Fundamentalism is Destroying us all

semp, after reading your previous post (and correct me if I am wrong) but I keep hearing this recurring theme that I would love for you to respond to. It is one of the most simplistic concepts that must exist in our government, and one of the first concepts the western world fought for. And that is a government that is accountable for their actions.

When I read that last post, I really got the impression that you lack the desire to hold your own party accountable.

Originally posted by semperfortis
As far as the Government goes, I support my Government completely. I can not explain that to you, or anyone else, it is just who I am.

Changing your mind does not make one weak, changing allegiances is a sign of weakness in my opinion.

You being a military man, do you not feel the lives lost that fought for accountable government? I'm confident you're going to say that you do hold your government accountable, but if you're offering unwavering support.. are you really?

[edit on 4-8-2008 by chissler]

reply to post by chissler

You being a military man, do you not feel the lives lost that fought for accountable government?

More than you could possibly imagine or I could ever tell you my friend...

Some good friends... but that is another thread entirely...

Unwavering support does not equate to blindness or even blind obedience. I just don't believe the way to handle a problem is throwing the baby out with the wash water.

I have never and will never follow orders that are:
illegal
immoral
unethical

Yet I will also not, NOT, turn against my Government or my Party because of my, or anyones, OPINION....

To me that is the biggest issue, opinions.

People are jumping all over the Government and the Republican and Democrat parties because of opinion.

1. I support the War and the following ongoing Conflict; it is not illegal and has never been proven to be.

2. I support my party and even though there is corruption, the Republican Party is good at it's heart.

Another persons opinion is not going to change my allegiances, in fact neither is my OPINION...

Got to get to work, I'll be back here this evening.

Semper

Fundamentalism : strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

I would say that A LACK OF fundamentalism is destroying us all, because it turns people into individualistic, hedonistic and pathetic hypocrites

Originally posted by semperfortis
1. I support the War and the following ongoing Conflict; it is not illegal and has never been proven to be.

You talk like a brainwashed lemming. Your "war on terror" is nothing but a filthy imperialist war directed at one of the few peoples (Arabs) still standing up against American imperialism.

Originally posted by semperfortis
2. I support my party and even though there is corruption, the Republican Party is good at it's heart.

Both democrat and republican parties are totally currupted at federal level.

Originally posted by chissler

Don't tell me about your religious views and how better than you are than I because of what you believe. Don't tell me how on the ball you are because of your political affiliation and what you're going to do for the world because of how you're casting your vote, because I don't want to hear it. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this fundamentalist themed crap that their ideology is the answer and so arrogant to outright bash and insult someone who may disagree.

but its ok for you to crap on to others about your no-religious themed ideology, are you so arrogant as to assume you know the answer, because it seems you claim to know what isn't the answer?.

Maybe if we attempted some open mindedness we might actually see some results. Maybe if we attempted to shed some labels rather than giving everyone and everything a title, we might see less resistance to what the actual message is.

Maybe you should not debase an ideology as crap, demand that they not tell you their ideology, and then ask for open mindedness.
It seems that you don't mind labels. fundamentalist crap, arrogant, out right bashers, who insult people.

Our race needs to understand that communication is just as much about listening as it is speaking.

Listen to yourself.

If our political leaders, along with the voters, would spend some time listening to those they disagree with we might be able to make some progress.

Heres you again.

Don't tell me about your religious views and how better than you are than I because of what you believe. Don't tell me how on the ball you are because of your political affiliation and what you're going to do for the world because of how you're casting your vote, because I don't want to hear it.

You make about as much sense as a fundamentalist.

When it's all said and done and our civilization is on the brink of extinction, whatever the date maybe, we can sit back and remind ourselves that at least we stuck to our guns. Our whole way of life may have been sacrificed.. but the point was made.

I would say that if we were on the brink of extinction it would be because people stuck to guns.

Fundamentalism is growing

organized ignorance, in the form of religion and religious fundamentalism in particular. This appears as not only a glaring but a strange contradiction: so much technology and knowledge on the one hand, and yet on the other hand so much widespread ignorance and belief in, and retreat into, obscurantist superstition.

Well, along with analyzing this in terms of the economic, social, and political factors that have given rise to this (to which I have spoken above) another, and even more basic, way of understanding this is that it is an extremely acute expression in today’s world of the fundamental contradiction of capitalism: the contradiction between highly socialized production and private (capitalist) appropriation of what is produced.

In terms of fundamentalism, i guess its a case of: you reap what you sow(sory about the religious pun).




[edit on 4-8-2008 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro


You have said everything that I expected to be hit with as soon as I posted this. If you read all of my posts, I think you will see my response to each of your statements and you will see that I fully admit being guilty of what I am speaking against.

But if I failed to use the term "fundamentalist", nobody would know what I was talking about and the discussion would not exist.

On top of that, no I am not arrogant enough to say that I know what the answer is. But I am at least aware enough to know that my own beliefs and mindsets are not necessary correct, and I am aware enough to know that if you disagree with me on something.. you could be dead on with your beliefs while I am completely off base.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Great thread

Just a few questions that I would like to raise...

1. At what point does the antipathy towards "Fundamentalism" become the inability to take a stand?

2. Open mindedness is fine, but what happens when one is so open minded that they can not see the truth?

While I believe and have often stated "A closed mind can not learn", I also believe there is a fine line one must walk.

Semper

Starred and flagged.

Great comments on this thread.

I'm going to go along with you and add that your items 1 and 2 have been combined to give us so-called "political correctness" here in the U.S. - nothing more than "tyranny of the minority" - where we all have to bend over backwards for this or that minority. Quite the opposite of the "majority rules" government our founding fathers built for us.

reply to post by chissler


Is it OK for me to just chime in here, admittedly before I had a full chance to read all comments, to say that it is a pleasure to see a Mod take off that hat, and be a member....and a very thoughtful member, by the way.

Reason I point this out is, I just got teased for being full of 'hot air' on another subject (a subject I'm fairly expert on) and I didn't write nearly as many words as most have here in this thread. I do find this subject fascinating...mostly because I tend to agree with the OP's premise. It's a must-read for me, now.

People have said what you just said over and over again redundantly too many times in the past millenniums. Humans will never change because of the growing individualism.

reply to post by die_another_day


So because it's been said before in the past, we should stop trying?

Is this what our society has amounted to.. to just give up?

This is why I feel our society is not willing to do the things that are necessary in order to become what we need to become.. because nobody wants to step outside of their comfort zone.

reply to post by die_another_day


"Humans will never change because of the growing individualism."

Dude, can you see the irony of that statement? It is contradictory, in case you need a hint.

The OP raised the better point....'fundamentalism' is exactly the opposite of individualism.

Originally posted by semperfortis
How many times have you read and or heard someone talk about the "Illegal War"? I would bet hundreds. Enough times that perhaps many younger, more impressionable people even start to believe this to be true; when in fact anyone that has researched this knows the war, or conflict actually, is in no way shape or form illegal.

Sorry Semper but I respectfully disagree with you, and so did Kofi Anan

Iraq War Illegal Says Annan

The UN Charter clearly states that;

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

How can a forced regime change be anything but in violation of the UN charter?

Resolution 1441 did not mandate the use of force. It stated that there would be "serious consequences".

The spin doctors argued that resolution 678 and 687 from ten years earlier, the first calling for the restoration of peace and security to the region (which was accomplished at the end of the '91 Gulf War) and 687 (which called for Iraq to disarm after the Gulf War) were both referenced in 1441 and so force was justified.

The problem with that is that the UN security council did NOT mandate that final decision, and because the US and UK knew full well that France, Russia and China would veto any such resolution for armed resolution it was convieniently sidestepped and left to fester.

You may see that as "playing the game", and I guess thats one way of looking at it, but the invasion was not clearly mandated by the UN Security Council, which taints it and, in the minds of a whole lot of people, makes it less than legal.

Which then takes us back to the main subject, because if the war wasn't UN mandated, it means it was "George and Tony know best", which is fundamentalism of the worst kind, because they forced their opinion on the world with guns and bombs.


[edit on 4/0808/08 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore


You may disagree, but you would be wrong.

Illegal

1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass.

Dictionary

We are under NO obligation to OBEY the United Nations...Anon can say Grass is Purple for all the United States Cares...

Under the definition, any definition of "Illegal", the war was agreed upon by VAST majority of the Senate and is still supported by majority vote. (The only "legality" that matters in the U.S.)

If the UN was a organization tasked with controlling the actions of the U.S., you may have an argument, alas, it is not.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Didn't the US sign up and agree to abide by the UN charter then?

If it did, then in the context of that charter, the actions are illegal. And its not just the US that broke the law in that case - several other nations, including the UK, did the same.

What you are saying is that the UN is fine and dandy for the US when it suits its purpose - as is the case with the current Iranian issue - but no use at all when it comes to the US actually abiding by the rules it's signed up to.

That then goes back to the issue of fundamentalism. Breaking established rules and protocols in order to serve your own interests, out of a die hard belief that a particular way is the only way.






[edit on 5/0808/08 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore


There are several conceptual problems with the simplicity in which you have stated this.

For one, the UN Charter is NOT a code of law, it is a Charter. It also clearly states that each sovereign nation is entitled to act in their own interests.

Secondly, by their inaction on the pending resolutions, the UN actually violated it's own Charter on several instances.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

UN Charter

Third and most importantly, you are talking about a statement made by the Secretary General and NOT a consensus by the United Nations in general. As the United Nations was split on the matter of Iraq, no consensus could be obtained and therefor no legalities were crossed.

See here:

Wiki

The statement of the Secretary General is NOT a legally binding instrument.

Fact

Chapter VII, Article 42 states that if peaceful means have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to Security Council decisions, the Security Council may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 51 allows for states to use force in self-defense.

Same Source
The United States, Great Britain and Spain all agreed, they are all fundamental originating members of the UN Security Council.


Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


The legality of it aside, do you feel that the invasion of Iraq is a fundamentalist viewpoint at it's worst?

Originally posted by semperfortis

Chapter VII, Article 42 states that if peaceful means have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to Security Council decisions, the Security Council may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 51 allows for states to use force in self-defense.

Same Source
The United States, Great Britain and Spain all agreed, they are all fundamental originating members of the UN Security Council.

Semper

The five permanent members of the security council are - as I'm sure you are aware - the USA, Russia, China, The United Kingdom and France. Any one of those nations can veto any motion put to the security council.

No motion was put to the security Council - and subsequently none approved by the security council - to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. It wasn't there in 1991, and it most certainly wasn't there in 2003.

The reason nothing was put to the Security Council is because France, Russia and China would probably have vetoed it, because they believed that more time was needed to assess the issue, and they had considerably more faith in the UN weapons inspectors than the US did.

Thats the facts of it Semper. Whether you like it or not. It was not an action approved by the Security Council, as such it was illegal.

I'm sure you'll disagree, in fact I know you will Its a matter of political perspective.

It was still - to keep up with the topic - a fundamentalist action

reply to post by chissler


Absolutely NOT!!!!

At that time, and currently for that matter; the Fundamentalist Viewpoint that governs the socio-political atmosphere in the global community is one of Liberal Placation.

If anything, the actions taken in and against Iraq, should be viewed as "Stepping outside the Box".....

Examine for a moment if you will the recent political upheaval in Spain. Once a staunch supporter of the war, the United States and the conflict in Iraq, Radical Islamic Factions take an action and instead of galvanizing the population to action, what happened? The population voted the government out and voted appeasers in. Terrorism won the day in Spain.

Danish Cartoons,
Riots in France,
ETC

No the actions of the United States are anything but Fundamentalist; however I fear the day the United States capitulates is not too far off in our future.

We have lost the will to be what we have been. A leader must be strong and the United States is fast becoming a nation of scared little mama's boys and girls; concerned more with international issues and hesitant to stand in the breach where a leader belongs.

McCain does not have the fortitude and Obama is a Socialist, so no matter the outcome in November, the days when we could look out at the rest of the world with pride are gone. One pipe bomb and we will be changing our name to France II....

OK.. I'll step off of my soapbox now..

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
A leader must be strong and the United States is fast becoming a nation of scared little mama's boys and girls; concerned more with international issues and hesitant to stand in the breach where a leader belongs.

Are you implying that if the United States isn't the equivalent of a school yard bully, they are weak? What if the United States did something that nobody expected, and didn't attack somebody or retaliate for an action against them. What if they were the bigger person and attempted to solve our problems through non-violent means.

What do we teach our children when we send them off to school? If someone is picking on you, do what? Punch them between the lookers too? I'm sure some people do, but it's not the practical response. Those of us that teach them other approaches, are we weak? I don't think so. I don't think every solution is behind a fist, gun, or bomb. Our words are our strongest allies, yet we let bulets do our talking.

It takes a bigger man to walk away, and that's a lesson that a few of our nations should revisit.

Originally posted by semperfortis
McCain does not have the fortitude and Obama is a Socialist

Opinions and facts, opinions and facts.

On the topic of whether or not the attack on Iraq was one of fundamentalism is something we'll disagree on. But I fail to see much difference in that invasion and invasions in the past that were most certainly one of a fundamentalist viewpoint being pushed onto another nation.

An eye for an eye will leave us all blind.

Originally posted by semperfortis
OK.. I'll step off of my soapbox now..

Semper

Here.. let me help you down.

reply to post by chissler

Are you implying that if the United States isn't the equivalent of a school yard bully, they are weak?

See now.. That is a perfect example of a politically correct statement.

If we were not the "School Yard Bully" in the 1940's, you would most likely be speaking German.

Just because a country is strong and wants to fight for others rights, does not make it a bully. Remember my good and valued friend, I have been there and seen those people. I know how much they appreciated being able to cast a vote for the very first time.

What if they were the bigger person and attempted to solve our problems through non-violent means.

12 YEARS and countless resolutions later

At what point would you have stopped believing the "Boy who cried wolf"? If a person or a country or the United Nations says they are going to do something, the only thing they show by waiting 12 years is a lack of a spine.

If someone is picking on you, do what? Punch them between the lookers too?

My children were taught to defend themselves and when picked on, or seeing someone picked on, to stand up and be counted. I was never more proud then when my oldest girl was suspended for smacking down a bully at school.. Just like the United States smacked down Saddam.

Our words are our strongest allies, yet we let bulets do our talking.

Words did not win in WWI, WWII, Lebanon or Granada or Iraq.. Your sentiments are fine but it is still very true....

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

It takes a bigger man to walk away, and that's a lesson that a few of our nations should revisit.

It takes a coward to watch people suffer and not act. Countries and people. Perhaps our countries would be better off visiting that as well.

Here.. let me help you down.

Thank you.. I am getting old...

Semper