The Four Institutions
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
My great uncle was a WWII scientist & German officer - they were desperate to develop new weapons and gain experimental results. Everyone thought the war hinged on it.
Duty: communisim is just an example of an atheistic dictatorship.
Duty: communisim is just an example of an atheistic dictatorship.
First off, assuming that you were arguing about secularism, the Great Purge, the Cultural Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge were all atrocities committed by states in their bid to maintain power, just as religious organizations like the Roman Catholic Church have committed horrible atrocities against their fellow man in order to maintain power. Whether or not religion is present does not dictate whether or not there are atrocities. Where there are men that want to maintain their power over others at any costs there is atrocities.
Second, science is a tool, and it will create what man needs. When people are sick, science has lead to the discovery of medicines, When people wanted to kill one another, science has lead to the development of weapons. As science is a tool, it can be misused. States, and even religions, have long misused science to push their agendas. Science often acts as a mirror to humanity, and via the reflection, humans can see their inner nature given form. Sometimes monstrously, like via an atomic explosion, and sometimes miraculously, like via the development of antibiotics. However, science in itself is not inherently coercive like a state or religion is. It only seeks to advance knowledge.
Tempered by ethics, science appears to be the most ratoinal and responsible way to govern.
Yes sir you get reputation for this one...
Sigh, if I didn't get the "spread it around" message anyways.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
Under Bill Clinton the US bombed a cheap pharmacuticals plant in africa that was producing affordable medicines for preventable and treatable diseases. That was under the influence of the scientific community you described in first post.
How dare that plant wage war against America by making cheaper drugs than us!
Technically, a pharmaceutical company would be under "market".
Yeah, regarding that:
"And, some officials said, the President's chief advisers concluded that the risks of hitting the wrong target were far outweighed by the possibility that the plant was making chemical weapons for a terrorist eager to use them. Like many decisions of this kind, the decision to bomb the plant was made under intense pressure and a sense of urgency created by intelligence showing that bin Laden was contemplating another lethal attack against the United States. "We would have been derelict in our duty not to have proceeded," Berger said."
Examples? (I am not objecting, but curious).
That is exactly why science, as an institution, cannot lead a state. It can only serve one of the other three institutions.
My field was genetics and I worked in medical research, but I quit because despite whatever advances one might make, only the economically viable, or ethically significant findings were pursued. That said, science for science's sake is a great thing, but is unable to direct any other part of society, because it has no reference to the bigger picture. The bigger picture is ecconomic, ethical and political.
S
Shai Gar
I'm sure George Bush's officials say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction too.
Witch and heretic burnings, Inquisitions, Crusades, genocide of American natives as a result of colonialism, etc.
Then perhaps someday science needs to become organized and take the reigns of society rather than letting the market, state, and church have the rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)
Witch/heretic burnings were principally carried out by protestant reformers to quash political uprisings.
An analogous process occured in the Catholic Inquisition. Those found guilty in inquisitorial trials were handed to the state and tried separately as enemies of the state. I am not sure about the protestant numbers, but the Catholic inquisition sentenced about 12 people per year over a 500 year history. The point being, that burnings/death sentences were usually for political crimes, not religious ones.
The Crusades were principally pollitically/ethically motivated; the small population living in the Holy Land (most of which were Christian, after the Roman devestation of the area in 70aD), were attacked and invaded by the Muhammadans. The crusades were intended principally free/emancipate the Christians living in the Holy Land, as they were faced with the ultimatim: convert to Islam or die. However, certain key figures, almost all of which were merchants, highjacked the crusades and used them against trade rivals. The point being, that the Crusades were organised as a liberating attack, but ended up highjacked by merchants.
The native american indian massacres, are probably the best example of religiously motivated murder. Most of the American Indians on the West coast were Catholic (catechised by Spanish priests/monks), and refused to accept protestant ministers. It is reasonably argued that the massacres of American Indians occured for no other principal reason than religious ones.
Meh, for someone who claimed to not be objecting, you certainly did an awful lot of objecting. I consider that to be pitiful baiting. Your arguments are also completely irrelevant, since my arguments are expousing religion and state in general.
However, since you seem to want to make this into a religious debate, remember its the winners who get to write the history. Anyone can interpret history how they want and justify atrocities however they want. It doesn't change the fact that they occurred. The Roman Catholic Chruch did burn people on the stake, did torture people in the Inquistion, did send armies off to fight in the Holy Land, and did make declarations which justified atrocities agaisnt native peoples. Argue all you want that Protestants did it worse, or that they felt justified in their actions, it doesn't change what they did.
Also, something tells me you have only read one version of history. Comments like "Christians living in the Holy Land, as they were faced with the ultimatim: convert to Islam or die" are practically an outright lie.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
Actually the crusades were market driven.
The Muslims had the gold with which to buy things, and the things to buy.
The Muslims had the gold with which to buy things, and the things to buy.
No baiting, just though the Native attrocities were the best example of misused religious power.
In part, I also don't like stereotypes of institutions/states/religions which are not grounded in fact. I agree that what you say happened, but they are not representative events. That's all.
Shai: that's true, especially later on. The really rich ones were the Eastern Christians in North Africa. I suspect that was the motivation of the Muslim invasions in that area.
Last edited:
Representative of what? They represented a religious organization committing atrocities. I find people who attempt to justify those kind of atrocities to be just as sickening as those who try to justify the Holocaust. Real people suffered and died, but to protect the image of a silly church, people want to rationalize and minimize some of the insidious actions it took in its history. It's disgusting.