Man Without A Country

[Buttercup]

Can there be people in groups without violent disputes? Sometimes I think that wrapping our identity up in external things like country, family, political philosophy, religion, etc. means that struggles for made up things become struggles for existence and survival. And in such struggles, violence is inevitable, isn't it?

Yes, it is. However, even if religion and political philosophies didn't exist...humans would still kill and fight over territory or stolen possessions. Sadly, I've stopped believing in the Miss America goal of "world peace"....it will simply never happen, humans are naturally violent. Our goal should be to stop it whenever possible but not expect the world to become violence free indefinitely.

 

[Wandered Off]

Check the text and you'll find that he considers "non-resistance" the most powerful form of resistance.

Double-plus good!

It looks as if he also thinks he's going to get supernatural help...

...their (enemies) overthrow, by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is inevitable.

Since we appear to be short on spiritual regeneration and have been for centuries, I'm not confident in the tactic of meekly waiting for it - especially if I have no expectation of a next life where justice all gets worked out in the end.

For those of us not banking on divine intervention, non-resistance seems a quick path to unnecessary misery for us and possibly our children. This is one of those ideas that works best when everybody lives by it. Until then, we're in sort of a variation on the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

[doppelganger]

It looks as if he also thinks he's going to get supernatural help...

"Spiritual regeneration" doesn't necessarily refer to the supernatural.

Since we appear to be short on spiritual regeneration and have been for centuries, I'm not confident in the tactic of meekly waiting for it - especially if I have no expectation of a next life where justice all gets worked out in the end.

That's what everyone says, though, don't they? Hasn't every act of violence or supporting mass violence been justified in the minds of the people engaging in it? There is no "Just War" - there's just war - and it's always justified on one moral ground or another.

For those of us not banking on divine intervention, non-resistance seems a quick path to unnecessary misery for us and possibly our children.

Information creates a society. Information likewise un-creates it. MLK, Jr. changed the way many Americans think about race. Ghandi showed the people of India the way to independence from British rule. What they had in common is they understood the manner by which thoughts possess people and determine their actions,and not the other way around.

 

[Pariah]

What they had in common is they understood the manner by which thoughts possess people and determine their actions,and not the other way around.

Or the common sense to avoid a battle which would inevitably end in the utter annihilation or continued enslavement of the very people they said to be saving. It was the realization that however barbarous their repressive governments, there lay some kernal of civilization within their oppressors - and they exploited it.

African-Americans in the United States lacked the firepower to carryout an armed rebellion and the education to carry it on through the political process. Although Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi both, firmly believed and carried out "civil disobediance", neither Gandhi or MLK, Jr. would have succeeded in an armed revolt. The Indians lacked the proper firepower as well - after the First War of Independence in 1857, every available resource for violent rebellion was removed. And the African-Americans never had it to begin with.

I would say that their success lay partly in their setting (though vastly overshadowed by their passion and their talent).

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I find myself in constant agreement with the ideals of your "religion," but not with your ideas (though I agree more often than not). This brings me to one of my favorite quotes: "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature." This was in response to a question about the nature of God--personal or impersonal.

 

[doppelganger]

I find myself in constant agreement with the ideals of your "religion," but not with your ideas

I get that a lot. Fine by me though, since one of the rules of my "religion" is that it's not anybody else's religion (in fact, that's pretty much the only rule).

This brings me to one of my favorite quotes: "It matters little what idea of the Father you may entertain as long as you are spiritually acquainted with the ideal of his infinite and eternal nature." This was in response to a question about the nature of God--personal or impersonal.

I like that.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I get that a lot. Fine by me though, since one of the rules of my "religion" is that it's not anybody else's religion (in fact, that's pretty much the only rule).

One thing I've learned since leaving the church I grew up with is that religion is an intensely personal experience that cannot be shared--only the interpretations of that experience, which can do no more than point.

 

[doppelganger]

The chorus to one my my current favorite songs reminded me of this thread:

"Lucid Dreams" by Franz Ferdinand:

There is no nation of you
There is no nation of me
Our only nation lives in Lucid Dreams
Lucid Dreams
I'm living in lucid dreams
I'm living on short based dreams tonight

 

[texan1]

What a coincidence - I just posted a thread along this line of thinking..."Do our moral obligations only extend to our country's borders". I look forward to checking out the writings and interviews referenced in this thread.....