"War on Terrorism" - is it hopeless ?

[fatbadger]

gg - No, it doesn't.

And it certainly isn't racist - most of us are more than capable of realising that 'America' or 'the USA' or any similar phrase means the state, not the people.

 

[readingstockport]

Even if that were true then it is a world of difference from justifying or supporting AQ. AND AQ is not a state anyway.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

We will agree to disagree again, as I believed in the Iraq war and that it was ultimately justified I knew I would be a lone voice supporting the USA and its actions due to previous discussions about the war.

 

[bhaexpress]

Steady now lads, some of us are married to an American .... Mind you, it is a pretty f***ed up country .............

 

[Sorrel]

Wherein lies the problem. You think it's better. Others don't. Who is to say you are correct and they are incorrect?

I don't agree with relativism at all.

I'd say the western way is better because of things like modern medicine, and that our science actually works (i.e. planes fly, cars drive, innoculation prevents illness). I also think western civilization has done much moral good for the world (i.e. people like Tom Paine and the rights of man, outlawing slavery, working conditions, freedom of speech, rights for women etc).

Anyone who argues that this is just relative is wrong IMO. These are good things, that we should be proud of.

 

[fatbadger]

And the semitic peoples should be proud of having invented writing systems, providing the groundwork for modern mathematics, and so on.

I think the original post you quoted was referring to modern political systems, not to historical achievements!!

 

[Jambo Seagull]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[US Seagull]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Well, there's the aquaducts....

 

[Jambo Seagull]

the roads.....

 

[US Seagull]

Steady now lads, some of us are married to an American .... Mind you, it is a pretty f***ed up country .............

Bit like England then, or any other country for that matter...

 

[Sorrel]

I think the original post you quoted was referring to modern political systems, not to historical achievements!!

I still think you can't say that Western Democratic system (which was fought for long and hard) is equal to a theocratic system.

The British system (though much rubbish remains) is still much better than the rule of law by the interpretations of religious texts designed for inhabitants of Arabia in the 600s. You can't seriously say that one is just relative to another. Can you?

 

[alan partridge]

We will agree to disagree again, as I believed in the Iraq war and that it was ultimately justified I knew I would be a lone voice supporting the USA and its actions due to previous discussions about the war.

ahhh gareth glover....THE LONE VOICE! how we should all bow to your superior knowledge. i certainly am not worthy.

btw, i think a few posters on here asked you to point out where some of them had supported al qaeda. i'd be interested to know too, as i just read through this thread and didn't see anything along those lines. then again, i could never be A LONE VOICE against the stupidity of the world. not like you.

OH LONE VOICE

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

No bugger off

 

[fatbadger]

I still think you can't say that Western Democratic system (which was fought for long and hard) is equal to a theocratic system.

The British system (though much rubbish remains) is still much better than the rule of law by the interpretations of religious texts designed for inhabitants of Arabia in the 600s. You can't seriously say that one is just relative to another. Can you?

Like it or not, our political and legal systems are based on an ethic constructed through the interpretation of religious texts written 2000 or more years ago for the people of the Levant.

 

[fatbadger]

No bugger off

No, YOU buggar off. You came on here, throwing accusations about and, when you were asked to provide evidence for them, you replied first with a slightly reworded accusation saying the same thing, and then 'buggar off'. If that's the only level of debate you are capable of, and if chucking unsupported (and unsupportable)assertions around is your idea of a suitable democratic and political ethic, then you really have no place complaining about others. Just look at Duncan H - capable of putting together good arguments, willing to have a mature discussion about these issues, and respectful of others, but in no more agreement with myself, readingstockport and others than you are.

 

[Sorrel]

Like it or not, our political and legal systems are based on an ethic constructed through the interpretation of religious texts written 2000 or more years ago for the people of the Levant.

Based on a while ago, I know. But also in part based on Roman and Greek efforts that have nothing to do with that.

And more importantly, I feel we have mostly transcended that business now. I'd say that our laws are now based on what you like to call the rationlism of the enlightenment, not religion at all.

Yes, yes established Church of England and all that, but I don't think that lawmaking has been based on whats written in the bible for hundreds of years. It's not comparable with countries that have directly based their laws on religious texts.

 

[fatbadger]

I have to say that the basic ethics of the old testament have clearly informed our legal system. And the Bible was clearly the most influential text in the 18th century, when our 'secular' legal system took on its modern form. There is a classic story told (a lovely, neat, progressivist, liberal version of our past) which likes to claim that the 18th century had dumped the religious ethic in favour of the idea of rational man, but it hadn't - not at all. As historians are beginning to recognise, it is rather the post-Reformation flowering of heterodox religion that is important, not a supposedly orthodox Anglo-catholicism, as has previously been thought. As a very good example, the writings of the great radical Liberals of the late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (and I am thinking mainly of Tom Paine, William Godwin, and Richard Price) are clearly rooted in Unitarian theology.

And that's before we even get into the Christian roots of the idea of the rational man. I don't want to go on about this too much, but the fact that the existence of a Christian God as described in the old testament is the one assumption Descartes allows himself in his famous meditations, is instructive. That rational doubt cannot doubt God is an absolutely fundamental perception of the western philosophy which then grew out of his work. The 'cogito ergo sum' of the rational man and the existence of God together form the basis of post-Enlightenment western thinking.

The same points can be made about Kantian ethical systems - which, as they are explicitly the root of western legal tradition, pertain even more to the argument in hand.

In other words, modern western philosophy (and, as a result, modern western politics) is Christian in form, in ethic and in source.

 

[bhaexpress]

Bit like England then, or any other country for that matter...

Oh no, not at all. I don't know about North Carolina but I have seen some ridiculous things in other places. The legal system is a joke, the Police incredibly stupid, a non existant health system for many, possibly the worst social services, in the Western World, undoubtedly the worst education system in the Western World, a fundermental lack of gun control and religious fundamentalists who are totally out of touch with reality.

There are a few other things, 15% of the population living below the poverty line, 1% of the population in jail (that's about 3000 000 people, higher than any other country in the world). Shall I go on ?

Frankly, it's biggest problem is the insularity of what seems to be the majority of the population. And let's face it, the country is run by a president who didn't even win the election.

Yep, it's pretty f***ed up like I say.

 

[readingstockport]

Duncan H, the basis of all modern mathematics, much of modern medicine and modern day civilisation is in fact rooted in Arabic cultures. The first major civilisation this side of the atlantic was in ancient Mesopotamia, now Iraq IIRC.

All systems have helped to contribute. As someone mentioned Jewish/Christian scriptures are the basis of much of our legal system for which I am gratefull otherwise I'd be down by now I'm sure. But so has Islamic culturer been the basis of much of our most beautiful architecture and art.

If we could get rid of the religion and think rationally then perhaps we would all be better off.

 

[Sorrel]

The 'cogito ergo sum' of the rational man and the existence of God together form the basis of post-Enlightenment western thinking.

Well, I agree with about the roots (as far as Tom Paine, then I'm in the other camp) but even if I agree with you further it still forms the far-distant basis rather than a current day to day involvement. And that is good enough for me to think it's much better than the other options.

If we could get rid of the religion and think rationally then perhaps we would all be better off.

Hey! We agree! Better stop now then.