Charissa's comments (member since Nov 15, 2007)

Charissa's comments from the Banned Books group.

Thanks Salma, Trevor and Alejandro for your responses. I do so enjoy the civility of debate and discourse in this community.

Trevor, my problem with theories like Kants are the uses of "should" and "conform". It is my experience that dictating terms of behavior to others is a tricky business. Certainly if someone were just declared emperor of the universe and everyone had to go along with what they said (if it were me the order would be "everyone shall be nice to one another", "share your toys", and "snack time is every 2 hours")... well, then the solution would be simple, neh?

I would like to find a comprehensive view of the causes of peace... to understand the organic origins of it. Not how to force it into existence through more theories and isms. Do you understand the distinction I am making there? It is an important one.

Yes, Alejandro, I have long noticed that our world is oddly predisposed to view the world in terms of conflict, illnes, tragedy, violence, and other negative occurances. History, as it is taught in our schools, is comprised to stories about wars and body counts. News, as it is shown on a daily basis, consists of the horrible things that people are doing to each other around the globe... or nature... or other events.

I have long wondered how it might affect our culture if history was the story of laundry days, baking, baby burps, whittling, sprouting seeds, when weather was miraculous, the evolution of beautiful handwriting, the year everyone had enough to eat, and every day that went by in someone's life when they didn't hate their neighbor.

Alejandro, your post is also a personal opinion. When it comes to faith or non-faith there are no empirical "facts", only experiences.

Unfortunately, no one group on this planet has the corner market on hatred. There seems to be plenty to go around, regardless of your beliefs, or lack thereof.

Personally I think Dawkins makes some interesting observations, but ultimately misses the mark. I don't blame religion for the violence humans have perpetrated over centuries. Religion is just another in a long line of reasons people kill one another. Communism seemed like just as good a reason as any kind of religious faith. If people aren't killing each other over ideals then they are killing over land, resources, possessions, or perceived insults. I think at this point in our evolution I think we can safely say that violence is just one of the many traits that humans normally exhibit. Perhaps it would behoove us to study the conditions under which humans most likely exhibit peace and then seek to reproduce those conditions as often as possible. Neh?

Does anyone know if there is a book out there written about the history of peace?

The difference between Dawkins and fundamentalist religious folks, is that Dawkins is not proposing that religious people be rounded up and killed because of their beliefs. He is not blowing up people who are religious, simply because he thinks they are dangerous. He is simply writing and speaking about a point of view that he has come to hold. Personally I wouldn't care one whit about religious fundamentalists if they were as well behaved as that. I'll take fundamentalist atheists any day over fundamentalist religious folk.

Richard Dawkins' best-selling atheist manifesto The God Delusion was at the centre of a growing row over religious tolerance yesterday after the Turkish publishers of his book were threatened with legal action by prosecutors who accuse it of 'insulting believers'.

Erol Karaaslan, the founder of the small publishing house Kuzey Publications, could face between six months and a year in jail for "inciting hatred and enmity" if Istanbul prosecutors decide to press charges over the book, which has sold 6000 copies in Turkey since it was published this summer.

Full article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/art...