Liberal view of Government.

[KitemanSA]

Careful. The secular humanist Communists killed 100 million people in the 20th, all in the name of a just and caring society.

I would not call the Communists humanists, but that may just be me.

Skipjack and I agree on something!

[KitemanSA]

Careful. The secular humanist Communists killed 100 million people in the 20th, all in the name of a just and caring society.

I would not call the Communists humanists, but that may just be me.

And I don't consider the people who committed atricities in Christ's name to be Christians. But they called themselves Christians, and Communists called themselves secular humanists.

In this case, I'd love to agree with you, but the folks who defined the very term "Christian" for a thousand years, and used the very atrocities originally mentioned to do it, are the folks you and I are damning as "not Christian" so you see the trouble I am having here.

And while the Communists may have called themselves secular humanists, nobody ever really fell for their "Pravda".

[TallDave]

I would not call the Communists humanists, but that may just be me.

And I don't consider the people who committed atricities in Christ's name to be Christians. But they called themselves Christians, and Communists called themselves secular humanists.

In this case, I'd love to agree with you, but the folks who defined the very term "Christian" for a thousand years, and used the very atrocities originally mentioned to do it, are the folks you and I are damning as "not Christian" so you see the trouble I am having here.

And while the Communists may have called themselves secular humanists, nobody ever really fell for their "Pravda".

Actually, quite a few people did.

In any case, it's not relevant whether the Popes or the Politburo were believed by some arbitrary percentage of their respective flock to be sincere practitioners of their faiths, they were both flawed by the definitions of those faiths. If Christians cannot disown the Inquisition, secular humanists cannot disown the gulag archipelago and the Great Leap Forward.

[IntLibber]

And I don't consider the people who committed atricities in Christ's name to be Christians. But they called themselves Christians, and Communists called themselves secular humanists.

In this case, I'd love to agree with you, but the folks who defined the very term "Christian" for a thousand years, and used the very atrocities originally mentioned to do it, are the folks you and I are damning as "not Christian" so you see the trouble I am having here.

And while the Communists may have called themselves secular humanists, nobody ever really fell for their "Pravda".

Actually, quite a few people did.

In any case, it's not relevant whether the Popes or the Politburo were believed by some arbitrary percentage of their respective flock to be sincere practitioners of their faiths, they were both flawed by the definitions of those faiths. If Christians cannot disown the Inquisition, secular humanists cannot disown the gulag archipelago and the Great Leap Forward.

Both cases are proof in practice that you cannot expand the growth of any ideology faster than whatever the natural contageousness is of the memeset without utilizing force. The distinction between humanism and christianity is that humanism never disavowed the use of force for its own ends, it merely disavowed the use of force by others as legitimate.

When some humanists grew horrified at what resulted, rather than realizing that the problem and error was in their rationalization of the use of force to further their agenda of being pro-human, instead they decided that the ends were to blame for the means, and thusly turned anti-human and green and now seek to use force to further the ends of ending humanity in favor of mother gaia.

[Skipjack]

I would like to mention that some of the most prominent early Austrian humanists were the monarchs Maria Theresia and Joseph II.
Both were still catholics and christians and communism had not even been invented yet (not even the term humanism). Yet they brought and end to the catholic churchs terror in my country. They stripped the church of most of its powers and they brought the first public schools (before that education was not available to everyone).
Btw, the marxists critizised humanism actually. They declared that marxism was the new humanism (source Wikipedia).
So maybe you get the idea from there.
The US constitution and especially the Bill of rights are based on humanistic priciples.

On ideologies of any kind, I can only say that they are all wrong and dangerous. Any ideologist will always argue that their ideology is pure and that atrocities commited in its wake are due to a missinterpretation of the ideology by the entity commiting the atrocities.
E.g. many ultra left wingers here, will argue that communism is peaceful and that the atrocities commited in its name (such as in the USSR, china, cambodia, etc, etc) were all due to a missinterpretation of the true ideology.
Same goes with christians, even on this board. Heck I even know of a couple of idiots that will tell you the same about national socialism.

[KitemanSA]

In this case, I'd love to agree with you, but the folks who defined the very term "Christian" for a thousand years, and used the very atrocities originally mentioned to do it, are the folks you and I are damning as "not Christian" so you see the trouble I am having here.

And while the Communists may have called themselves secular humanists, nobody ever really fell for their "Pravda".

Actually, quite a few people did.

Oh? Who? I mean other than third world folks who didn't know better and useful idiots who seems COULDN'T know better.

In any case, it's not relevant whether the Popes or the Politburo were believed by some arbitrary percentage of their respective flock to be sincere practitioners of their faiths, they were both flawed by the definitions of those faiths. If Christians cannot disown the Inquisition, secular humanists cannot disown the gulag archipelago and the Great Leap Forward.

It does indeed make a difference. The distinction here is that the communists and their gulags were an outlier trying to become part of the whole and never making it, while the Catholic church was the be-=all and end-all (especially end-all) for "Christianity" for almost a thousand years. The Soviets were NOT humanists, as was pointed out repeatedly by many humanists, try as they would to take over the term. The Catholic Church WAS "Chistianity" for a millenium. Christians can't disown "inquisitions", merely learn from them and try not to do them again. Humanists disowned "gulags" at the time and since. Two different situations.

Oh, and by the way, it is certainly possible to be humanistic and religious. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you truly cannot distinguish between the two, you are not worth wasting any more time on.

[Skipjack]

it is certainly possible to be humanistic and religious

Humanism like many other philosophical movements has since its inception split up into multiple lines. One of the is the religious humanism, which can indeed include religion. Other forms however are explicitely atheistic and are built only on reason, science and understanding.

[Diogenes]

In their culture, it is a horrible insult for a Man to be ordered to do anything by a woman. It is easy to see why they would hate us for attempting to impose "our" liberal morality on their culture.

And we are insulted by their jihadis. I guess that makes us even.

In any case we are just trying to bring them into the modern world.

MSimon, I think you've gone off the rails here. You are far too cavalier in your dismissal of my point. The belief by men that they are superior to women is d@amned near universal throughout all of mankind and all of human history. The very recently aquired idea that they can be regarded as equals is the byproduct of a very long period of relative civilization in Europe and America. The rest of the world still does not believe this, and it is in fact counter instinctual.

It was only since Patricia Schroeder managed to force the military to do this very ridiculous thing that THIS country was tolerating it. You now think it is reasonable to force the people of another country with a different (and far more common) cultural attitude that they should accept their Men being ordered about by females with guns?

How many people is it that we need to kill and get killed by, for us to feel good about forcing THIS morality on them?

"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Muhammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing" -- General George S. Patton: The War as I Knew it

We are playing the long game and working to destroy their culture (or at least some parts of it). We did the same in Japan. Yes it makes things difficult at first. It will make things easier in the long run.

At the very least it will "corrupt" the youth.

The parts of their culture that we need to destroy are those parts that make them likely to attack or encourage the attacking of us. Needlessly enraging them just so we can impose our "latest" moral standards on them, doesn't do them any good, or us either.


This issue in my thinking, once again calls into question the judgment of our military officers for not refusing to utilize female military personnel in this manner.

[Diogenes]

I can't see how throwing the Sunni's out of work because the Shia's left accomplishes anything useful.

Attitudes matter.

You can't build a different type of army if the officers are not on board with the new style.

Now maybe we should have bought (pensioned) them off from the first. But that was no more popular in America than having competent Nazis running Germany post WW2. Lots of screaming about that in the USA at the time.

It took the debacle to change American attitudes. (or at least promote indifference).

It is my opinion, that the ONLY thing Bill Clinton did that was sensible during his term in office was to agree to pay for new housing in Russia, for Russian officers stationed in East Germany. How elegant and clever.

How much more sensible would it have been to do something similar in Iraq?

Anything having to do with Saddam was tainted.

WE dealt with Saddam. Tainted was irrelevant. What WAS relevant is how best to get Iraq on it's way to becoming a prosperous democracy with the least cost in blood, treasure and time.

The consequences of messing this up was more American and Iraqi Deaths, Billions more in Costs, and the American power structure being taken over by the Dumbest and most evil people in America, with potentially more American deaths and misery to come.

[Diogenes]

Humanists had the humanity to create a just and caring society

Careful. The secular humanist Communists killed 100 million people in the 20th, all in the name of a just and caring society.

You are making my point. I'll just add, that there is a difference in magnitude between 2000 years of deaths caused by "Christianity" vs the last 100 years of deaths caused by Secular Humanism. Within the last 100 years, the Secular Humanists killed more than 100 times the people that "Christianity" killed in the preceding 2000 years.

[Skipjack]

Secular Humanists killed more than 100 times the people that "Christianity" killed in the preceding 2000 years.

They might have called themselves that, but they were not.

[KitemanSA]

Humanists had the humanity to create a just and caring society

Careful. The secular humanist Communists killed 100 million people in the 20th, all in the name of a just and caring society.

You are making my point.

Please gentlemen, just because a polywog claims to be a fish, doesn't make it so.

[Diogenes]

OK, so the popes that were responsible for that were not a christian?

Well, I wouldn't call them Christians if they were committing atrocities. Christ's position was pretty clear on that.

"34 Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

Matthew 10:34-36 (New American Standard Bible)

Well, after looking up the quote to get the context, the whole thing makes more sense. According to some, it is regarded as an apocryphal prophecy, and relates to the second coming of Christ.

The book of Revelations is full of stuff like that. It's all about vengeance, and flaming swords, and death, boiling oceans, rivers of blood, etc. The whole notion is summed up in the bumper sticker. " Jesus is coming, and boy is he P|ssed!" (Meaning very angry, as In the American context, not very drunk, as in the English one.)

Others interpret it metaphorically as the effects of spreading the gospel of Christ throughout the land, meaning it is going to cause conflict everywhere it is preached. Indeed, previous versus speak only of spreading the gospel and how much hatred and animosity that will result from this.


Contrast this with the verses in the New Testament where Jesus admonishes his disciples not to fight against the Romans who have come to take him. Indeed, one of the disciples cuts off the ear of a Roman guard, which Jesus very decently reattaches for him.


I dare say, that if Jesus was a violent sort, he could have spread his message by simply withering the hands of everyone he touched, or striking them dead out right. After all, if you've got that god-like power working for you, why would you do things the hard way?

In any case, I think the consensus among the Christians is that Christ didn't use violence as a means to win converts, and his actions speak louder than his out of context words.

[Diogenes]

Secular Humanists killed more than 100 times the people that "Christianity" killed in the preceding 2000 years.

They might have called themselves that, but they were not.

Whatever they called themselves they were anti-theists. Given the track record of the Theists vs. the Anti-theists, i'd much rather have the Theists.

A Hundred Million in 100 years, vs. a Hundred thousand in 2000 years ?

[Skipjack]

Meaning very angry, as In the American context, not very drunk, as in the English one

I think the latter is much funnier though
In Austria "pissen" is a slang word and means "to pee", btw

In any case, I think the consensus among the Christians is that Christ didn't use violence as a means to win converts, and his actions speak louder than his out of context words.

That is all great and dandy, but it is not what happened. I am sure that there are lots of religions and ideologies that started with simillar noble ideas, but that resulted in lots of killing, crying, nasty scenes...

Jesus preached to "show the other cheek", but instead even the "christian" US went to war for retatliation, EVERY TIME it got attacked.
Sure that is fine with me, if you get attacked, you should be allowed to defend yourself, but it is not christian (well not according to my interpreteation and seemingly not according to Diogenes' either).