Note I don’t have any personal stake in whether you are an agnostic or not. However, my point isn’t about my world view as an observant Jew (I’ll qualify this below) but as I see it and as my example with Macarthur above shows that the principle stands despite and regardless of religious viewpoint.
Now as to the specific religions you noted:
Halacha (Jewish law) has specific operating principles regarding how Jews should live in A) a kingdom run by Torah law and B) in nations run by any other legal system. In the A case, it can only be a kingdom in the land of Israel as biblically defined by borders and can not be extended beyond those borders. The law is clear on conditions which apply within those borders to Jews and non Jews (resident aliens to use the technical term). In the B case, we are obligated to follow the law of the land where we reside full stop unless the law of the land conflicts with the performance of a biblical commandment and in that case a recognised legal authority should rule on how to handle the situation. Note the non universality in any sense of both cases.
Christianity in the broadest sense does not have a fully encompassing legal canon. In the case of specific sects, there are and have been laws on how to behave and govern yet they have been fully post facto from the source text as the operating principle of Christianity as a whole is that the source legal text is effectively nullified. This is not to discount in any way the legal scholarship of groups such as the Jesuits, but to differentiate the legal modus operandi of Christianity from Halacha & Sharia.
I point the above out very specifically since IMNSHO, understanding these systems of operation is important to understanding the world whether one is agnostic or not.
Interesting, we were answering the same question simultaneously.
So, back to my point. Yes, understanding is important, but I think that when people of one faith care too much about another faith, they get a ‘CNN News’ type view of what that other faith is and assume a homogeneity that’s just not in line with the diversity of civilians under that umbrella.
Honestly, I don’t think you guys have any business messing with each other and should back off and let the Quakers and the Daoists take care of the other guys for you if you’re for some reason opposed to heathens.
All what you said there isn’t in any way new to me. I simply don’t find it at all beneficial to discount the operational systems of others so easily.
FWIW, I spent the first 39 years of my life without any religion whatsoever and was raised by two hard science PHD parents. I’ve seen the world view you describe but living outside of the US caused me to look more deeply into how other cultures think.
Regarding “Judeo-Christian” as a term, I have this, and only this to say on why many Jews, many of them secular, myself included, find it offensive:
The term doesn’t appear in common use until 1946, and was nearly entirely used by Christian persons.
So, after a thousand-plus years of persecution and murder by Christians, culminating in the Holocaust, apparently it was jointly decided that the best way to apologize was to conflate us with our persecutors.
There are more subtle theological reasons why it’s a bad term, but the main reason why it’s offensive is plainly that.
Dumping all Abrahamic religions into the same bucket like this is just repeating the same error and refusing to understand the religious cultural groups in question may have vastly different ways of dealing with other groups. While Christianity and Islam profess an expansionist universal view of the world, Jews take the opposite view. Our system is specifically not expansionist nor universalist. The operating principles govern our people alone and we are forbidden from prostelizatizn.
I really should’ve said Abrahamic, but just as an FYI, it’s REALLY common usage in the American Midwest, is in all of our textbooks, and I’m pretty sure that it was written in a way that differentiated Jewish and Christian people from Muslims (which meant I used it incorrectly).
So, I was wrong to use it that way and will be more sensitive…but it’s probably going to pop out of people’s mouths a lot when people are trying to talk about ‘Western Religion’. I think that was even the title of the chapter!
The point is (AGAIN) that if people of one faith are thinking too much about another faith that they don’t identify with, love, and see as their people (Edit: AND VICE VERSA!)…then they really shouldn’t be making any decisions about them. This always ends in tears.
How bout this: instead of just taking my word on the above regarding the world views of the different religious cultural foundations of groups/nations, you try and research to see if what I’ve stated is contra factual. Fact check any of what I’ve stated if you suspect I’m stating things from a Jewish perspective. I don’t claim total objectivity but I do attempt to clearly state where my personal views pertain.
Of course there’s tons of variance, there’s been a lot of divergence, and there are also similar origins. You’re right that there are differences and I don’t disagree, just as I’m right that there are similarities when compared to Buddhism, Hinduism, and so on. We’re both right about this, we’re just talking past each other with a couple of nits that honestly don’t need picking. I’m sorry about my part in that.
Can we at least agree with the point I made in the previous post? I think that stands firmly.
Do you disagree? I should probably also add ‘and try to influence their lives’. Seriously, this is so obviously an awful thing, and creates so much horror.
I’m getting tired of all the murdered innocents, and while it’s not the ONLY problem, it’s one of the big ones.
Of course a world at peace would be ideal and if all the different groups could sing kumbaya together and so on. But thats not the world we live in. Its not that I don’t want the ideal(1) its that I want to understand why we aren’t there or what obstacles might be in the way of getting there.
I don’t disagree at all on this. It is however worth mentioning that not all cultures rules of war make the same distinction as we (2) do between “innocents” (non combatants) vs combatants. Historical and present day examples abound.
The “end game” view of Judaism, when the Messiah arrives (for the first and only time, we don’t do undead kings) there will be a progression towards peace between all peoples of their own free will. While observant Jews pray for the coming of the Messiah ASAP quite regularly, we also recognise that he isn’t here now. When billions of other people believe in opposing universalist systems of thought, and when those systems are absolutist, its just possible that we may not get to that kumbaya moment any time soon.
I say “we” here in that I agree both from a secular and religious viewpoint on this. Halacha does include laws of war which applied in the past and present and do include differentiating between combatants and non-combatants.
And your opinions about you and the people you love and respect and who feel the same about you are of course important and I respect them completely.
Anybody’s opinion about you and yours when they DON’T respect you and love you (and vice versa) I will of course disregard because experience and history says that they’re not to be trusted. So many people say awful things about you and your people, after all.
And the same is true in the opposite direction. If I’m going to do anything at all that influences or might cause others to have an opinion about another group of people, then the ONLY source I can and should trust is them and theirs.
And you’ve been helping make that point throughout this thread. Even in your most gentle and most recent attempt, made with all the cards on the table.
Because no. No. No. That’s not a point you should be making to differentiate yourself from somebody else. People are too complicated and nuanced for any of this to be relevant when dealing with actual human beings. You only can be trusted to speak of the motivations of you and yours.
Your people didn’t deserve it, and nobody else did or does either.
And that’s just how it’s going to be from now on, this is not a battle I can lose…because I will only discriminate against people on an individual basis.
I will no longer participate in this …not even in the slightest. IF we don’t radically humanize then we’re not worth the meat we’re made out of anymore.
Hmm… In fact I “trust” some individuals and groups to behave according to established patterns until proven otherwise. In some cases I can “trust” an individual up to a certain point or completely in some matters.
It isn’t a matter of differentiating myself from others as individuals. Lets return to the Macarthur example. Big Mac had studied the history of his opponents and understood very well that both the Japanese (and later the Chinese) operated under systems of thought whereby there was no functional differentiation between combatants and non-combatants as “civilian” populaces were just as often going to turn combatant. While the Japanese culture had a historical difference between warrior and not, the duty of all was to fight. China OTOH had some of the idea of separation but in functionality there was not such a differentiation.
Really its not a matter of discriminating against groups or individuals at all, just about understanding them. To understand a person and the group they belong to is far more humane than to assume they think the same way as everyone else. Is it not in fact humane to respect and understand the reasons behind differences?
Thank you for making the point. The naivety with which some in the West view Putin is scary. It would be helpful if they listened to some of those from Eastern Europe with experience of the KGB and similar organisations-- Organisations which legitimised and trained psychopaths to be more psychopathic. The CIA and FBI are total dilettantes and amateurs in comparison. Putin is bad for the West, he is horrendous for anyone in Russia who disagrees with him…
Why does your only example involve wars and occupations? Don’t you see the problem?
Let’s define who we should listen to on the subject of any group of people, shall we? In order.
1) Those people. 2)Responsible scientists who have no skin in the game and use evidence based methodologies to overcome flaws in human thinking. 3) People who are neither but inherently respect every human’s ability to thrive, and are willing to listen and eager to respectfully enable people to grow in whatever positive direction suits them. 4) People who realize they’ve got flaws and are actively trying to overcome them, but are not actively using a scientific methodology.
5) Educators, students, and teachers who are genuinely neutral about the subject matter. 5) People who have no emotional interest or preconceived notions and are neutral but aware they need to gather information 6) Children under the age of ten. 7) Caretaker types (Doctors without borders, etc.) who protect people above all else.
… 137) Random citizens
… 555) People of faiths, creeds, or cultures who are in opposition and who have the potential (whether they want to believe it or not) to have a skewed view of the other group.
… 666) Politicians, pundits, and other leaders who are actively speaking about said group but who clearly are disrespecting them.
With all people, we have PLENTY of people in the first few groups. We don’t NEED to listen to anybody who has even the slightest risk of not being able to overcome flaws in their own humanity. We don’t need people who don’t respect them. We don’t need people who may intellectually understand parts of them, but not really understand who they ARE.
And yes, I’m similarly not to be trusted with a huge batch of people and my opinion should be ignored about what’s best for those I don’t respect by default.
Listening to anybody below the off-the-cuff ‘7’ provides no value and creates risk. You could argue we should listen to some people in group 2 as well as group 1 (I’d agree), but I will NEVER give credence to the opinions over somebody below that category over a toddler, and you’ve made it clear you don’t respect these people in many threads in this forum.
That’s okay, you shouldn’t have to try. Just leave them alone and embrace who YOU are. Don’t try to convince anyone that they’re any less awesome than the rest of us.
One thing I learned growing up from two hard science parents: science isn’t absolute, its not magic and should not be treated as a all knowing deity. Also that scientists, all of em, are human and thus subject to human weakness.
In my 47 years of life, I’ve never met a scientist, doctor, educator or person with no emotional interests or preconceived notions. We are all human and all have all the baggage that comes with the condition. Given that I’m not sure who to listen to according to your proposed world view here.
I certainly regard myself as below the seven rank despite being an accredited professional who has published and taught classes in my subject area. By certain measures I’m in the 555 group. Besides other human flaws as well. Guess you don’t need to listen to me after all.
Not that I’m opposing the idea of calling Daesh whatever name gets on their nerves the most, but I don’t think this makes much difference at all. I don’t think calling them IS gives them any legitimacy and I don’t think calling them Daesh is a great insult either. I guess they’d rather we called them Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but using an acronym isn’t a great act of resistance either. Cracked may not be the gold standard of journalism, but they make a good point:
Daesh is an acronym for the original name ISIS fought under before declaring their “caliphate” (a formal religious-led Islamic state) and, so the argument goes, they just hate it when you call them that. But from what I can tell, ISIS doesn’t seem to care much about that themselves. On Page 38 of Issue 4, they note that some Westerners call them Daesh matter-of-factly, without seeming to care much about it either way. It’s never brought up again and barely comes off as an annoyance within the context of the article.
“They even imitated the nusayriyyah and secularist opposition by labelling the Islamic State as ‘Daesh’ and ‘Tandhim ad-Dawlah,’ in a manner precisely mimicking the satellite channels and palace scholars of Al Salul and Qat …”
Attention Internet: People who celebrate pictures of civilians they’ve killed as well as pictures of their own friend’s murdered corpses don’t give a shit what you call them. I’ve heard it said that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter. But the folks at ISIS don’t consider “freedom” a good thing (they refer to themselves as “slaves of Allah” on virtually every page), and they are happy calling themselves “Soldiers of Terror” …
Unfortunately not quite - apparently it’s similar to the Arabic words ‘Daes’ (one who crushes something underfoot) and ‘Dahes’ (one who sows discord).
Oh you’re great on any number of subjects, it’s just that you’re just as dangerous when talking about the limits and capabilities of people you have trusted sources that are in opposition to and you aren’t actively trying to humanize as I would be discussing what the best options are for handling Sean Hannity.
By doing so, we both become part of the problem.
And we shouldn’t HAVE to be on the ball with everyone, right? I know a few people who are closer to ‘1s’, and they suffer horribly in this world. Cognitive dissonance is what keeps us alive, but it’s also what gives us some blind spots.
