We are in hell by now. No, we are not going to hell, but we are already there it seems.
Let me explain what I mean by this: I happen to teach comparative religion and one of the things I’ve noticed while giving my lectures is how in every major religious system of the world there seems to be consensus over what hell is meant to look like. In the religious iconography of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists we see the same pictorial depiction that infernal place. In many of them the image of hell is that of a place of universal torment, with individuals suffering for eternity. What is interesting to note in these images is the fact that the torment of each individual seems to be a very private suffering that is not shared by the others, for each is suffering on his or her own.
Seen metaphorically, hell marks the breakdown of communication; the impossibility of reaching out to the other beside you, to communicate one’s own pain and anguish. Hell is where all sense of collectivism is lost, where society breaks down, where any form of mutual co-operation is rendered null and void by the individual suffering that is the lot of each of us.
In that respect at least we seem to be in hell right now. I write this after returning from a weekend lecture tour of Amsterdam where I caught a glimpse of the state of debate on Islam and Muslim migrants in the country, and the prognosis seems bleak. This was not the Holland I left five years ago when I was based at the Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) in Leiden. How could a country that I regarded as being the very epitome of the liberal spirit and unfettered conscience slide down the path of polarisation so fast and to such an extreme?
While in Holland I was with my comrades of the Left (of course) and we took a step back from the heated debate that was raging in the country.On the one hand the Muslim minorities seem even more isolated, marginalised and liminal than ever before; and worst still it would appear as if some of them wanted to remain so. The inflation of all the outward signs of piety were there, from the growing number of beards and burqas to the revival of what may be seen by some as expressions of an ‘authentic’ Islamic normativity that was sadly only as deep as the dress and behaviour of the people who declared themselves to be orthodox Muslims. Islam for many has been reduced to some costume party, as if one’s faith can be measured by the length of one’s beard or the cut of one’s hijab…
Then on the other hand there were right-wing Dutch politicians openly playing to the gallery and using the race and religion cards to score quick votes; going to the extent of publicly calling for the banning of the Quran and comparing the Prophet Muhammad to Hitler, and calling Islam a Fascist religion. For them it seemed as if the only good Muslims were those who had left the religion and who were prepared to denounce their former creed as a fascist ideology. The assumption reigned that Muslims are a homogenous bloc and that each Muslim was like some automaton, programmed and determined solely and primarily by the Quran…
In the midst of this bellicose chest-thumping and soapbox oratory, the more nuanced voices that were keen to emphasise the complexity of both Dutch and Muslim society were almost unheard. In the wake of the brutal murder of the director Theo van Gogh, Dutch society is more polarised today than ever before. I was struck by the urban semiotics that seemed to sum up the present impasse: Walking past Dutch homes where everything inside was exposed to passers-by outside, I was struck by the fact that this seemed to be a society that was both open and yet closed in on itself. Is there still one Holland today, or has the country disintegrated into a number of parallel universes, living next to each other but hardly communicating and not understanding each other? That, perhaps, sums up the hell of modern life in this messed up postmodern world we live in.
My lament is that of the left-leaning bridge-builder, who has been trying time and again to remind Muslims and non-Muslims alike that we are all part of the same human family living on this same planet and that for all of us to be taken seriously there has to be a demonstration of ethical universalism and consistency on our part.
Muslims in the West cannot ever be taken seriously as long as we do not address the problems in our midst at the moment, ranging from the genuine demagogues and hate-mongers who have taken over our mosques to the baneful victimisation complex that has devoured our young. We are, all of us, Muslims in Europe and millions of us have come to settle here to be part of Europe’s secular-democratic and plural culture. Though racism and prejudice remain constant factors that stand in the way of the social advancement of millions of Muslims in the West, we need to remember that the same forms of economic, structural and institutional discrimination also affects millions of other poor Europeans as well. Hence the need for Muslims to get out of their ghetto mindset, work with and within the tools of civil society and to empower themselves in that plural democratic space. This means committing ourselves to the democratic reform project and discarding any superfluous illusions and myths of some ‘golden age’ of the past that never existed in the first place.
On the other side of the equation I have also been trying to break down the collombarium of European self-consciousness and self-representation, and questioning the other equally fallacious myths that hinder the open-mindedness of Europeans themselves. These include the myth of Europe’s monocultural past (for Europe was never monocultural in the first place), the myth of Europe’s self-generation (for Europe’s civilisational development really took off thanks to contact with other non-European cultures) and the notion of a unipolar world with the West as its centre.
Such bridge-building is, it has to be said, a tiresome and laborious task that normally earns the bridge-builder the scorn and contempt of right-wingers of both sides: Muslim conservatives accuse us of being too liberal and secular, while Western conservatives label us apologists for Islam. But the task of opening up the middle ground, complexifying the debate and emphasising the blurred middle space is too important by this stage. Muslims in Europe must remember that Europe is too complex, plural and diverse to be reduced to right-wing Muslim-haters alone. Have we forgotten that the biggest demonstrations against the war on Iraq took place here, in secular, non-religious Europe? Have we forgotten that millions of non-Muslims in the West showed sympathy for the people of Iraq not because the latter were Muslims but in the name of universal human rights?
Europeans too need to remember that those Muslims who live around the corner from them did not come from Saturn or Mars, but were and remain the constitutive other to the multicultural Europe of today. While there are indeed conservative, sectarian and bigoted Muslims among us, this is not a malady unique to Islam for Europe too has its share of secular bigots and racists. A closer look at Muslims in the West will show us that they are, after all, perfectly ordinary people with ordinary lives and concerns. In fact, millions of them are so ordinary they are downright boring.
Bringing together and tying together the ordinary strands that make up our shared community may not be a glamorous media event that will grab the headlines or make the news. But it is one way to transcend the hell of everyday life of non-communication. Europe’s experiment with multiculturalism today is in dire need of direction and focus, and for that reason that multicultural project has to be taken up by all progressive forces that look forward to a future that is diverse, rich and plural and where the fulfilment of self-identity can be secured. At present we are a long way from that, for it seems that our understanding of the other — and of ourselves — has sadly been reduced to two-dimensional cardboard stereotypes instead. That would be a sad fate for Europe, and a sad epitaph to the Enlightenment project.
We are aparently moving in that general direction, by the looks of things- sadly, brought about by the isolating effects, the exclusiveness and arrogance of Islamic States, where other cultures are expected to “like it or lump it”, causing a chasm and misunderstanding between felllow human beings. We live amongst other races (the urban phenomenon), breath the same air, work in the same buildings, are then expected to change our human constitutions, and be put to rest in different burial places – odd to say the least- what is happening to us God only knows?
Right wingers of the World are the same all over the place. From UMNO’s speakers at their AGM, to existing top UMNO politicians who say the same thing as the rightists in Holland.
I am of the opinion that Muslims, not only in Europe but throughout the world, believe (rightly or falsely) that they belong to a God-chosen religion and hence are SUPERIOR to the adherents of other religions, which are next to worthless. Unless and until this idiotic belief is discarded and buried, it will turn out to be detrimental to the Muslim religion itself.
This tells it like it is
I BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING IS A “MUST READ”.
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
“Very few people were true Nazis” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories”.
We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march.
It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority”, the “silent majority” is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
“We are in hell by now. No, we are not going to hell, but we are already there..”
Thank you for telling! No wonder we have same sex marriage and civil unions, test tube babies and cloning etc.
What’s new??
“I am of the opinion that Muslims, not only in Europe but throughout the world, believe (rightly or falsely) that they belong to a God-chosen religion…”k1980
Is it like when you enter a restaurant and you’re given a menu and you choose which ‘religion’ you want??
Well, all I can say is that most people are not of the intellectual or emotional make up of Dr Farish. To be a “bridge builder†one must be able to embrace what he calls “ethical universalism†(‘EU’). EU assumes that there is such a thing as ‘universal ethics’ (or ‘UE’) that are universally applicable to, discoverble and may be embraced by all people regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature….
[The moral philosopher who first formulated this EU or UE is German philosopher Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804), one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe. and the closing period of the Enlightenment. He argued UE may be determined via the “universalizability test.” The universalizability test has five steps: 1. Find the Agent’s maxim. (The maxim is an action paired with its motivation. For example: “I will lie for personal benefit.” Lying is the action, the motivation is to get what you desire. Paired together they form the maxim; the person carrying out the maxim, in this case the liar, is the Agent. 2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the Agent following that maxim. 3. Decide whether any contradictions (meaning harmful or absurd results) or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim. 4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed. 5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.]
These tests are easier theorized than applied in real life but based on these tests, certain personal ethical maxims are recognized: eg. concern and compassion for well-being of others which includes respecting their freedom of thought and religious beliefs and desisting from inflicting them physical and emotional harm; trust worthiness and honesty; compliance with the law; justice and refusing to take unfair advantage of others, benevolence. Applied to global context, global ethics would include global justice from abiding international law, putting society before self, taking care of environment, prompting global peace and resolution of conflicts, interdependence of all nations and peoples in shrinking global village etc.
The main justification for seeking out and forging EU or UE is that human beings have common human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering (sickness and inevitability of death and uncertainty of Life), and having different beliefs that will lead to conflicty and self destruction if universal ethics are not embraced as standard by all).
So Dr Farish, when you said that as bridge builder you are caught between “the scorn and contempt of right-wingers of both sides†– Muslims and Europeans – you should also ask which group amongst the two living and working together really is the one that adheres to or abjure EU or EU! If there were no communication, who first breached that? In short, who drew first blood (in the language of ‘Rambo’, the movie made famous by Sylvester Stallone)?
You have blamed European right-wingers bigoted attitudes to what you call the “myth of Europe’s monocultural past (for Europe was never monocultural in the first place), the myth of Europe’s self-generation (for Europe’s civilisational development really took off thanks to contact with other non-European cultures) and the notion of a unipolar world with the West as its centre†– in other words, you’re saying that Europeans do not embrace EU or UE even if its patron saint Immanuel Kant was one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe! Is this true – that many Dutch and Europeans in general are becoming wingers with no sense of EU or UE???
Now reverse back to the original question : who drew first blood and breached the peace?
To the Europeans including Dutch, especially the so-called Dutch ring wingers, it was muslim terrorists who first brought down the twin towers (World Trade), responsible for London/Bali/Cairo bombings of innocents and the brutal murder of the director Theo van Gogh.
I don’t think that they say anything disparaging of the rest of the 1.4 billion muslims in the world but you must understand that even they (with all the EU or UE) may be worried that increasingly more and more attacks come from people who ostensibly rally under the banner of the faith – which raises the more fundamental issue, ie whether or not interpretation of the faith (especially of the variant popularly known as “political Islam /Wahhibism spawned in large swathes of the Middle East) influencing some muslims in European society is consistent or even diametrically opposed to the principles of EU or UE forming the moral fabric of European societies in general and Dutch’s in particular.
Who then do you really should blame?
My point in a nutshell: Why do you blame right wingers on both sides for giving you “hell” on argument that both have no EU or UE when the likely fact is that only one side breaches EU or UE against the other?
The believers of each religion (that adhere to the dogma of a heaven and a hell awaits us in the thereafter) believed that if one is good one will go to heaven while one who has sinned will go to hell. However, this seems to apply to those who believe in the god that they believed in. Hence Muslims think the Cristians are gpoing to hell while the Christians think the Muslims are going to hell. By their logic, we are therefore all going to hell! ;)
So what is heaven and what is hell? They are just concepts and not the truth. Some may ask: What is truth?…… A valid question. But believe me, you will not find the answer in the relativism of this conceptual world. D)
Thanks Farish for trying to be the bridge builder. And thanks to all the “bridge-building” people of the world. Good of you to try…
So what is heaven and what is hell? They are just concepts and not the truth – lkt-56
But if you ask them to clarify the concept, give a precise picture of how Heaven or Hell is, would they be able to do so?
I don’t think so – except for many, Heaven is probably somewhere beyond or between the clouds (one sees it in film ‘Bruce Almighty’) whilst others, there are verdant gardens with virgins awaiting….and Hell, probably deep underground in some cavernous setting, which like the earth’s molten core is an inferno burning perpetually with fires where the sinner is prevented from leaving and forcibly subject to being toasted in perpetual pain by some ugly and fearsome looking creatures……(though the more optimistic amongst ‘sinners’ may console themselves that the likes of Marilyn Monroe are also congregating in Hell).
That’s about it.
If truth is supposed to be established empirically and evidenced based, then, there is of course no evidence.
However the concept – duality of Heaven versus Hell as a destination – has served the purpose thought necessary for many whose fear of Hell is perhaps necessary to rein them from antisocial and harmful behaviour to others and Heaven, an incentive to do good.
The irony is that Heaven and Hell are meanwhile existing on earth : in Malaysia Umnoputras are in Heaven, and some of us in Hell! :)
Jokes aside, the sages however believe that Heaven or Hell are states of mind within us where, in the former case, we evince humanity, compassion, understanding and assistance to other fellow human beings by reason of the common predicament in relation to the Human Condition or in the case of the latter, Hell, when we display reckless indifference to others’ suffering or worse still compound it by acts or omission of inhumanity and barbaric cruelty in relation to them.
And by the way, “same sex marriage and civil unions, test tube babies and cloning etc” may be Hell on earth to Undergrad2, but to others it is Heaven on earth in the sense that we’re then living in society infused with real EU/UE vales, liberal and tolerant of others’ homosexual/gay make up (even though its different from the majority) or even those who aspire to duplicate themselves or survive beyond death by cloning. The line between prohibited and non prohibited acts is drawn at “harm” – whether one inflicts harm or others in what one does, and if one does not, then others should mind their own business….
Jeffrey,
It sends shivers down my spine to think of Mahathir’s clone walking among us.
A free pdf ebook for those confounded by the path of polarisation today
http://rapidshare.com/files/53592950/New_Political_Religions_or_an_Analysis_of_Modern_Terrorism__2004_ebook_.pdf
“…one of the most shocking aspects of the attack of September  was that this “fury of killing†was “meant to please a deity.†This raises an obvious question: what sort of deity would, in the minds of the terrorists, be pleased by the attacks of September , ?”
//It sends shivers down my spine to think of Mahathir’s clone walking among us// – well, it may not be that bad as his clone may have the equal force
of personality to undo the harm inlicted in his time in the interest of legacy and posterity.
There is no gambling, drinking and etc. in heaven……choose wisely, it’s a one way ticket!
I think the current situation in the world should not be linked at all to religion, more to people that say that they are religious but act otherwise. Afterall, there is no one religion that encourages conflict, racism, discrimination, etc. More likely people using religion as an excuse, based on their own interpretation, to manipulate the public.
“…//…There is no gambling, drinking and etc. in heaven……choose wisely, it’s a one way ticket!…//…” – Sotong. This is assuming people interpret present life is the same as hereafter in the sense that if gambling, drinking and etc. are, no matter how enjoyable, sins in this life to be abstained, they are equally “sins” prohibited and not found in the hereafter especially in heaven. This is a questionable assumption. This is so because if enjoyable things are not allowed as rewards in the Hereafter, how can there exist Heaven with no rewards to compensate for the abstainance and restraint in the present? I am sure you’ve heard of some people believing that it is wrong and sin to have extramarital sex in the present and yet believe that when they die as martyrs, they will be rewarded by scores of virgins in Heaven….
Farish, I am sure you can agree on the fact that visitors tend to see things differently from the population of a place, who have observed the ongoings over longer periods. Neither is better or worse, as much as the freshness of the visitor can offer a new insight or perspective, the ‘old-timer’ also has something to contribute to the picture.
As someone who has spent many years in Europe, I concur that the relations have deplorably gone down. Very much even.
On the other hand, I had to witness a vastly tolerant society giving in step by step to the most ridiculous demands of some fundamentalist Islamic groups and perspectives. Call it a cultural confrontation; when a population educated to great tolerance (e.g. the Dutch) find themselves confronted by people, whose native surroundings had molded them in a way that encouraged to take whatever was up to be grasped. This has happened, under my own eyes, in Europe. Many immigrants were mainly taken by surprise at the tolerance offered, and subsequently tried to explore the limits of that tolerance. We can’t blame them, for them the tolerance experienced was not something to be imitated, rather something to be taken advantage of, as long and as intense as possible. Most of the ‘natives’ were naive enough to assume an adjustment period, at the end of which the immigrants would swim along on this path of tolerance. For many, unfortunately, this wasn’t the aim. It rather was a thirsty take-up of liberties previously unavailable. Like preaching the overthrow of the government, the Caliphate, etc.; all items that could have landed them in jail in their home countries.
I remember one day, when a Muslim was unintentionally served some pork in a restaurant in The Netherlands. He calmly pointed out that he could not take it. Everything would have been in order, had not the whole staff almost licked his boots and fell on their knees with apologies. That Muslim was not only handed a pork-free meal, but as well an invitation to dine with his whole family, for free. This person, a reasonable chap, declined, and was happy. We can’t expect everyone to demonstrate the same humble approach. For many, it is just an invitation to harp on their perceived rights and privileges; if only for the feeling to be in control and to have the power. Religion, this religion, seemingly provides one with a bunch of powerful tools to subdue the kafirs, one way or another.
In a tolerant society, such behaviour is uncalled for. And unacceptable. But, as I mentioned before, this is more of a cultural clash than bad will on either side.
The notion of Muslims having contributed to the European civilisation, as much as it is correct, only has academic value in this discussion. Fact is, that the immigrants often enough carry with them a cultural background – not to say burden – that in fact acts as an obstacle in understanding and immersing into a tolerant European society.
After all that’s said and done, it all comes down to one very basic conclusion, i.e. “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”. The added / aggravated outcome is that the other man keeps on insisting that it is his poison that matters. And so, the problem goes on into a never ending loop.
When one visualises himself against the backdrop of the globe, he can’t even imagine himself as being of any significance being of such minute proportion. And yet the damage he causes to his own kind (mankind), the species (flora and fauna) and the world itself is so astronomical, sometimes it feels better to wish that man has remained an undeveloped ape! The day man evolves is the day that Earth started to die. And it is this dying that has become Hell on Earth for mankind who is to be solely blamed for its demise…..
Man, with his genius to procreate and destroy. That’s real Hell.
Can all of you remember that at a time when PAS influence was getting stronger and stronger, especially in the East coast, TDM was toying with the idea of banning politics with religion, but instead he choose a more evil path of making UMNO more religious than PAS and even declared that Malaysia is an Islamic State and not a secular state.
I think MCA sleeping with UMNO is now more dangerous than DAP sleeping with PAS as UMNO has the power to turn the country upside down but PAS has only Kelantan to do so and that also maybe not for long..
Our own X-Files version …
50 years of covering up with lies and changing of policies in the pretext of upbring the living standard of our fellow countrymen.
Everything have passed and exchanged for.
The saying goes ;
” Our foreparents are building a future for us by working hard each day of their lives and we are taking away our children’s future by building our dreams in their world each day of their lives “
“Well, it may not be that bad as his clone may have the equal force
of personality ..(referring to Mahathir)” Jeffrey
Here’s an interesting thought. Mahathir has gone under the knife for some five hours. Usually the anaesthesia used on a patient changes a person’s personality. Don’t know what ‘personality’ changes we could expect in his case. But there are bound to be personality changes due to the anaesthesia used.
Farish A. Noor reminds me of Hell in Parliament where all the things he speaks about is all there. All the speeches sounds somewhat similar in Parlimen.
No wonder most of the YB’s are aspiring for the ultimate heaven and fooling everyone that to follow their thoughts and actions will ensure heaven follow.
Some only repent too late when they suddenly realise one day they are growing really old and now try to be wise. Or maybe some illness hits them and leave them half dead and hoping the doctors or nurses who they once called Satans will save them from HELL.
No matter how much the West hate muslims for their fanaticism and extremism, the West will resort to violence, sucide bombings, and killing of inocents lives. All lives are precious including the suicide bombers and terrorists. Love your enemies, forgive those who prosecute us, if they slap you on the left cheek offer the right cheek as well. Religion is about caring and loving lives, help the poors, sacrifice our lives for the sake of the love of humanity. No religion preach love on one hand and kill/hate those who are against us. The bad is not fit to be sent to hell but those who are hypocrites who think that what they preaches is truth but the whole truth or one and only one that will lead them to heaven.
sorry correction on 2nd line, the West will not resort to violence….
“….//….Love your enemies, forgive those who prosecute us, if they slap you on the left cheek offer the right cheek as well….//….”. (So said from powerful wisdom of Jesus). The only time I offered the right cheek after being slapped on the left was when it was delivered by an intimate enemy – a woman – but then I might have deserved it! :)
Don’t forget that America, a Christian country, was the first to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki incinerating civilains including women and chikldren in a flash!
Jeffrey,
Thats due to the fact thee Japanese refused to surrender unconditionally. What else do you think could have been done after trying all other options, any suggestions? What has the decision to drop the atomic bomb got to do with it being a Christian country? It happened to be the first nation that developed it as the ultimate weapon, which the unfortunate Japanese recieved after it brutally colonized the Far East, starting with Malaya in 1942.
The Far East was then fortunate to have the largely “Christian” nation on it’s side of Americans around to boot out the Japanese Imperial Army (but forget to mention that it was already a melting pot of religions, due to the tens of millions of immigrants and refugees fleeing war torn Europe at the time, including Albert Einstein who was a Jew that helped the USA create the bomb ) .
Well, anyway, in Jesus’s time some 2000+ years ago, there was an atempt at a good starting point in the “love your enemies” bit of news and all his other wisdom, but, sadly, man has evolved in many ways since, displaying atrocious activities 2000+ years later such as for example, flying hijacked jet liners into buildings in the name of religious martyrdom- also pretty savage stuff wouldn’t you say?
Greatstuff,
“…..//….What has the decision to drop the atomic bomb got to do with it being a Christian country?…//…â€Â
Admittedly, not easy to answer that question but think about the Christian value “ if they slap you on the left cheek offer the right cheek as well†in relation to the American character as far as their history so far shows.
The following may be noted:
What strikes many is the way the Americans emphasise on principles. You’d recall that the whites of the North fought civil war with whites of the South over the principle of the dignity and equality of all men including the blacks. The Americans institutionalize by law the principles of equality and freedom. Even today a call to principles of justice and fair play on any public controversial issue will rally majority of Americans’ public opinion. So in that sense they are quite “principled†compared to others.
Being in that sense principled, they can become quite resolved in their action based on their principles. (They have the national power to assert their will, which makes it of course easier). They waver only if principles don’t seem clearly right…One example is Vietnam war where they went in thinking it that they were defending the Cause of Freedom against a totalitarian push from Communist China (the way Soviets pushed across Eastern Bloc) but recoiled when body counts increased, no victory in sight but most important Ho Chi Minh’s campaign was a nationalistic movement against the corrupt South, the North Vietnamese being just as distrustful of Communist Giant up North.
Relating howver back to what happened in Japan. After defeat of Germany, the Americans invaded Japan starting with leap frogging the Saipan Islands as first step to Okinawa. Their body counts increased because the Japanese were suicidal and fanatical in defense and there were these suicide dives by Kamikaze planes. Relating to your question “What else do you think could have been done after trying all other options, any suggestions?†Well, they could have use overwhelming military force by conventional weapons, victory was only a matter of time but they were not prepared to so as it would take longer time and most important more American lives.
Ultimately, it is still American lives and American interest.
Before Hiroshima, they had tested the ultimate weapon twice or thrice in Arizona desert and knew its devastating effect which was clearly non discriminatory of the old, frail, women and children. At that time it was still a norm and rules of engagement that non combatants and civilian population should, wherever practical be spared but it wasn’t in the case of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, even though they knew the effects…..Surely what they had done, even in context of war, is hard to reconcile with the principle of compassion implicit in the Christian value of “ if they slap you on the left cheek offer the right cheek as wellâ€Â.
At the end of the day if they are pushed to the limits – and the ultimate concern of American lives is involved – they are a people who can harden their resolve, rationalize and to do things even if it is contrary to that Christian principle. That is what I’m trying to say.
However there must be no moral dilemmas on matters of principles but principles may be “rationalized†which they did, when they rationalized Japan forfeited the moral ground by being party to draw first blood by leading a sneak attack on Pearl Harbour in wee hours of Sunday morning without a formal declaration of war.
After Hiroshima/Nagasaki, nuclear weapon has never since been used in any conflict the Americans were engaged in.
But people should not be lulled into complacency – esp those ideologically affiliated to the Osama’s types in the Middle East (or Iran) bent on taking the Amereicans on. If after flying “jet liners into buildings in the name of religious martyrdomâ€Â, terrorists now detonate a homemade nuclear bomb in a major city like Chicago, where do you think the Americans will lash out and could anyone count on the Christian principle of compassion – sparring indiscriminate killing of women and children of the other side – will be given consideration by the Americans? I don’t expect so.
When you mix religion and politics, the end result will explosive, devastating, and craziness. For eg islamic countries would not hesitate to declare jihad if you condemn the holy book of koran. However, if you burn, condemn etc the bible, nobody is alarmed. Btw Japan never blamed US for the use of atomic bomb. In fact they regard US as friend and saviour. Just like Umno will not hesitate to use the bloody keris.
Hey you know what…I surf the net about hell and this is so interesting. Read it without any prejudices like me. Christian claim Christians CAN also go to hell if….. So tak betul la…some of your remarks. Read this from the horses mouth.
http://www.spiritlessons.com/Documents/Jennifer_Perez/Hell_is_Real_I_Went_There_Jennifer_Perez.htm
Love your neighbours as you love yourself….
Borrring, if jennifer perez is right abou hell then we all are wrong. But if she is wrong, she must have been a professional liar. Some how I feel she is right. How many of us have been to hell? We are all living in some kind of hell…hahaha
“It sends shivers down my spine to think of Mahathir’s clone walking among us.” – undergrad2
Why should it be, we had him for 22 long years remember?
As for heaven and hell, I think I’d rather prefer to be in hell. Heaven must be a very lonely place to be.