Matt Rossano on war and religion.

From the Huffington Post:



The War Audit contains 2 tables that rate the amount of religious motivation in major wars prior to the 20th century and major wars of the 20th century. They used 5 components in calculating the role of religion:

- religion as a mobiliser
- religious motivation and discourse by political leaders
- attacks on symbolic religious targets
- conversion goals
- strong support from religious leaders

You're fond of lecturing on confirmation bias - yet you posted this?

WW2 featured 4 of those 5 components and yet the reviewers rated it a 1 on a scale of 0 to 5? Their whole analysis becomes suspect based on just that one war.

And their note on page 17 is blatantly erroneous - it is easy to see by any practical definition of religion that both Stalin and Mao were "gods" with Communism the religion. Clearly the authors of this study had their own agenda.

is a "god" to some wealthy people. There was no supernatural connotation assigned to Stalin or Mao. And BTW, they declared state atheism, they preached state atheism, and they enforced state atheism.

If they were merely enforcing "state atheism", why did they oppress and execute other atheists too?

their same faiths when they were warring the name of their faiths. It takes nothing away from the fact at hand.

You either believe in god, or you don't. Nice try, but you fail... again.

American Atheists has a doctrine. Atheist Alliance has a doctrine. League of Militant Atheists had a doctrine.

This only goes to cement just how little clue you have about atheism and atheists.
:rofl:

I see no reason to continue THIS line of dialogue with that poster.

that you do not know what the following words mean:

atheism
dogma
doctrine

Would you care to show us more words you don't understand?

christians and muslims, as we both agree, went to war based on their belief in their faith. Stalin and Mao did their thing due to an ideology, of which atheism was a tiny footnote.

None of what Stalin or Mao did was in the name of atheism, so I fail to see what your point is.

to The League of Militant Atheists and he hands me a copy of 'the Atheist' newspaper and then he points a gun at me and says that I have to give up my religious practices and be officially an atheist - I guess it must be in the name of guns. Yep. that must be it. Incidentlally, that did happen to millions of people, but as we know, it had nothing to do with atheism.

or was it too, a tiny footnote in the ideology of communism?



But it was nice of you to put up such an easy strawman to knock down.

nt.

I would like to see some evidence of the league of militant atheists being as big a part of communism enforcement as the gestapo was with nazi enforcement, if you please. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and setting up that strawman again.

Daniel Peris in Storming the Heavens The League had 96,000 offices across the USSR in 1941 and 3.5 million members with instruction to eliminate religion in factories, schools, homes and to actively harrass and report anyone interfering or refusing to cooperate. So, I guess at 3.5 million, they would have been about the size of the entire German army. My mistake. Apples and watermelons.

and see how often the term "atheism" appears in the index, and in what context it is mentioned. Then you'll see just how peripheral it was to his politics.

there are now several primary source books from those times available. As far as Stalin biographies, there are many viewpoints on his life and you need to check the author's credentials. But the atheist movement in Russia did not start with Stalin nor end with him. Kruschev, Lenin, and Trotsky played enormous parts.

other then to divert from a point you can't dispute? I've looked at any number of Stalin biographies (all written well after Communism fell, btw, so your attempted diversion is pretty lame), and if you had, you would find the same thing. Why would these biographies be rich in detail on every subject important to an understanding of Stalin except atheism, unless it weren't that important at all?

Your reasoning makes absolutely no sense. A main component of the 5 year plan was to wipe out religion and to fulfill the goal of state atheism.
You've got Peris, and Husband, and William Henry Chamberlin (a primary source),R.J. Rummel, Courtois, etc. These are all PhD's, except Chamberlin, who are experts in their fields.

Seriously, what was your point you were trying to make? Why does it seem you are evading answering this?

pretty much how it go started.

I see the first part, then you added "And BTW, they declared state atheism, they preached state atheism, and they enforced state atheism."

So what was your point in posting that?

are "gods" it needs to be pointed out that they were never considered divine nor supernatural and that they were very committed atheists.

Do you know what it meant when I put the word "gods" in quotes?

Because I really don't think you do.

It seems that you are equating atheism's role in communism to be the same as Christianity's role in the crusades. Is that what you are getting at?

to argue that because no scholarly biography of Stalin talks much about the importance of atheism in his personal life, it probably ISN'T important? You go ahead and believe that all you want.

And yes, religion was suppressed during Stalin's regime, and the religious were persecuted. But the same could be said of everyone and everything that he saw as even remotely a threat to his power and authority, which didn't leave much out. In case you haven't tumbled to it, what Stalin did was all about power and paranoia, not about religion.

Anti-religious activities were a major part of the agenda.

that's what you're missing. Stalin was a totalitarian dictator. He purged generals, intellectuals, artists, anyone he didn't like. That happened to include people of religion, along with people who were atheists. But atheism wasn't the driving force behind Stalin's actions the way religion was the driving force behind the Crusades, for example. Atheism was a side show, just a part of Stalinism, not the core principle. It's not even a core principle of communism; communism is strictly an economic philosophy.

Sure, Marx discusses religion some, but atheism isn't what motivated communism or Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism.

major part of the first 5 year plan.

Was the 5 year plan, and communism in general, implemented to create state atheism, or was state atheism implemented to assist in the imposition of centralized control?

Motive is the issue here. Stalin wasn't motivated by atheism to take over the USSR. Lenin wasn't motivated by atheism to found the USSR. Marx wasn't motivated by atheism to write Das Kapital. Trotsky wasn't motivated by atheism to work with Lenin.

Atheism was a tool, but not a motive.

If you are talking about the attainment or implemetation of some grand plan, atheism was certainly a necessary ingredient in that plan. But there were some very dedicated atheists who had the establishment of state atheism and the destruction of religion as THE primary goal. Communism was the vehicle used to establish state atheism. It allowed no other competitors. Communism was not the substitute for religion, State atheism was.

Communism was not used to establish state atheism, it was the other way around. I know you have this need to believe otherwise, but it's just not so. Plus, you're moving the goal posts now. Sure, there were likely dedicated atheists who were all for spreading their atheism, but that's not the same as the State's making state atheism the preeminent goal of the Soviet Union above communism.

And atheism isn't a substitute for religion in any way, since atheism isn't the opposite of religion. You betray a misunderstanding of some basic concepts here.

You said, "Communism was not used to establish state atheism, it was the other way around." Well, I guarantee that state atheism could not have happened without communism. And I never said it was the preeminent goal, but it was a major goal. And you said that "atheism isn't a substitute for religion in any way, since atheism isn't the opposite of religion." But STATE atheism most certainly did replace STATE religion.

You have not shown that communism was instituted in the USSR to bring about state atheism, as you're claimed. You haven't even shown that it was a "major goal", other than as a tool for consolidating power. It was one of many tools, but for your argument (remember, the one that started all this) to work, atheism has to be the primary goal.

And you still do not understand that religion and atheism are not two sides of the same coin. Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin, but theism is not religion. Religion and secularism are two sides of the same coin, but secularism and atheism are not the same thing. I suggest some reading on these topics.

secondly I have never said that atheism is the opposite of religion, it is you who keep implying that. But state atheism did attempt to replace state religion. The official title of that state atheism was "Scientific Atheism".

As for your cites, you have simply said you read something in a book. How about some quotes? Or some cites that can be verified by someone who doesn't have a library dedicated to proving that atheism was the reason for the existence of the USSR? Besides, some of your cites have already been debunked, so I'm not holding out hope for the rest.

"Communism was not the substitute for religion, State atheism was."

Wrong. Just wrong. Atheism was used with other tools to establish control of a communist system. You've got things completely backwards. At one point, Stalin even allied with the Orthodox Church.

And what, exactly, is "state atheism" as a replacement for religion? Did they have weekly atheist meetings where they discussed atheist dogma? Did they have a creed they had to follow that was something other than "Don't believe in god"? No, they didn't. Millions of Soviet people maintained their religion, because atheism isn't a replacement for religion.

Religion and atheism fill two completely separate niches in society, and the fact that you can't or won't see that is telling.

playing mind games.

:spray::rofl:

that was a hilarious subthread that ended hilariously.

“…, just a part of Stalinism, not the core principle.”

What utter bullshit. READ Engles/Marx, READ the Communist Manifesto, most importantly…READ some freaking history and how the “core principle” played out-

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)



“And this demand that men should be changed into atheists par ordre du mufti is signed by two members of the Commune who have really had opportunity enough to find out that first a vast amount of things can be ordered on paper without necessarily being carried out, and second, that persecution is the best means of promoting undesirable convictions! This much is sure: the only service that can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of faith and to outdo Bismarck’s Kirchenkulturkampf laws by prohibiting religion generally....”
Frederick Engels 1874

“Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.” Karl Marx

“Marxism is materialism. ... We must combat religion - that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of marxism. But marxism is not a materialism that has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion” (Lenin, 1909, Ibid).

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Seeing as you are unable to even get the title of Peris' book right, I can only assume that you also cherry-picked and got wrong actual facts about this "league", so......

"The League's lack of success, argues Peris, reflects the bureaucratic orientation of Bolshevik political culture..."


"Set up in 1925, the League was, in Peris's words, a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort to persuade Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and harmful, and that good citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview."

http://www.amazon.com/Storming-Heavens-Soviet-Militant-Godless/dp/0801434858


http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5022




Yep, you totally misrepresent his findings, as I thought. It looks like a good book, and I have added it to my "to read" list.



So, what was your point in bringing this up anyway?

BTW, Godless and Atheist are the same word in Russian - "Bezbozhnik", And yes they never were totally successful in wiping out religion because they were competing with several other groups. There are several other books that lend credence to Peris.

christians have been at that game a long time, my friend. You need new material.

and for the record, it may be the same word in russian (I don't really know as I don't speak russian) but the words godless and atheist have two very different meanings, especially when taken in context.


SO again, what was your original point by bringing this up?

So, I guess at 3.5 million, they would have been about the size of the entire German army.

Huh? 4.5 million Axis, mostly German, troops were involved in one single operation - the invasion of Russia on 22 June 1941. That doesn't include thousands of German occupation troops scattered throughout Europe, the Afrika Korps, etc. etc.

Near as I can find, about 12.5 million men were conscripted into the German army alone (i.e., the Wehrmacht-Heer) before and during WWII.

And...

Of course religion never has anything to do with war! Why would anyone EVER believe that? Perish the very thought!

For example, take a look at these jolly fellows - members of the 13th Waffen-SS Division "Handschar." They were all volunteers - mostly Bosnian Muslims, who signed up for Heinrich Himmler's dark shadow army to the German Wehrmacht, the Waffen-SS.

That book they are reading seems to be entitled - "Islam and Judaism:"

What part of your post to me above was sarcasm?

n/t

yet you could not be further from the truth of the matter.

Why no French Revolution this time?

human beings at war with other humans for whatever reason.

There are some things on this planet that have a long and bloody history of exacerbating the nastier parts of our "nature". Religion is most definitely one of them.

If you want more peace, does it make rational sense to start by getting rid of the one thing that the largest number of people have in common?

What about math and phsyics? Those are the same for everyone, not just one seventh of the world's population as in the case of Islam and Catholicism.

What does math have to do with preventing war? Nothing. What has Catholicism done to prevent the long and bloody history of Latin America? What has Islam done prevent wars in the areas where most folks are Muslim?

It is this tendency of religion to exacerbate group-think, to foment the in-group/out-group mentality, and to manufacture new factions frequently that is at the very heart of religious conflict.

What a load of horseshit.

therefore its potential for peace may be far greater than what many have imagined

So how many more millenia should we give it? If religion is the bee's knees, why hasn't it given us worldwide peace yet? Secularism and the enlightenment have advanced peace and equality almost INFINITELY more in the past ~200 years than religion had in the 5000+ before it.

the ultimate REMF (Rear Echelon Motherfucker).

Who or what gave this blowhard the right to define what constitutes a "truly" religious or religion-motivated war? It seems utter crap that, in order to be a "truly" religious war, a conflict must hit the perfect jackpot of all five components when even one of them easily shows the war was religious in nature.

It is such a laughable argument that my first reaction was to wonder why Mr. Rossano put it out there to begin with, and then I read to the end. Rossano's point isn't about war, but about atheism. It is yet another simple "atheists are wrong" piece, this time concluding that:

It's wrong to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and besides, the bathwater isn't that bad anyway. Of course, if we keep with the baby analogy, Rossano ignores that the baby is actually a Gremlin, and also that it has shit repeatedly in the bathwater.

For instance, you ask: Who or what gave this blowhard the right to define what constitutes a "truly" religious or religion-motivated war?

But even a cursory reading of the column tells you that he is basing this on what is stated in the study that he refers to; and, yes, the study itself makes this claim while at the same time stating that the purpose of the study is not to make any final determination, but to encourage discussion. And, the audit report itself was created at the request of the BBC. As to claims about religious wars, his column is, at least partly, in response to recent claims made about the relationship between religion and war, and his reference to the audit explicitly states that, as far as he can find, this is the only attempt to quantify the matter. His discussion of the topic could also easily be credited as a response to the request made in the study.


As to your conclusion: Rossano's point isn't about war, but about atheism. It is yet another simple "atheists are wrong" piece, ...

I'm not sure what you base that on. His final paragraph doesn't seem to draw any strong conclusions at all, but rather, to end with a suggested possibility:



Your name-calling, defensive response to a such a non-adversarial column is rather silly.

That Rossano got his information on war from another source doesn't change the fact that the rating system used, the 5 components pulled out of the air, is asinine. It also doesn't change the fact that his conclusion is simply "we shouldn't throw out religion." This is in direct contrast, purposely so, to arguments from atheists like Dawkins who state that religion should be done away with entirely due to its record. This article, no matter how you spin it, is Rossano's attempt at refutation of Dawkins, and he does a very poor job of it.

To sum up, though you may take offense to it, my derision is well founded. Rossano's article is unoriginal, fails on many points, and sets up a false premise designed to allow him a vapid, speculative conclusion that most certainly hasn't been borne out by history.

relation to religion and other driving forces leading to them. As with any such study there is, as the authors state a degree of subjectivity to conclusions reached.

at least, and maybe as high as 30 million? It was a war started by a man who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus in China, and tried to establish a Christian theocracy in the 19th century.

Not to mention that, even before Christianity or Islam were used to justify wars of aggression, even people such as Caesar partially justified conquering the Gauls based on their "horrific" religious practices in Druidism. Not to mention many contemporary and future writers of the Roman Empire. Whether human sacrifice was widespread in the Gauls' population and culture is a matter of dispute now, and Roman sources aren't considered reliable. Where would that fit on this scale? It wouldn't be a zero, that's for sure.

They included 77 wars in their study. I'm sure that different studies would come up with different numbers of wars. The one thing they do say in their report is that other studies woould come up with other numbers; but they believe the trend is unmistakeable.

If people want to make claims about religion being a major cause of war, then there need to be studies done so that some type of qunatitative analysis can be done. Rossano said he is unaware of any other studies on this specific topic. It definitely needs more study.

Its believed to be the the deadliest war of the 19th century.

It didn't fit the conclusion they wanted to make - and that others so readily wanted to gobble up to support their own confirmation bias: that religion is a Good Thing™ and atheists who have anything negative to say about it need to STFU.

you now have 44 0f 74, not much of a change is it?

You're right, it's absolutely nothing.

those 20,000,000, it did not account for "secular" wars that it didn't consider religious in nature. In the 20th century alone around 130 million died in the "secular" civil wars in Russia, China, South Asia, and the East European countries.

start your own topic line, if you want to respond to my point then do so without trying to change the discussion to a different one. The point of discussion is the occurrence of wars and and its relation to religious and other causes, not the size of casualty estimates, their duration or outcomes. Nice try on the appeal to emotions though, good touch.

No amount of deflection back to me is gonna change that. Nice try though.

topic line. I dismiss nothing that is relevant to the subject at hand. Twenty dead or Twenty million dead or twenty billion dead is not the issue, the NUMBER OF WARS is the issue and 5/74 or 6/75 does not make a significant change in the percentage of wars by cause.

Now I've got both of you spun up. I truly feel the love of Christ emanating from both of you exemplary Christians. :rofl:

being discussed here.

Don't forget that this entire idea of redefining past wars out of the realm of "religious" is specious and based on a false premise.

opinion you may have or any study you may find to support your belief. That is the point of the whole article and the study to generate debate by looking at their conclusions and pointing out what seems correct and what seems incorrect. Each and everyone who will discuss the study or comment on its methods or conclusions will have their on bias to consider also, that is just the way it is when you try to be as objective as you can on a very subjective and emotional issue for some people.

The article is merely an offering in a larger debate about religion itself, and it is an argument created in a facile attempt to defend religious belief from its detractors. It is an unoriginal and completely specious failure.

Now, let's see if we can make some sense out of this sentence:You clearly are misunderstanding the idea of bias, considering that objectivity is, basically, the attempt to eliminate and mitigate bias. Reading what you've written here points me to only one conclusion: That if you personally feel strongly about a subject, you will brook no argument because you will consider other views to be just as biased as your own. So because you are incapable of looking at certain subjects objectively, that means others cannot do so? That is a laughable excuse to gripe at people when you don't agree with them and then throw your hands up and shield yourself behind the idea of "this is what I believe" when you don't like the criticism you receive in return. It is in no way different than the behavior of those who deny we went to the moon. :eyes:

you display in your remarks. What I do fail to understand is why you seem to have no idea that you just prove my point, your bias is unmistakable but you make no attempt to try to look at the issue objectively but cry your religiphobia from the rooftops for all to hear and then try to preach to me about my problem with bias. I do believe that it was you that I said were being intellectually dishonest before and I must correct that statement, you are without a doubt the most intellectually dishonest person that it has been my misfortune to encounter here.

Now, if you want intellectual dishonesty, inspect the article, its referenced study, and your own defense of same.

"Now go 'way, I say go 'way, boy, ya' bother me..."

that number more than all religious war totals combined. Amazing.

Eventually you'll make that one lone note you know into a symphony. Or not. :shrug:

in the world is religion, I am absolutely convinced of that." This study pretty much refutes ignorant statements such as Hitchens made and this seems to be a recurring theme in New Atheism's continued battle against religion. The fact is that human beings and human extremism are the constant in all wars, not religion by any means.

If people want to make the case that religion is a major cause of war, they need more than anecdotal evidence.

You're as paranoid about atheists as this guy is about homosexuals.

Spent the better part of a week engaged with scholars who believe that religions began as a mechanism to limit human violence, rather than causing it. In this way, religion is founded on violence (as is all of human culture)...violence causes religion, not the other way around. But because religion is always "hanging around" in situations of violence, people like Hitchens see cause and effect where there is none. Hitchens has yet to deal with his own violence feelings toward religion.

and insulting to any decent human being, Christopher Hitchens doesn't accord religions any respect, so he's automatically has "violence feelings" towards it. You have a funny definition of violence.

and the reasons for its origin leave no archaeological traces, exactly what evidence were these scholars basing their discussions on? Or did they just cherry-pick religions that they thought they could get to conform to their preconceived pet theory?

And please, what actions of violence has Hitchens taken against religion? Has he murdered any religious folk because they believe differently than he does? Has he destroyed any houses of worship? Has he beaten to death any homosexuals because his anti-theistic worldview compels him to?

To say that there is no cause and effect between religion and violence is just so idiotic that I can't even conceive your thinking.

Secondly, Religion causes nothing. Human fanaticism and extremism are the constant in all such events.

ridiculous beliefs.

assumptions about organized atheism are probably correct. Nothing more needs to be said.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/ - one of many.

We took Gawd out of the schools, now we want Gawd out of everything so we can fuck and then eat all the babies we want.

Maybe just eat. We should leave the baby-fucking to the pros on the other side...

that are so reprehensible that they deserve to be hated. Do you not think that the practice of protecting and abetting child rapists by the Catholic church is deserving of hatred? Or the beating to death of homosexuals by stalwart Christian fundamentlists? In any case, I asked you to cite violent actions by Hitchens, and you ducked the request completely. You couldn't even cite a single case where Hitchens urged someone else to physically harm someone because they were religious, so I think we can consider your position intellectually bankrupt (feel free to move the goalposts now).

And if religion "causes nothing", why do we need it? Why does it even exist? Why are we wasting so much money on cathedrals and choirs and ministers, when they accomplish zero? Think about it a little and you'll realize how idiotic your statement is.

had been violent, but he does have MANY followers. How many hate-mongers have advocated without lifting a hand themselves? And if you say that religion causes the world's problems, then history shows that most wars are not caused by religion. Therefore, it can be said that non-religion causes most wars and problems. Hitchens admits to being a Marxist, a Trotskyite, a Leninist, and a bolshevik. Now it might be just me, but there may be some connection between his attitude and his actions. No one, nor any political mindset/philosophy, has ever been responsible for the deaths of more people than that one.

I asked you the following direct questions:

Do you not think that the practice of protecting and abetting child rapists by the Catholic church is deserving of hatred? Or the beating to death of homosexuals by stalwart Christian fundamentalists?

If religion "causes nothing", why do we need it? Why does it even exist? Why are we wasting so much money on cathedrals and choirs and ministers, when they accomplish zero?

And you answered none of them. Hope you enjoy the 24th 1/2 Century.

Do you want to tell me that the idea that "Jews killed Jesus" (which is STILL preached today) isn't a cause of death. Sure sounds like it to me. If religion wasn't the cause of hatred and violence why have Jews been persecuted over and over again as murders of the "messiah'?
Statements like this make me think of the caucasion who says that racism doesn't exist anymore because they've never seen it..:banghead:

would beg to differ.

Here's an idea. Show the rest of us any time or place in history where an atheist group committed mass murder OUTSIDE of a Communist power structure.

Seriously, you keep bringing out that number for shock value, and yet I haven't seen it sourced.

really were not the issue at all? Got it.

Even members of the Young Pioneers, the Komsomol's junior branch for ten to fourteen-year-olds, might be targeted for attack.

In the Rossosh district of central Russia, a stronghold of religious sectarianism and monarchism, Pioneers were subject to regular harassment by religious believers who "call the Pioneer tie 'the Devil's noose' and consider that it is a sin to wear it."

In 1935, a group of adult believers ambushed some Young Pioneers as they were coming back from a Pioneer club at midnight:

"The sectarians, dressed all in white, fell on the Pioneers, drove them into the ravine and didn't let them out for more than half an hour. Arepev (the sectarians' leader) seized Pioneer K.I. Loboda and tore off his clothes and threw stones at the others and broke the head of one of them."--Sheila Fitzpatrick, Everyday Stalinism

(Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the source of the quoted material, in the book's 37 pages of footnotes.)

For the record, Fitzpatrick always uses this name for our favorite group: "League of Militant Godless."

Interestingly, the League reported it had "files full of letters" from clergymen who would have been happy to renounce the cloth, but they simply couldn't find another job. The Communist-run employment bureaus turned the clergy down flat when they applied for other work.

The League of Militant Godless objected to this postition, and suggested that the former Official Miracle Workers be given SOME kind of job, even if it was manual labor. Just for the good P.R., apparently.

Somebody will probably accuse Fitzpatrick of "knowing nothing about modern Russian history." Before doing so, be advised that she teaches that very subject at the University of Chicago, and has written umpteen books and articles about it.

And there was no League of Militant Christians. And as far as priests renouncing their priesthoods, about 20,000 of them had been executed up to that point. So, that's really no big surprise.

:rofl:

Since you are such an expert, I'm sure you're familiar with the Russian movie director Nikita Mikhalkov. The two of you seem to have a lot in common. Mikhalkov is something of a nostalgic Czarist/monarchist and theologically, a deeply devout Russian Orthodox conservative.

He's most famous for his 1994 Oscar-winning, commercially successful anti-Stalin flick Burnt By The Sun. Worth watching just for the scenes of the T-26 tank plowing thru a wheat field, but I digress.

But I think your favorite Mikhalkov film - and mine! - would be his documentary Anna. Though for vastly different reasons.

Anna is Mikhalkov's daughter. From age 6 until age 17, every year on Anna's birthday, Mikhalkov turned on a camera and asked her the same questions: What do you love the most? What do you hate the most? What scares you the most? What do you want more than anything right now? What do you expect from life? What does the homeland mean to you?

Mikhalkov makes a big show of "secretly" filming and mentions that he could be arrested. But we also notice that he drives to his luxurious private dacha in a Mercedes-Benz. Under Communism or democracy, he belonged to the elites and it shows.

At age 6, Anna's greatest fear is a witch, she hates borscht and more than anything, she wants a pet crocodile. Mikhalkov's somewhat belabored and ham-handed point is to show how his child changed once she got under the thumb of the State school system. By the teen years, her greatest fear is nuclear war, she hates warmongers, and she wants "world peace" more than anything. And she's spouting rote anti-Western propaganda.

Which is just a mirror image of any American child subjected to the same experiment, I would bet.

But Mikhalkov has another agenda to push - at one point he says in the narration: "Russia had everything...(dramatic pause)...except God."

Ironically (IIRC), he says this while showing footage of a Czarist-era parade, with icons of Jesus, St. George and the Czar being trundled thru the streets. Just a few years later, the people would be marching with similar huge icons of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Mikhalkov doesn't mention this irony.

He also doesn't bother to mention the glaringly obvious - that for 50 years, the most God-soaked nation on earth, One Nation Under Jesus, America-Fuck-Yeah, was a heartbeat away from vaporizing Russia.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106290/

It seems, after reading through this thread, there is a fundamental point that keeps us from true, deep understanding. It keeps us warring like children in here, and the only reason this childish war is not escalated into the great atrocious wars waged every day by our societies, is lack of personal power - I don’t have the armies and guns to kill you, we don’t have the personal power to kill, to force our beliefs on each other.

What is this fundamental misunderstanding? Is it not that we confuse war, the external, with belief, the internal? We want to assign, in this thread and in our lives, religious differences, political difference, philosophical differences to the external wars. Thereby we are tantalized by the external and never see deeply the internal, our minds, which are confused, hateful, mistrusting, unloving.

The true epic battle, and this is where Hitchens falls a few steps shy, is within each of us each day, whether we are Christians or Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Communists or Capitalists. It is the war between fear, which is denying who we are, and belief, which is the identification with, the clinging to something greater to give us a concept of security. Surely this concept of security is unprecedented, is it not? It is unprecedented that war, driven by believe, whether religious, political, economic or otherwise, the horrific bloody, Godless destruction of fellow humans, whether a single man, or hundreds of thousands or men, women and children, has never brought peace. Has it? We have been told, and each time we go to war, we are told again that this will bring peace. Rome was told this, the British empire, the capitalist empire, Ottomans, Muslims, Jews, on and on, have told themselves the do this out of belief to end war and create peace. Has it happened? Will it ever? How long before we see the truth of this?

So, just as Stalin and Lenin, and Churchill, Hitler, Roosevelt, Bush, Obama, Bin Laden and Blair, et al, destroy each other and countless others in our name, with our blessing, we, based on our beliefs, destroy each other in these forums, or at work, or in our schools or in our home life. Why? Is it because we have not seen the true nature of belief and what it causes both internally, within us, and externally, whether down the street or across the seas? Quite certainly, it is.

The question then becomes: why this need in us to tether to a belief, this need for inner security that causes us to formulate and cling to childish notions, childish arguments and ideas, regardless of how beautifully orated, and thereby deny ourselves, who we really are, which is a hateful, fearful, warring species, both internally through belief, and externally through war? Why is this so hard for the individual to face? After all, if we as individuals face our longing for belief deeply and directly, see the truth of who we are, war ends. Don’t believe it? We don’t have to believe it. We just have to see the truth of it and watch what happens.

I agree that humans are a war-like species. I don't see how, if we accept that, war ends. Care to elaborate?

Thanks for the reply, Jim.

If we agree or disagree with something it is merely modified belief, right? I agree with someone and quote them, you agree with someone else and quote them. Our beliefs are at odds, we kill each other. Or, I agree with the Buddha, I quote from him. You agree with Christ, or the Bible, and quote it. Or, strangely, we both, let's say, agree with the Bible, and each quote contradictions from it, thereby in a twisted, splintered sect of belief, at odds, thus war. Isn't this childish? Why is it so difficult for us to see things for ourselves?

Why do we rely on others to see it for us, to tell us about it, so we can accept or reject it, quote them and believe it? Is it because we are not taught to see truth? From an early age, from birth we are taught to accept, to believe, to agree or disagree to find external facts and figures about what others say the truth is, and we are never taught to see the truth of ourselves, for ourselves, without identification or condemnation of it. Why? Is it not because society does not want the individual to see truth, and we as individuals are too lazy and disinterested, fearful and merely wanting comfort, to be pacified like infants?

To see something deeply, directly, we don't have to agree with it. When the truth is seen, we no longer have to believe in something outside of ourselves, which is the nature of war – the denial of who we are (fear) and the desire for security from that fear (belief), projected externally. Seeing this directly, seeing the fear and hatred in ourselves for ourselves, without quoting someone, without identification or condemnation (belief), no longer tethers us to a belief, which externally causes war. So the problem we have is that we agree or disagree, thus perpetuate belief, thus war.

Isn't war a leap of faith?, and one that is, at this point, unprecedented to create peace? When no longer tethered by belief, whether economic, political, philosophical, religious, or otherwise, to see the fallacy of all belief, how could we blindly go along with the collective to perpetuate war, which we have all done for millennia on the mistaken, unprecedented, fallacious belief that there is security at the end of war? That process, warring over belief, ends, instantly, because belief is no longer required as part of the human psyche.

Wars are fought over resources. Sad as that is, we are well-advised not to ignore it, or we may well find ourselves on the losing end of a war. So, are we condemned to continue to fight wars? Maybe. If people are warlike, then it's doubtful that we can overcome our own nature. However, we may be able to constrain the deadliness of the wars we fight. At least that's some place to start.

Thank you for the statement, Jim! I truly feel we are blessed right now, because we have a chance to see the truth directly, together. It seems like we are truly getting somewhere. We get to see war, the nature of it fundamentally, right here inside us, right now, not tomorrow overseas with all the bombs, bullets, blood and gore, and not waiting for someone else's theory of truth, a savior to guide us all like sheep into a peaceful land. But as individuals, we get to see the nature of belief, thus end war. Wanna help? ;-)

You stated: "Wars are fought over resources. Sad as that is, we are well-advised not to ignore it, or we may well find ourselves on the losing end of a war."

First, it is disagreement, or agreement, itself that is the nature of humanity, not the war, which is only a projection of what we are internally, you, and I, and our neighbors. Those resources reveal economic interests. Those economic interests are driven by beliefs: belief that one's nation will not survive without murdering, destroying another nation's people over resources. So, the belief that human life, the individual must be sacrificed for resources, economics is still the crux. Or, the bigger fallacy that we have to protect our resources, thus murder and maim for security, protectionism, changing the Ministry of War to the Department of Defense are the clever phrases and tactics we use as a society to lull us as individuals into fighting, acceptance, denial. These are all beliefs. What is at the core of all these beliefs? Not the grand grotesque core of war, but the core of the beliefs themselves? It is important, again, for us to see this for ourselves, deeply. Without this we are just caught up into semantics about what belief is any is not.

At the core of belief, whether economic (resource) interests, or religious, cultural, philosophical, and the like, at the very core is this desire for psychological security. We have never seen, as individuals that the quest for physical security, whether based in religion or economics (resources), does not bring about this inward psychological security. Because, when we murder others to take their resources, we then have to murders others to keep from taking them from us. The attempt at a belief inwardly, based on the fear of who we are as individuals, projects into war, which shows the very contradiction of belief - we are less secure because of war than without it.

We seem to justify war, based on whatever belief we have of the day - today it is economic ("resources"), yesterday it was religion, before that philosophy, tomorrow it will be the next favorite flavor. At the core of it is that we seek security through belief, and in doing so destroy ourselves as individuals, though, in America, at least for now, the guns are largely pointed the other way.

This: "or we may well find ourselves on the losing end of a war," is the very concept that perpetuates war internally and externally, not as the nature of man, but in action, by us, in our minds as individuals today, right here in this moment, not on a battlefield tomorrow, not waiting for some great orator, diplomat, or religious guru to show us the way out. Thought like ours above, based on childish belief that someone else told us, conclusions we have drawn out to form our own beliefs, perpetuates our own war in man today, not tomorrow. Does this make sense? Is it possible to see this fundamentally, within ourselves and thereby end war? The biggest leap of faith here, after all, is the belief that war creates security. In fact, that is a fallacy, proven so over and over again, since the dawn of time. When we were children we saw the glaring fallacy of this, right? Why is it so difficult, seemingly impossible for us to to see today, as adults? Is it because we are no longer individuals? That is the true saddness here, the fundamental loss of individuality, not the bloody thirsty killing of others for our own lust and greed.

Although a peripheral topic, there seems to be glaring fallacies in the discussion of economic interests, ie: resources. They are the goal, resources? Security and happiness through resources is what causes us to kill our men, women and children? Then, what does America spend 3/4 of its resources on today? Education, love, and happiness for the individual? Nope, defense, which, again, we knew as children, is a euphemism for war. And, that is just today, and what is revealed by the numbers on the face of the defense budget, not what actually goes on with diplomacy at the state department and their budgets/resources and homeland defense budget/resources, and these departments' clear perpetuation of war. Didn't the US State Department argue in front of the United Nations to go to war a few years ago? Oh, and the supplemental spending bills (more euphemisms) are not factored into those budgets, either. See my point that the 3/4 number, as sad and sick as it is, ever reveals that we are no longer individuals but rather sacrifical lambs for resources, for economics, for war, even skewed downward? So, our belief in resources, protecting our "global interests" is silly, laughable, when we see what we actually do with these resources, right? We simply spend them to make more war. Again, this was peripheral, but I thought it was worth a chuckle or two for both of us. Cheers!

Wanted to respond to some of the points you raised in #106- #119 but didn’t wish to interrupt your conversation with Jim.

Overall…find myself in agreement with the tone and tenor of your posts…….and wondering a couple of things…

You said in #119-
“Those economic interests are driven by beliefs: belief that one's nation will not survive without murdering, destroying another nation's people over resources. So, the belief that human life, the individual must be sacrificed for resources, economics is still the crux. Or, the bigger fallacy that we have to protect our resources, thus murder and maim for security,…”

I’m not at all convinced that “…economic interests are driven by beliefs: belief that one's nation will not survive without murdering,…”.
‘Economic interests’ strike me as being (at a personal/family/national) level as far more primal and fundamental than ‘beliefs’ (ideologies/philosophies/religions)
The basic ‘Economic interests’ is that I/we should be able to eat…and whoever restrains/debars such primal economic interest is inviting (or should expect) inevitable conflict.
The ability to maintain food resources is now inextricably linked to energy resources…cut off a nations oil and you directly curb their access to food/prosperity. (See US oil embargo on Japan prior to WWII).
Leads me to- “…the bigger fallacy that we have to protect our resources”.

Well….I don’t think that is a “fallacy”…I believe we do “have to protect our resources”…. But I also believe that we have to protect everyones resources…in fact the only way of protecting our resources is to guarantee everyones resources.

In fact I would extend this mutual resource security obligation to include the resource of ‘peace’.
‘The Peace Dividend’- the end to the obscene and wasteful expenditure (financial, intellectual, material) on arms and armaments (that you refer to in your prior posts) can only be achieved in mutual security.

If there is a binding treaty/covenant/agreement among nations that all would unite to oppose acts of territorial/economic aggression….then no nation need maintain current obscene ‘defence’ expenditure.

You have added a great deal to enrich this conversation; much appreciated!

I want to be clear about the fallacy, because it has all manner of manifestation, internally as well as externally, and it is my fault that we lost focus on the heart it; and I thank you for, at least indirectly, pointing it out.

The core fault in thinking here, the fundamental fallacy is this: that identification of any kind, in fact anything external, be it God, or war, resources or beliefs, cures psychological insecurity, inward fear.

This inward insecurity can be revealed to us by viewing the external (war, being the grossest form) but it cannot be solved externally – at least it has not in thousands of years of trying the same things. We look at ourselves, from birth till now, and we are afraid, with no sense of individuality, no sense of freedom, nothing rings true and clear to us, year after year, pummel and pounded with contradictory opinions and beliefs, sensate values take precedence, and we are lost, void of love, fearful, insecure. In this process, over the years, we acquire belief, either internally through ideas, or through external things that we mold into our own - propaganda like "we have to protect our resources, or we may die," or the latest, shiniest motor cars and the biggest best looking diamond ring. Meaningless things like this, which is reveal our own inward death, our own emptiness, our own internally wellspring of “resources” as individuals that has run dry. It was easy to see this, very easy, as children. But, what were we told? That we were naïve? That we had no choice, the lesser of two evils? We were told that two wrongs don’t make a right, but we were shown death and destruction, by our own hands, on the nightly news, amid commercials showing us the most base values, and how acquisition of these things would “change our lives.”

So, we got lost on what is and what is not a "resource" or a belief? The point is not what are these things externally, but what need does the war, the destruction, the murder serve us internally, inside ourselves, our own minds. So, it is more fundamental, more radical than the external. The external just provides us a path to see who we are internally, inwardly, deeply who we are as an individual within a species.

If I may respectfully point out, there is a fallacy about the agreement, the saving armistice you propose. It is the nature of the country, of the border, of the currency, of the mine and yours, us and them, the very nature of it that creates war, is it not? The agreement you propose, tried many times in many forms, only furthers this, only strengthens the me and the mine, right? It has been tried, forever, in a foolish attempt to end war. Never seeing that it strengthens isolation, the attempt to be psychologically secure through killing, it does not, the agreement, the truce, alleviate psychological insecurity. After all, we agree, all nations agreed (similar to post WWII "agreements") but I don't trust, I am inwardly insecure, as an individual, and for my countrymen externally, patriotically. I must make covert concessions to insulate myself, just in case, my fearful mind will not let it be. You take the same covert actions. We both secretly stockpile, and fund the outlying skirmishes, as if clever, but really rather childishly. And we are slowly back into the same thing, having never fundamentally ended: war. Sound familiar? It should. This happened for decades during the cold war, and cost billions in precious "resources," and countless lives. Those lives are now forgotten, there bloody corpses drug into ditches to rot for their parents to see and smell, and the resources are now spent many times over, and on what? More destruction of individuals. Why? For more resources....... See a circle, as bloody and brutal and nonesensical as it is?

The fallacy is seeking something external, whether through war or world truce, to cure inward insecurity, fear. That we must be clear about, very deeply, within us, if we are to end war, which again is just a external representation of who we are inside: fearful, violent, accepting, surrendering, lonely, hated. War is just an external reflection of those things.

So, please, this is not to argue, but to discover. Can the mind that thinks: I must guard, I must protect, I must murder, so I don't lose my resources, or my peace, or my family, or my beliefs, so that I don’t lose ever know peace, whether internal peace, or "peace on earth"? Can our minds, structured such as they are, strengthened in this wickedness over thousands of years of evolution, ever know peace, thus end war? It is this very structure of thought that must collapse and be abandoned, for war to end. Once the bombs start falling, it is too late to fix the external, which is where this discussion seemed stalled, prior to a few days ago. In short, the house is on fire, we can’t save it now; we must see the truth! Easy as children, so so difficult as adults.

Thank you again for jumping in; please do so anytime!

in application…in the real world…I’m not convinced….or at least, have not heard how you believe the transition can be achieved.

Your post/s appear to be calling for a re alignment in thinking, a change in cosmology a move from “psychological insecurity, inward fear” ….and I’m all for that. And I’m interested to know by what means and mechanisms such a transition could be made.

In the interim “insecurity and fear” may arise (individually or nationally) from false perceptions of danger/threat (“Crime is getting worse/They have WMD’s)…or it may arise from real and present danger.

I do not desire to see the police force disbanded unless and until the crimes that provoke much “psychological insecurity, inward fear” are eradicated.
In like manner many international issues require some form of ‘policing’ and that role cannot be conducted by the US or an ineffective/toothless UN.


“If I may respectfully point out, there is a fallacy about the agreement, the saving armistice you propose. It is the nature of the country, of the border, of the currency, of the mine and yours, us and them, the very nature of it that creates war, is it not?”

Certainly the very “mine and yours, us and them” notions you describe are major contributors to conflict…and >if< you are advocating a world in which our primary identification is ‘Human’ and ‘American, Chinese, Christian, Muslim’ all become secondary to that recognition of common humanity…I’m all for that. But ;-)
We are some distance therefrom conceptually and in practice…and there remain those who will seek to take what is ‘yours’ and make it ‘theirs’. Locally or internationally that requires both policeing and justice. (ie. Are you aware that prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the Kuwait Govt (assisted by US companies) had been ‘Diagonal Drilling’ (from Kuwait and under Iraq) to extract Iraqi oil? The Iraqi’s complained to every international agency from the Arab League to the UN…nobody did a thing. It doesn’t justify the invasion of Kuwait…but it sure puts it in a different light).

“The agreement you propose, tried many times in many forms,…..”

I beg to differ…we have never had a global treaty such as the one proposed.
Certainly there have been many treaties tried, some successful some failures.
But there has never been a global agreement that should one nation attack another the all nations would arise to restrain the aggressor.

“… only furthers this, only strengthens the me and the mine, right?”

No….I don’t believe so. Such a treaty/agreement would serve to reinforce (conceptually and practically) that we are all in this together and that no nation, no matter how powerful, can get away with attacking/intimidating smaller nations.

“It has been tried, forever, in a foolish attempt to end war.”

It has been instigated as an ideal at the end of WWI…it has grown and evolved since then…it has bogged down in an ineffectual and unrepresentative UN Security Council….but no….such a global treaty has never been tried/implemented.

“…the same covert actions.”

Yup…such nasty “covert actions” have long gone on and are likely to continue (though historically there are few great success stories…and it is interesting to note that the first Interim President supplied by the US for Iraq was a good buddy of the guy who sold the WMD bullshit to the world…one or both agents of Iran ;-)

“The fallacy is seeking something external, whether through war or world truce, to cure inward insecurity, fear. That we must be clear about, very deeply, within us, if we are to end war, which again is just a external representation of who we are inside: fearful, violent, accepting, surrendering, lonely, hated. War is just an external reflection of those things.”

Ok……I’m not at all convinced that external measures cannot/donot/willnot curb violence/crime/war …but I will take the hypothetical on board and invite-
sell me the “cure” for “inward insecurity, fear” ;-)

“It is this very structure of thought that must collapse and be abandoned, for war to end.”

How?

“In short, the house is on fire, we can’t save it now; we must see the truth!”

;-)
Are you familiar with the history of the development of the Municipal Fire Brigade? Fire Brigades originally belonged to businesses/companies and would either turn up to a fire and put it out because it threatened company interests, go away because the fire was unrelated to company interests or physically fight with other Fire Brigades over conflicting interests/responsibilities.
We didn’t abandon the idea of the Fire Brigade…we recognised its faults and shortcomings and obliged them to evolve into a collective/community (treaty ;-) pact against fire….ALL would be protected.

There is certainly smoke coming from the house/planet… but I do not believe “we can’t save it now”
;-)

I like your meaty/thoughtful and thought provoking posts…hope I am doing your central points justice…let me know if I’m missing anything crucial.

...to be convinced, to agree or disagree, as then this is all mere argumentation, more belief, which is meaningless. Arguments have been formulated for thousands of years, beliefs circle around and around us and inside us, just like the little mobile toys in our cribs way back when, arguments either to end or perpectuate war, and they have never worked. The key is to see the truth for ourselves. No one can give that to us.

How do we do this, you ask? LOL! I'm sorry, but that is really what we all want, right? That was very poignant, direct and honest, your question, in light of some of this discussion, forgive me. That was laughter also at myself, at all human beings. What the human mind, this fearful, warring entity of death and destruction wants is to be pacified, right? We want someone else, either a savior or politician or economist to take us by the hand and lead us away to peace, so we can get along with our real plans: selfish desire, satisfaction, gratification. We want someone else to do it for us, and to show us the way. Why? So we can reject or deny, and argue it on CNN? Seriously, how, you ask? The writer has been telling you how. We, each of us, must see this truth, what the writer has been stating, for ourselves, the truth!, which no one, dear one, gives to us.

Real quick - I know, fat chance with me, right :)

There was one word you used that I cannot get off my mind. It is crucial, if we are at all serious in ending the war within ourselves, thus ending war, instantly, today, among our fellows: binding.

It is very important what you ask here, to be bound, rolled up like kittens, to be forced, like children. Is this not what we seek from our inventions of saviors, and our superstitions?, of our petty notions of God? Is that not what we really want, to be forced like children, or force others, like sheep, by a guru, a religious hero or saintly, divinely-inspired leader? Is this not, moreover, what we have done inwardly, to ourselves -bound ourselves, our individuality, our sense of truth, of goodness and rightness, by childish beliefs, perpetuated infinitely, from generation to generation?

At the end of our days, we see some of this and look back on it all and see the futility, the mistakes, the horror. But, it is too late, we have already set in motion another generation; our children and grandchildren, each generation carrying the torch of these lies more brightly, cleverly, cunningly, yet more brutally and godlessly than the previous.

To be bound; swaddled in plush blankets by our petty agreements to rope off the me and mine from the you and the yours. To be put to sleep? Is that a requirement, as adults in this world? To remove our freedom to act as adult humans, whether into an agreement, a truce, or inwardly, to ignore truth? Or, is the solution quite the contrary: freedom? To be free from the boundaries and bondage of belief, our restraint, tethered to childish notions, religious or otherwise, and the bloody projection of it in our lives, everyday, moment by moment? To see the truth, and the freedom that comes from this? Is this not the requirement, not bondage? There is no savior to force us like children, to bind us, and to referee the whole thing. After all, who would burp this baby? We have to see the truth ourselves, deeply, and in that freedom we witness war's end.