What Do You Think Really Happen with Religions in ST?

[Paradon]

NO, war doesn't bring peace and prosperity. Wars weaken a country!

War can bring a return of peace, peace that had been taken away by an outside party. War and the ability to fight wars can engender a environment of security where prosperity can exist and grow.

Nothing weaken a country like said country ceasing to exist.

True! But it nearly destroy Siam.... Most of the literature accomplishment that they strive for and achieved went up in smoke when the Burmese sacked the capital, Ayohya, and burned it to the ground. It was a long uphilled battle to drive out the Burmese from the Thai soil (a lot of people sacrificed their lives), but they managed to do it. Thanks to the two brilliant generals (former governors of two provinces)...which later became Kings.

 

[sonak]

The point is if they keep taxing us...how are the people supposed to live. How are we supposed to make money? That's what happened all the time. I think it may have been the result of WWI, but how in details...? I'm not sure....

Tsung Su said: "No war ever benefited a nation.... Only weakens it! While your enemies grow stronger, you are getting weaker.... It's dangerous" He said something a long those line, and so did Thomas Jefferson, which probably study him and Roman governement before writing the Constitutions.

Er, as others have pointed out, this isn't true. WWII ended the Great Depression. Yes, there was some inflation after WWII but the stage was still set for a generation of record prosperity in the U.S., and their political position in the world had improved immeasurably.

The USSR, despite massive casualties, used WWII to become a superpower and dominate Eastern Europe.

Germany was far stronger in summer of 1940 after a year of war, then in 1932, when they were at peace.
War has also led to numerous scientific and medical breakthroughs.

Your "war never helps and is never the answer" view is a bumper sticker, not an evidence-based conclusion.


Your economic views are confused as well, if you are referring to taxes in the U.S. They are not historically high at all at the moment.

 

[Myasishchev]

Germany was far stronger in summer of 1940 after a year of war, then in 1932, when they were at peace.

Excellent work picking your data point there.

War, or at least mid-20th century large-scale industrial war, is an excellent make-work program to reinvigorate an economy; however, like all make-work programs, it generates questionable value in itself. Unlike make-work programs, if war's direct effects can be felt domestically, it is of strongly negative value. Or does anyone want to argue that Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union were in better economic shape in 1945 than they were in 1932?

 

[sonak]

Germany was far stronger in summer of 1940 after a year of war, then in 1932, when they were at peace.

Excellent work picking your data point there.

War, or at least mid-20th century large-scale industrial war, is an excellent make-work program to reinvigorate an economy; however, like all make-work programs, it generates questionable value in itself. Unlike make-work programs, if war's direct effects can be felt domestically, it is of strongly negative value. Or does anyone want to argue that Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union were in better economic shape in 1945 than they were in 1932?

Well of course you're picking three countries that were devastated by war directly, and in Germany or Japan's cases, outright lost the war.

Of course a country that loses a devastating war isn't going to be better off, that's a tautology. It's like saying someone with a serious disease is less healthy than someone without one.

Then again, West Germany and Japan became economic powerhouses a while after the war, so how much they also gained from it is an open question as well.

However, the USA avoided much of the damage that comes with war, as the homeland itself was never seriously threatened, bombed, etc. And as mentioned, the war solved the unemployment crisis as well as turned them into one of the only two superpowers.

The USSR was devastated by invasion, but vastly increased their territory and geopolitical position through the war.

 

[T'Girl]

It was a long uphilled battle to drive out the Burmese from the Thai soil (a lot of people sacrificed their lives)

It took 781 years to drive the Muslim invaders out of Spain and Portugal, my ancestral homelands. The occupation wasn't without it's benefits, and the subsequent political system was imperfect. But what was ours in the beginning, was ours in the end.

if you are referring to taxes in the U.S. They are not historically high at all at the moment.

It's the amount of borrowing and the overall debt that is currently at a historical high not taxes. Taxes were much higher in the fifties and sixties. For the rich they were ridiculously high, in some cases for every ten dollars in income the rich paid over nine dollars in taxes.

Or does anyone want to argue that Germany, Japan, or the Soviet Union were in better economic shape in 1945 than they were in 1932?

The argument could be made that the people in Japan and West Germany were better off socially and politically at the end of 1945, certainly the position of Japanese women drastically improved n because of Japan losing the second world war, a opposed to their likely status if that nation had won.

 

[Paradon]

They are burrowing money; which means, they still have to pay it back.... Now...how do you think they would that?

 

[Arpy]

Wars result in people, whether yours or your fellow human beings, dying, physically and/or emotionally hurt, and having to rebuild. It is the clashing of parties and destruction of resources. It is the recourse of parties otherwise incapable of solving their differences.

 

[Myasishchev]

Well of course you're picking three countries that were devastated by war directly, and in Germany or Japan's cases, outright lost the war.

Of course a country that loses a devastating war isn't going to be better off, that's a tautology. It's like saying someone with a serious disease is less healthy than someone without one.

Then again, West Germany and Japan became economic powerhouses a while after the war, so how much they also gained from it is an open question as well.

However, the USA avoided much of the damage that comes with war, as the homeland itself was never seriously threatened, bombed, etc. And as mentioned, the war solved the unemployment crisis as well as turned them into one of the only two superpowers.

The USSR was devastated by invasion, but vastly increased their territory and geopolitical position through the war.

They were, but they were also teetering on the edge of economic and even demographic oblivion. The Soviet economy took years to recover, and arguably never fully did. For example, the war left a permanent economic problem in the form of the the swollen populations and unnatural growth of cities in Siberia, Sverdlovsk (the once and future Yekaterinburg), Chelyabinsk, etc.

Take the Cold War: net benefit to the USSR? Was it even a net benefit to the United States?

The only way I could see that it might have been is the technological innovation fed in large part by government money. You don't need a war to get that.

The argument could be made that the people in Japan and West Germany were better off socially and politically at the end of 1945, certainly the position of Japanese women drastically improved n because of Japan losing the second world war, a opposed to their likely status if that nation had won.

Oh, I'm not arguing war is never a good (or at least necessary) thing. I'm only arguing the limited point that wars are not ordinarily net generators of economic growth. Which is patently obvious, and not even limited to the extraordinary devastation of World War II, but applies also to WWI, the Franco-Prussian War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Seven Years War, the Thirty Years War, the Taiping Rebellion, the Second Punic War, and so on.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

See the thing is, I believe that probably the only way to get a decent person to do bad things is through religion, or some other dogmatic methodology, where that person believes such a system without question. Sure , normally good people do good things and some bad things, bad people to bad things and some good things (Hitler wasn't hurting anyone when he brushed his teeth) but in order to get a genuinely good person to do morally questionable acts, you needs something, like a dogmatic constant, to get them to do it.

Perhaps we differ on the definition of a "genuinely good person" as I think your definition is overly simplistic. But Stanley Milgram proved conclusively sixty years ago that the only thing it takes to make a good person do a bad thing is an authority figure ORDERING him to. Authoritarian religions have this feature because, obviously, they have ALOT of authority figures. But authoritarian governments, organizations and societies have the exact same problem. If you're in a secular military in a secular country and your commanding officer orders you to go into a house and kill everyone in it, it doesn't matter how "good" you are, you're indoctrinated into a culture of command and authority in a military system and you're going to do it regardless.

it has been demonstrated that religion is inherently divisive and does cause harm,

Again, the same feature is present in authoritarian structures. There are certain people who have a natural predisposition to zealously preserve and defend higher authority figures, whoever those might be. This goes way beyond simply being a tool, there are actually people in this world who rabidly and pathologically side with the overdog in every single case. These people are usually fanatics just waiting to be recruited, doesn't matter by whom; if the secular humanists decided to wipe out anyone who ever worshiped a deity, they would sign up in a heartbeat.

 

[Paradon]

See the thing is, I believe that probably the only way to get a decent person to do bad things is through religion, or some other dogmatic methodology, where that person believes such a system without question. Sure , normally good people do good things and some bad things, bad people to bad things and some good things (Hitler wasn't hurting anyone when he brushed his teeth) but in order to get a genuinely good person to do morally questionable acts, you needs something, like a dogmatic constant, to get them to do it.

Perhaps we differ on the definition of a "genuinely good person" as I think your definition is overly simplistic. But Stanley Milgram proved conclusively sixty years ago that the only thing it takes to make a good person do a bad thing is an authority figure ORDERING him to. Authoritarian religions have this feature because, obviously, they have ALOT of authority figures. But authoritarian governments, organizations and societies have the exact same problem. If you're in a secular military in a secular country and your commanding officer orders you to go into a house and kill everyone in it, it doesn't matter how "good" you are, you're indoctrinated into a culture of command and authority in a military system and you're going to do it regardless.

it has been demonstrated that religion is inherently divisive and does cause harm,

Again, the same feature is present in authoritarian structures. There are certain people who have a natural predisposition to zealously preserve and defend higher authority figures, whoever those might be. This goes way beyond simply being a tool, there are actually people in this world who rabidly and pathologically side with the overdog in every single case. These people are usually fanatics just waiting to be recruited, doesn't matter by whom; if the secular humanists decided to wipe out anyone who ever worshiped a deity, they would sign up in a heartbeat.

That's why should encourage people to think for themselves...questioning everything, even perhaps things you think you know is true.

 

[Tauran]

Spirituality/religion appears to be quite strong in the portrayal of the future. Sisko and the Bajorans are quite strong, though I get the feeling that Sisko is a Christian at heart. The Vulcans go throughtheir logic thing, which is sort of spiritual and at one time they had a concept of heaven (Can't remember the title but Spocks half brother went in search of it). The Klingons have an after life which I believe is similar to the ancient Egytians.
Not too far into the future with Archer, I would imagine earth faiths are still quite strong.

The only difference I think would that on earth there would at long last be a tolerance and understanding of each others faiths.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

See the thing is, I believe that probably the only way to get a decent person to do bad things is through religion, or some other dogmatic methodology, where that person believes such a system without question. Sure , normally good people do good things and some bad things, bad people to bad things and some good things (Hitler wasn't hurting anyone when he brushed his teeth) but in order to get a genuinely good person to do morally questionable acts, you needs something, like a dogmatic constant, to get them to do it.

Perhaps we differ on the definition of a "genuinely good person" as I think your definition is overly simplistic. But Stanley Milgram proved conclusively sixty years ago that the only thing it takes to make a good person do a bad thing is an authority figure ORDERING him to. Authoritarian religions have this feature because, obviously, they have ALOT of authority figures. But authoritarian governments, organizations and societies have the exact same problem. If you're in a secular military in a secular country and your commanding officer orders you to go into a house and kill everyone in it, it doesn't matter how "good" you are, you're indoctrinated into a culture of command and authority in a military system and you're going to do it regardless.

it has been demonstrated that religion is inherently divisive and does cause harm,

Again, the same feature is present in authoritarian structures. There are certain people who have a natural predisposition to zealously preserve and defend higher authority figures, whoever those might be. This goes way beyond simply being a tool, there are actually people in this world who rabidly and pathologically side with the overdog in every single case. These people are usually fanatics just waiting to be recruited, doesn't matter by whom; if the secular humanists decided to wipe out anyone who ever worshiped a deity, they would sign up in a heartbeat.

That's why should encourage people to think for themselves...questioning everything, even perhaps things you think you know is true.

That assumes that all people are either inclined or capable of doing so. This is far from the case: a great many people in our society cannot handle the responsibility of having to think for themselves and must be TOLD what to do in order to function efficiently. Many others could handle that responsibility, but don't want it, for whatever reason. Moreover, there are entire segments of our civilization that depend on lockstep obedience and a lack of independent thought in order to function at all. The military chain of command, for example, would become untenable if rank-and-file soldiers were encouraged to question the orders of their superiors at all times, and the resulting breakdown in military discipline would be EXTREMELY problematic for anyone who desires to actually win a war. Police departments also depend on a certain amount of departmental coordination, where most of the things a police officer can do independently are either illegal or a very bad idea.

"Everyone should think for themselves and use reason" sounds good on paper, but IN PRACTICE it means you are now subject to the whims of the stupid, the selfish, the defective and the unreasonable, people who might otherwise be held in line by rigid obedience to an authority figure. As we've discovered in, for example, Iraq, a benevolent tyrant is infinitely preferable to an ineffectual democracy.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

"Benevolent tyrant"? Those are two words that don't belong together, under any circumstances.

 

[Rom's Sehlat]

I am interested in hearing who should be the said benevolent tyrant. Don't tell me Saddam Hussein was benevolent...

 

[Paradon]

Maybe not Saddam Hussein, but some historical figures could be viewed as heroes or tyrant...depending on who you ask. Maybe in one country he was a hero, but in the other tyrant, such as, William Wallace and King Edward.

 

[Arpy]

Benevolent tyrants don't work. A) They die and then you're left at square one. So we re-invade Iraq if installed President Ben V. Tyrannous is succeeded by his self-centered son or nephew or strongest warlord? B) They may be nice but incompetent, and overthrown, or leave their nations in the hands of incompetents. Do we bail out the Iraqi economy every other dictator ruling by divine right can't balance a checkbook? Democracy works because, like capitalism, it's competitive.

 

[Myasishchev]

I am interested in hearing who should be the said benevolent tyrant.

Abraham Lincoln, maybe.

(All tyrant means is one who does not rule according to law. Sorry, habeas corpus!)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Benevolent tyrant"? Those are two words that don't belong together, under any circumstances.

I beg to differ, and differ strongly. The problem, as I see it, is not a problem with tyranny, but of assuring benevolence. Democracy is supposed to do this by providing accountability, so that even if your leaders are NOT benevolent, they are at least replaceable to the point that someone less corrupt can be put in power. In an impotent democracy, it doesn't matter whether your leaders are patriotic statesmen or petty thugs, they fail to effectively wield power then the affairs of the state fall to the hands of local gangs and activists with their own agenda, and the result is national chaos.

The advantage of an dictator is that you only have to assure the benevolence of ONE MAN. This was the whole appeal of monotheism for early Christians and Muslims: the pagan pantheons are riddled with asshole deities who destroy everything, shifty deities who can't be counted on and benevolent deities who aren't reliable enough to be counted on. Replacing them all with a single omnibenevolent figure has unifying potential and produces clarity of purpose. The only problem with this idea is that GOD ISN'T REAL, and some human figure has to represent him when it comes time to make real decisions. For Catholics, this results in a religious dictatorship under the Pope, who can be assumed (hopefully) to be more or less benevolent, if not entirely rational. For protestants, this results in your incompetent democracy scenario: a million different churches with a million petty authority figures who all have different ideas on what to do and don't always agree with each other. Chaos is the result, even if HALF of all denominations and congregations gravitate to benevolent, level-headed leaders. The same situation currently exists in Islam, where a dozen parallel threads of fundamentalism have taken upon themselves the authority to issue fatwas and deviant interpretations of their religion to the exclusion of all others. Arguably, the entire issue of radical Islam could easily be settled if all Muslims could be made to follow the directives of a SINGLE religious leader who could at least impose some unity of purpose.

In a perfect world, the most effective democracy is preferable to the most benevolent dictator. But in terms of outcomes, the next best thing to an effective democracy is NOT an ineffective one, but an effective dictator who is capable of maintaining peace and stability. Without order, there can be no reason, and without reason, encouraging people to think for themselves tends to have some pretty scary results.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I am interested in hearing who should be the said benevolent tyrant. Don't tell me Saddam Hussein was benevolent...

In that situation, I would have settled for EFFECTIVE; towards the end, Saddam was neither.

But you've got to wonder at a democratic government that includes, among its power brokers, the various followers of Moqtada al Sadr. And you thought Democrats and Republicans had their feuds, at least they're not SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER between votes.

In this and many other situations, one is sometimes faced with a choice between "democracy" and "effective government" and not necessarily having both. The same situation applies to organized religions: in a choice between independence of thought and effective leadership, the latter is generally preferable.

Benevolent tyrants don't work. A) They die and then you're left at square one. So we re-invade Iraq if installed President Ben V. Tyrannous is succeeded by his self-centered son or nephew or strongest warlord? B) They may be nice but incompetent, and overthrown, or leave their nations in the hands of incompetents. Do we bail out the Iraqi economy every other dictator ruling by divine right can't balance a checkbook? Democracy works because, like capitalism, it's competitive.

Correction: democracy works WHEN it is competitive. Don't forget that Iraq REMAINED a democracy during the entirety of Saddam's rule; he made it clear at all times that anyone who seriously challenged his rule would be horribly tortured to death along with their families, making the question "Who are you voting for?" sort of a rhetorical one.

That is, of course, an example of a malevolent dictator. A benevolent one, though, can be assumed to STEP DOWN when the time is appropriate, or at the very least value the good of his country more than his own legacy and avoid a lengthy and bloody power struggle if and when the people decide to remove him from power. This is one of the reasons why the proper selection of a successor is one of the criterion for a "good emperor" when speaking of Ancient Rome. It isn't enough just to govern effectively, but to make sure effective government will still exist after you're gone.

 

[T'Girl]

The only problem with this idea is that GOD ISN'T REAL

Who says, I mean really? if you take the entire Human species and excluded all people with religion, spirituality and faith, then excluded all people who in all honesty don't know or have formed no opinion on the matter, how many people newtype alpha are left who actively believe that there is no God?

World wide (no, not just in Europe) it something like three to five percent, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. So what happen now? Well all those people are wrong and only the little group is right, and anyone not in the little group is somehow self-deceived? They must be, because otherwise they'd believe the same way as the little group does.

Don't get me wrong, you (just as I) can believe anything you want.