Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Same game, new faces

As always the human race, in its never-ending quest to prove to whomever that its capacity for barbarism is unparalleled, has entered a new phase of conflict.

Looking throughout history we see wars and ‘conflicts’ (difference being fewer military deaths, collateral damage usually remains the same though), constantly cropping up to satisfy our apparent need for unbridled violence.

In recent times the world has seen the ‘Cold War’ where two countries stacked up on enough weapons to wipe themselves of the face of the planet, while playing deadly games of chess with third world countries, where young people were/are recruited to fight in ‘idealistic wars’.

A major part of this is fueled by the concept that some ideals are worth dying for.

Now, it can be argued that the most precious thing you own is your life, and it is yours to spend as you wish. There are times, however, I think that the idea that one would lay down ones life for a ‘belief’, an idea, a un-quantifiable thought in ones head is ludicrous.

I honestly believe the need for such extreme views stem from the need we as humans have for cramming our own beliefs down each other’s throats. In other words, we believe our beliefs are such that they cannot co-exist with others that differ too far from ours.

I hear the more religious folks beginning to get uncomfortable

Now the beliefs that seem to spark the most conflict are those that directly relate to power. In the pass 50 plus years they have been based on methods of governance and, most recently, religion.

On an aside, it is amazing how religion seems to be a recurring reason for conflict throughout the history of our so-called civilization. It is almost as if it is a great ‘filler reason’ until we find the next ‘good cause’ to start killing each other over.

Now that the cold war is over and ‘capitalism’ has won out, the ever-reliable filler has stepped in. It is interesting however to see how these same pawns from the last ‘war’ are the ones who are the front runners for this one.

Aspects of the international Muslim community have seen it fit to bring their fight/war to the world. I must say it is only fair. The western world has already used them, not to mention the fact that, there was no one to blog about the crusades back in the day when ‘Christian Extremist’ felt that Muslims should be wiped of the face of the earth.

There is a confusion however, I seem unable to pinpoint what it is exactly these extremist want. I mean, there is always a cause for the moment such as Iraq, Palestine and Iran, but what is their long-term goal. When history books are written 70 yrs from now what will they say the ‘terrorist’ (not Bush this time) wanted?

OK ran out of time. This post is to be continued.


Kaschief said...

Really great post!! Nice to see an objective reasonable point-of-view. I fully agree, I must say. I think that belief, as it is, would be each individual's personal convictions as to the veracity of an fundamental idea, or principle which is to be. I think, additionally, that prior to having been convinced and deeply founded in any given belief, one must have had underwent riveting, objective, probing investigations in order to substantiate the support and the holding of any such belief. Over time, the findings from the investigations for substantiation then become more subjective as each individual personalizes the belief to fit the grooves of their own makeup. Therefore, after all this, we can see why there usually exists a firm reluctance to depart from any belief one holds. And, it may at times justify each person believing that their belief has a nature of superiority about it. Well, actually, not so much 'superiority', per se, as it is a notion of, "If I believe firmly in this, how can you not?" And, as you said, it becomes difficult for other separate beliefs to co-exist. Then, these qualities transcend to the other areas of human behaviour, namely, religion and governance. The profession of 'superiority' for either equals friction which invariably leads to war, which is an activity which I personally cannot understand - is it that whichever party suffers the most loss (i.e death of innocent civilians), yields to the beliefs of the other and relinquishes their own? Meanwhile, is it that the Muslim religion is the most contentious of them all? What causes the rift between this religion and others? In addition, it is necessary to note that it is apparent (well at least to my mind), that the Western World and the Easten World are really the epitome of human separation to the extreme. Evidently, civilization is determined on a scale of relativity to the United States. Anyway, religion is one preeminent difference between the two 'worlds'. Why is there a predominance of non-Christianity religions in the Eastern World as opposed to what is considered 'the norm' in the Western World, with Christianity being core? (I hope I'm not sounding didactic, I don't mean to be talking about's just that I wanted to mention my observation it seems that those of the two 'worlds' look over their nose at the religions of others in either hemisphere.) Yet, the fight continues. There's my $0.02. (The Jamaican cents, in case you were wondering.) Post some more. I loved the chat.

The Seeker said...

It is no coincidence that the eastern countries are 'predominantly non-Christian'. There is a direct relation to how far the last Christian 'Holy War' went and where the domain of Muslims begins.

Just make this clear I am a Christian as well, but I find the crusades particularly distasteful, but as the bible says: "Not my but thy will be done".

You ask if the Muslim religion is any more contentious than the others. Do not forget that throughout history the path to any religion’s dominance has been bloody. From the Jews in Canaan to the Catholic crusades.
The question u must ask is it now a time for a shift in the religious powers that be? If that is the case we are looking at a very bloody time ahead.