cogently point out, the US is far from blameless in past conflicts. However, Maddass Hussain has been indulging in what I believe is termed 'Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy' where someone in a position of power deliberately afflicts those under their charge so as to gain sympathy with others. You point out that he is not a madman, that he is very intelligent. Most psychopaths are of high intelligence. He has been in a position to sell oil to relieve the suffering of his own people but has chosen not to do so, instead using illegal oil sales to arm himself to the teeth while pointing to his people's plight and blaming the rest of the world for it.



I suppose we will have to differ on this point. But if I am forced to choose between two sides in a conflict, I will choose the side where its citizens can debate the intentions of its government and hopefully even have some bearing on the outcome, much as we are doing at the moment. That is infinitely preferable to perpetuating a regime where the 'crime' of insulting the President carries an automatic death sentence. Our regime may not be under threat at the moment, but those 'democracies' you refer to in your post will almost certainly be under threat if he is allowed to prevail.

In essence, I agree with your reservations. But the fact that we didn't finish the job in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it now. A past colleague of mine (who is Iraqi) lost a brother and had his home blown to bits because of Saddam's adventurism. In an ideal world, we'd be able to ask the Iraqis how they'd feel about having Saddam deposed and a democratic goverment installed. In *this* one, we can only guess, but I'm pretty sure what the answer would be.

Regards
FM

Selective reading, isn't it?

Which bits of the old testament are made obsolete by the new dispensation of Christianity? The bits you don't like / disagree with.

How people think they arrive at their ethical decisions and how they actually arrive at them are not necessarily the same thing.

Noggin

Noggin could you be more clear on what you are trying to say?
Chauncey

So Chauncey, ye are so without sin that ye would cast the first stone eh?

What would you consider an appropriate punishment for adultery then? It's an interesting 'crime' because it is centred around two ancient human concepts of love and loyalty.

It's the one where God has made it a crime to love someone. It is also the one that the ancient Hebrews most approved of because in a society where all marriages were arranged for the mutual economic or political benefit of the families involved (though not always the individuals involved), adultery subverted their efforts and could be very costly.

I feel a moral crisis erupting somewhere.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

I am definetly not without sin. I believe that God should choose the punishment, not me or any other human being.
Chauncey

Hi Felonious,
Out of respect for our fellow debatees this will be my last post on the subject of Maddass .

Just two points then:
1. Although Saddam is guilty of witholding supplies from his own people, the list of exclusions that the USA in particular have made to what he can have are almost as bad. For instance he cannot buy Aspirin, Paracetamol or Morphine in case he uses them for biological weapons. He cannot buy nitrogen fertilisers in case he builds bombs with them! Just imagine the effects of such exclusions on the practice of medicine and agriculture in Iraq.
2. What crime is it to be an innocent civilian in a dictatorship that disagrees with America or the UK? Whatever the crime is the sentence is death by starvation or bombing.

I give you the last word on Maddass if you want it .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

However, Chauncey, as we have already debated, the only punishment that your God will mete out personally is everlasting torment in Hell. Not a bad punishment for loving someone......?

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.

No, I don't want it. I'm quite happy to (democratically) differ with you.

Let's bow to the will of the majority and talk about religion again, shall we?

All the best
FM

"I believe that God should choose the punishment."

Can you not see the danger in rooting morality in a God? It may work for you personally, but does it work for society (we are talking about crime and punishment here remember) as a whole? What if someone, such as me, chooses not to believe in your God? Does that mean that they have no morality? I have met many Christians who say 'yes'. Would I not be punished because I don't believe in God?

Is God really where morality comes from, or is it a function of the practical realities of human beings trying to live with one another in societies? You can think of it like natural selection (I know, evolution again and no, I'm not obsessed), the societies that came up with the most stable moral codes lasted longer, the Christian set of rules just happened to create stable societies (the West).

Do we need the religion to have the morals? No. We have to realise as humans that we should be good to one another for humans' sake. And even for our own selfish benefit in this world (we all want to live in decent societies, don't we?), not as some kind of express ticket to the next.

Ste

Matholwch:

"I promise that is my last rant on Iraq"
Oh yeah...., right

Fundamentalism is a percieved move back to the roots, to the original meaning of any given religion. It aims to strip away all of the clutter that has accumulated over the centuries (e.g., literal interpretation of the bible). Of course this is crap, not to mention impossible. It's just another interpretation added into the mix, albeit one that denies that it interprets .

"The FBI said David Koresh and his followers were fundamentalists and used that as an excuse for slaughtering them at Waco."
How many of those gung-ho Texas FBI men were fundamentalist Christians you think? Great excuse guys.

"One newcomer once asked at a grove meeting, how many different types of druidry there were. He was told to count how many people were present to get his answer."
That, I'm afraid, kiss ass.

Ste

I'm sorry, FM - I just can't agree less! I think the point about eugenics is a very good one! Whether Hitler and his lieutenants were 'true believers' is less relevant than whether the general public believed they were!

>Regarding going to war to preserve our 'scientific edge', as you put it: I don't think that this is anywhere near the truth. Saddam Hussain is a total psychopath. He has hanged children, dropped nerve gas on Iranians and his own people, had innocent civilians tortured, raped and killed, and squandered the lives of millions of young people in pointless and devastating wars. He has quite happily seen his own poeple starve rather than give up the opportunity to acquire more deadly toys. Leaving this man the capability to develop weapons of mass destruction would be an act of wanton neglect and breathtaking stupidity. I'm disappointed we didn't finish the job properly after the Gulf war and I wholeheartedly support the destruction of this barbaric and mindless b*****d (with the proviso that civilian causualties are minmised). Being a humanist means you have to get off the fence sometimes.<

I am afraid there's just no way I accept that the stated 'casus belli' (Saddam the psychopath) is the *real* reason for any Gulf war reprise! It all sounds very fine and noble, but Saddam was a puppet of the USA and their desire for world hegemony and for shoring up their puppet states in the Middle East is a far more believable motive than 'Saddam as Hitler!'

there should be some kind of punishment- from your posts after this, I assume you're leaving that to your God. However, would you allow any transgressions to be unchallenged in this life, on the grounds that no other human can judge them correctly?
'Every sin, big or small, is the same in God's eyes.'
Fantastic! wonderful! no extenuating circumstances, diminished responsibility, insanity (even that which you were born with, implying God gifted it to you...)- so talking back to a parent- who might be incorrect anyway- is equal to stamping on kiddies because you want a lollipop?
That God must be right at home in extreme fundamentalist societies.
Or Gods, like it sez in the Bible...