Tag: Thought

  • A Tragic Picture of Death

    AP Photo / Karim KadimI stumbled across a heartrending picture of an 18 month old Iraqi boy who had been killed after being fired upon by US forces during a street battle in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood in June 2004. This picture, attached to an article in TruthDig, really hit home for me, as I have a young boy myself. It really put into perspective for me how I would feel if one of my loved ones was hurt or killed in such a manner. I debated on including the picture with this article, but finally decided to include it as it is a powerful testament to what happens in war. The picture is not nice, but it provides a jolt to those that feel disconnected from a conflict occurring far from home.

    While I would like to think that I would have the moral strength to turn the other cheek and to try for a peaceful resolution with those that I felt were responsible, I know that my initial response would be one of anger and seeking revenge. It’s tough not to feel that way with something as permanent as death, especially of the young and innocent among us.

    That being said, anger and revenge just continue to feed the violence and hatred that have spiraled out of control during the US-led “war on terror”. What needs to change in order to turn things around? It’s difficult to say, but the current climate of violence must end sooner rather than later.

    I’m sure I’ll be hearing from the hawks out there that say, “Well, what about our dead?” and you’re right. All sides have suffered in recent years through numerous tragic events that have been inflicted from all sides. Nobody is innocent in the current world makeup. Freedom fighters, terrorists, secret agencies, spies, guerillas, armed insurgents and legitimately identified armies all have been vying for top spot in political games of domination ever since the dawn of recorded history. What differentiates the good from the bad, the right from the wrong or the morally acceptable from unacceptable?

    All sides could easily justify their actions for their contributions to the current climate of violence in the world. Just War is just that… it’s justified. The question becomes: Justified by whom? The picture that I referred to above brought it to me in stark clarity: I could understand why any parent would feel the need for revenge against the US forces for what they saw was the reckless death of their young child. It doesn’t matter if the gunfight was only a small event in a much larger war on terror. The fact remained that it was a US bullet that killed their child. Numerous other examples of this abound.

    And to be fair, the US has plenty to be angry about. 9/11 is only one example of terrorism at its worst. There are numerous examples of the US being targets in other countries from embassy bombings to targeting killings of US citizens overseas. None of this should justify the killing of innocents though. Unfortunately, war is a blunt instrument that doesn’t always hit with precision clarity. And that is a shame indeed.

    For war is supposed to be the last resort in a politically charged game of cat and mouse. But in this case, in the Middle East, there are too many unanswered questions pertaining to the justification and causes of this conflict with no positive end in sight. In fact, there are few tangible facts to substantiate all of this loss of life. Looking back, the history books have been clouded with bad judgment, poor intelligence and hidden agendas. Conspiracy theorists are able to thrive in this market as there is no final answer or explanation for the cause of this war.

    The greater problem is the implications. For the parents that have lost loved ones, there is no easy way to put aside that hatred. There is no easy way to overlook the recent past and to move towards reconciliation. There is no easy way to recover what has been lost. That’s the problem with war: the finality of its actions. Not only does it leave terrible scars in its wake, but it also leaves no easy method of recovery.

    For war to be effective, there must be a way of measuring its results. In this, the US has failed miserably. There is no method of measuring success at this point. The US has provided few timelines and poor indicators of accomplishment. It would appear that the US is playing a game of whack-a-mole with no end-target with which to measure their progress.

    If only the responsible world governments would approach this in a more systematic way. There are numerous causes at play here, many of which are just as vicious and harmful as the “war on terror”, only they are more subtle. Economic sanctions in particular cripple nations and lead to massive suffering among the general population. While this and other methods are important tools in controlling despotic regimes, they do little to help public opinion in these regions in the long term.

    What are the solutions then? The October 2006 issue of Harpers contained an excellent article entitled “The Way Out of War” by George S. (George Stanley) McGovern and William Roe Polk that provided a detailed plan for leaving Iraq, along with some associated financial costs and benefits. It was an interesting read, as it provided some of the much needed answers to “what else can we do but fight?” The article defends strong investment in internal infrastructure as the US-led forces are phased out. The money currently spent on military intervention in Iraq would easily build a substantial infrastructure for further stability as the US pulls out. There are numerous other strategies suggested in the article, many of which mirror suggestions offered by Human Rights Watch and others.

    The bottom line here is that there are numerous peaceful approaches that will help build bridges between differing cultures. The current method of blunt force trauma inflicted through war is doing little to build relationships. The current US-led actions in the Middle East is further fracturing relationships, and this is likely to impact an entire generation of people, thus delaying peace for the foreseeable future. I know that I, for one, would have a very difficult time extending an olive branch if I were in the shoes of a parent who has lost a loved one in the current fighting. It is the right thing to do, but when the impersonal nature of war becomes personal, it makes it much more difficult to be emotionally fit to resist revenge.

    The way ahead must be one of peace and reconciliation. War has no place in settling disputes, regardless of the perceived benefits. Machismo and stubbornness will only continue to lead us down the path that the current US administration has been leading us down. Make a difference: Research the contributing factors into this conflict, identify workarounds or fixes to those problems that don’t rely on force, and help put them into action.

    Todd Dow

    Supporting links:
    Truthdig article: A Culture of Atrocity
    Wall Street Journal: Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates
    The Lancet: Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq
    Human Rights Watch

  • The God Debate: does he or doesn’t he?

    Dear atheists,

    I’m elated that God is getting so much press lately. And even more surprising is who’s talking about God. Atheists! On the one hand, I’ve gotta say that I don’t agree with the current batch of atheists selling their wares: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. On the other hand, I’ve gotta say “Way to go, guys!” You’ve definitely raised God’s awareness to levels not seen since the beginning of the War on Terror.

    Now, I know your goal is to convince people that God doesn’t exist. But I’ve gotta tell you, your arguments are weak. You’re relying on old arguments (Hey Dawkins, does Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot mean anything to you?) And Harris, yes, your education does bring you some authority, but unfortunately, I don’t see how you’re tying your research interests in with your arguments? It would be great if you could use your neuroscience background to help prove that God doesn’t exist. But, I doubt that’s in your curriculum, isn’t it. In fact, I’m willing to bet that there’s plenty still unknown in your field. I’m thankful for the advances in medical science, but I also know that it’s not an exact science, nor is it a replacement for God.

    Now, I know that many of your arguments are against the inhumanities that are committed in the name of God. I’m right there with you. I don’t think that religion, and Christianity in particular, should motive the troops to go out and kill the enemy. In fact, I believe just the opposite: Jesus was a pacifist. Plain and simple. But, that doesn’t mean that we should discount the religion due to some misguided leaders of the religion. Should we abandon university campuses because of a few bad professors? I don’t think so…

    The beauty of faith is the positive life force that it gives to an individual within a community of believers (and even sometimes in solitary – just ask the monastic members of a faith). God truly does scale to meet the needs and challenges of each one of us in every situation on earth. No, God doesn’t always answer our prayers. But, perhaps those are blessings in disguise as well. Who am I to know? I don’t have all of the answers. And I know that science can’t provide any better explanations either.

    And speaking of explanations… where do we get our moral compass from? If we rely simply on rational thinking, what would a moral high ground look like? Would we align our good and bad impulses towards ourselves or towards the community of which we are a member? If there is no God, then what’s the point in being anything other than self-centred? In that case, do you become a threat to those around you? Or, do you think that there is some merit to community-driven moralism? And if there is some compassion towards fellow man, why would that be in an atheistic world? There are no rewards to be had. Aren’t you just wasting precious resources that you should be spending on yourself before your time runs out?

    Do you get where I’m coming from? You question my motives for believing, while living a paradox yourself. You really do confuse me… you come across as so smug and so confident in your knowledge that God doesn’t exist, yet you sit on the edge of a moral cliff, trying to convince yourself that your actions don’t really matter, all the while continuing to further your chosen field of study. Why bother if we’re just ashes to ashes and dust to dust?

    In any event, like I was saying earlier, thanks a ton for the great press you’ve been drumming up lately. Nothing like some star-studded name dropping to keep God in the news and to keep him on the tips of our tongues. It really is true… there’s no such thing as bad press, and guys, you’re doing one heck of a job.

    Thanks!

    Todd Dow

  • Religious tolerance?

    Note: disturbing content ahead.

    I stumbled across an article today entitled “Church under fire for video parody“. According to the article, Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church has been vigorously campaigning against homosexuality and that a recently released video, “God Hates the World“, which is a parody of the 80’s tune “We Are the World”, is the latest salvo in that ongoing campaign.

    According to the article, “The church [Westboro Baptist Church] contends that soldiers’ deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are God’s punishment for a tolerance of homosexuality in the United States.”

    The video shows what appears to be a group of church members singing the song “God Hates the World”, along with various video snippets taken from protests and other, assorted activities pertinent to the words of the song. The video furthers the church’s argument that God hates the world due to homosexual behaviour.

    The church group is currently being accused by Warner/Chappel Music Inc. of Los Angeles, who feel that the video infringes on its copyright to “We Are the World.” In their defense, the church claims that the song and video are protected under their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religious expression. I do believe that freedom of speech and religious expression are important and therefore, I can’t argue that these people be forcefully silenced. However, I am disappointed at the controversial and confrontational method that this church has taken. And, I am disappointed that this group is associated with me through the masthead of Christianity. But, we’re all together through the masthead of “humanity” so I guess we have to take the good with the bad.

    The Bible does speak out against certain activities. The Old Testament is full of rules and guidelines that must be adhered to or else. I’m concerned that this church group has missed the message of Jesus though in their zeal to reform society into their ideal of cultural identity. Jesus brought a message of peace, love and non-judgment. To Christ, God loves everyone no matter what. And it was through Jesus’ atonement on the cross that we are allowed to walk in peace, knowing that our destiny is fulfilled. This message is quite different from the fire and brimstone message being presented by the folks in Topeka. I wonder if Westboro Baptist Church subscribes to the Old Testament law of stoning people for transgressions? That would make for an interesting Sunday morning service!

    Fear-mongering is nothing new in religion. History is full of religious fundamentalists that attempted reform through fear. Unfortunately, fear only works for so long… reason must weigh in in order to protect the rights of everyone involved. Otherwise, we’d be left with a bunch of fundamentalist groups, all claiming righteous fury. Ultimately, we’d be left with one righteous fundamentalist group, the winner of one heck of a fundamentalist war. hmmm… sounds kinda like current global tensions, doesn’t it?

    Who wins in a fundamentalist war game? Does might equal right? If so, why have an opinion at all? If truth is what we’re after, will war and intolerance solve anything? I think not.

    Todd Dow

  • Did the Enlightenment negate God?

    I’d argue no… in fact, I’d argue that the Enlightenment, while enforcing rational investigation into the nature and existence of God, did God a favour. Although the Enlightenment was great at showing us our human limitations, it brought us no closer to God than any other religious faith. And really… didn’t the Enlightenment just trade one religion for another (Mnotheism for Scientism)?

    The Enlightenment is seen as the “Age of Reason”, which has led to the diminishment of church authority in the political and academic realms of society. The Enlightenment marked the transition from medieval “faith” to modern “knowledge”. Enlightenment thinkers concerned themselves with “rational thought”, which led to scrutiny of all things within the natural world. A newfound skepticism arose during this period. Questions of worldview (metaphysics) and what we can know as humans (epistemology) came to mark this period. From Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am) to Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals”, the Enlightenment saw a great deal of thought pertaining to the nature of our world and our place within it.

    In previous generations, education and religion typically ran hand in hand, with one defending the other. Following the development of the printing press and the revolt of the Protestant Reformation, the church’s hold on academic thought dissipated significantly. Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) scientific method provided an early framework for later Enlightenment thinking. Voltaire’s Dictionnaire Philosophique continued this tradition. And, Voltaire’s wry caricatures of the religious leaders of his day (Candide is a great read in this regard) lent more fuel to the anti-religious fire that was burning during this time.

    There was a tremendous focus on the material world during this time. Rational thought tended towards that which could be measured (empiricism) or explained (rationalism). It was important to be able to explain events within the limitations of the natural world, as opposed to the traditional spiritual explanations given by the church. This led to great debates on the nature of miracles (see Hume’s “On Miracles” in particular) and the value of religion in personal life.

    While skeptical thought did negatively impact the church, it did not disprove the necessity and value of religious belief, nor did it supplant it with anything other than a new religion, namely “scientism”. I find it ironic that the last of the Enlightenment giants, Emmanuel Kant, offered a newfound explanation for God through his idea of moral justification. So much for the skeptical death of God provided by his contemporaries…

  • The End Is Coming!

    I was reading the following article tonight and it prompted me to write:

    Praying for the Apocalypse

    People have been claiming that the end is sight ever since… well… since people could say those words. I still find it surprising though that people actually bank on that kind of a worldview. From global warming to nuclear war, the pessimists out there have been calling out like Chicken Little for as long as I can remember. I find this disappointing, because, while I do have the occasional negative day, I don’t sit and dwell on the end times at the expense of living in the present.

    Last time I remember, Jesus gave us instructions to stick around and to live our lives according to God’s rules. We weren’t to pack up and wait for Jesus to come back. Some instructions:

    “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. […] And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” (Matt 22:37-40)
    “I am going to send you what my Father has promised, but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49)

    I could quote numerous other passages, but the point is this: Jesus directs us to live according to his principles in the world. As we read in John (John 17:14-19), we are in the world but not of the world. We are all visitors here on Earth and we are here for a brief amount of time. As visitors, should we foster a positive or a negative perspective towards others?

    Church history is full of urgent appeals based on the understanding that the end is near. Unfortunately, these battle-plagued end times scenarios have never turned out well for anyone. The end times have yet to arrive for the persecutors, and the persecuted suffer as a result. And, more importantly, the persecutors that once demonized the targets of their aggression end up looking like the demonizers. This begs the question: “Who is the real demon in all of this?”

    We have a responsibility to live responsibly under the guidance and spiritual presence of God. We, as Christians, have moral obligations to love our neighbours and to make the world a better place. Even those that are not Christian agree that our moral compasses are fairly well aligned when it comes to good and evil.

    Be on guard against temptations to become a demon in the name of religion. Be responsible and follow Jesus’ calling to wait out his return in loving and caring fashion. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be caught compromising my values in the name of religious justification. And raising our hands in violence in the name of Christ would definitely be compromising those values.

    Todd Dow