Skip to main content

Peace in the Middle East: A Way Forward

By Carl S ~

First of all, I wish to thank those who so well responded to my previous posting “Times Must be Difficult for True Believers.” There are times when I wonder if what l write is “preaching to the choir,” and am thereby inclined to become discouraged. I'm sure I am not alone on this. Your responses usually offer even more input to what I have written. They are experiences and commentaries I value just as much as my own.

Peace in the Middle East: A Way Forward

A peaceful Middle East is an oxymoron. A major reason for this has always been the tradition of what the national media (in fear of religion, I'm sure) refers to as “sectarian strife.” Considering that the region consists of religious sects aplenty, the infighting tradition is kindling waiting to burst into flame with every provocation, however slight. Property is destroyed, members of factions maim and murder each other, and governments are stressed out. After a war in which hundreds of thousands of lives perished, infrastructure was decimated, and the U.S. spent an estimated three trillion dollars before departing, “sectarian” violence still persists in Iraq.

Over and over, the same patterns repeat themselves, with no real resolution. Peace talks fail and accords are tenuous at best. Notice that in spite of the fact that the cause of so much violence is religious differences, no one, nowhere, in governments or media, dares to challenge religious claims to privileged status and respect, as if it has nothing to do with their problems. And this is in spite of the fact that the soil is soaked and the waters have run with the blood of believers of each of the religious factions for thousands of years, and this still continues. What is to be done?

Wouldn't the best answer to ending thousands of years of bloodshed and misery in the Middle East be to resolve sectarian differences once and for all?

Here is one suggestion: hold a religious summit in a public court of law with representatives, experts, theologians, and clergy of all the faiths. Have each and every faith and sect of that faith present their cases and the evidence for their claims. Allow all the time needed, even years if necessary, to come to conclusions. Have the best legal minds of the world available to assist them. Spare no expense. (Surely the payoff would be peace and the saving of lives, and far more has been spent throughout the centuries in warfare and civil rights abuses there.)

Weighing all the factors, let the evidence be revealed so that all will be in agreement as to what is really true, which may not be what has necessarily been traditionally believed. Let judgment be passed, based on those findings, and may that judgment stand.

Tragically, this scenario will never take place. And so, tragically, more lives will be wasted, more homes destroyed, more refugees from these nations will strain the resources of others, still more will seek asylum in countries where religion does not dominate. This scenario will not take place simply because evidence and truth have nothing to do with religious systems, any more than any other superstitions do.

You can see how such a “summit” would threaten every religion. The implicit message is this: Let the thousands suffer and die rather than openly challenge beliefs.

The problems between differing sects holding “the truth” is embodied in the inner workings of the religions themselves - and individuals who take them most seriously. Nothing is resolved, and the individuals become conflicted with their own desires, conscience, and wills, in striving to live up to their belief systems. Indeed, as the Islamic believers point out, the word “jihad” means not only a war with the forces outside the religion, but a struggle against the inclinations of one's own nature. Such a state is a pressure cooker without an adequate steam-release valve, waiting to explode in any direction, and that valve is controlled by religious leaders who decide the outlets to their advantage.

But, natural inclinations are only natural. Feelings are only feelings, neither “good” nor “bad.” It is only actions that are good and bad, with various shadings.

All the sectarian problems in the Middle East, as well as anywhere else, are man-made. Religions create problems where they damned sure ought not to be. So, it isn't just a matter of physical lives destroyed or disrupted, but mental and psychological ones as well.

Why just keep giving religions privileged status and never criticizing them? Give me a break. Too much is hanging on this war against reason, with beliefs in punitive invisible powers impeding everything worthwhile in life. Put them on trial. Drag out the claims and “evidence” into the spotlights. I want to see some guts with the media, while they still have free speech. The kind of guts we find on this site would be a start.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

ACTS OF GOD

By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi