I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I'd like to think that being anti-war isn't limited to Buddhists or Mennonites or any religious sect for that matter. Don't assume that if we were invaded, that people like me wouldn't stand up and fight to protect ourselves and (most) of our way of life.
That's why I referred to you as Buddist-ish. :)
Hmm. "Blessed" is a funny word in this context, but I think you're right in noting that it may be some combination of the two things you suggest. Considering how much killing has gone on in God's name over past 2000 years, it's likely an apocolyptic mashup of the missionary zeal of Christianity, rapacious capitalism, and Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" thesis.
Pretty much every culture that we have record of has acted in a similar way: fight for supremacy. I'd say it's more of a human trait.
However, history remembers the victorious
Don't you find it strange that so much killing goes on in God's name, and that whether your a Nazi in WW2 or a jihadi today, that their belief is that God has blessed them too?
What's the alternative? If you believe in God (or a god,s) then you have to believe that he is on your side. Otherwise you might as well pack up if you believe that God is against you. It's hard to rally others to your cause if they believe that they are fighting against the almighty.
A fair bit of killing has happened for other causes as well, they just haven't survived the ages like religion. Bader-Meinhof could be compared to Al-Qaeda, but no common cause.
I'll admit that you don't hear "Buddha is Great!" shouted as an army charges forward very often.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/war.shtml
_For Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence.
The pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story:
A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence.
'You're a fool,' said the veteran - 'what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!'
Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it.
'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'_
As to whether we're effective warriors or not, the west has prevailed in classic conflicts between nation states, but considering the Russians were chased out of Afghanistan in the 80s, the US sought "peace with honour" in Vietnam in the mid-seventies, and has now been in Iraq for longer than it took to defeat the Germans and the Japanese in WW2, I'm not sure how effective our warriors are today. It's been said that it's far easier to make war than peace, and sadly, that's probably true.
Historically, China has been the most powerful nation on the planet. For something like 90% of recorded history (can't remember the exact number). The past few hundred years of Western dominance has been a historical anomaly; a blip. Why the overtake? Pretty much because Europe experienced so little peace, had no overall emperor, was beset on all sides by interlocutors. So they got really, really good at war.
The more recent "failings" of the West in war have less to do with their proficiency, and more to do with the political distaste for all out war. Few would dispute that the West could destroy virtually any nation (or combination thereof) on the planet. But it's no longer about that. The war in Iraq would have gone quite differently if they had used strategies out of WWII. There wasn't really that much concern for the safety of German civilians in that war.
Wow. Not sure where to start. Are you suggesting that free markets, representational government, civil liberties and basic human rights, feminism(?) etc are values and constructs that must be exported at gunpoint? Not to mention that much of these values are currently under heavy assault in the West _because_we're at "war" right now. One alternative would be to not force our world view on others. Do we take on China ultimately? And why do we have to assume that peace will result in relinquishing dominance? Why not consider the alternative, that peaceful coexistance might actually be more beneficial to everyone than war.
Not suggesting that at all. But history has shown that people are drawn or attracted to power. They imitate the powerful. The dominance and might of the West has drawn other nations and cultures towards Western ways. The West dominates international organizations like the UN, WTO and Bretton Woods groups. Why? Because of military and economic power.
Countries have been westernized at gunpoint. But more have been attracted to western ways on their own.
Thank God for the right to be a consumer. Now there is something worth dying for. The right wing is protecting their dominance, I'll grant you that. Also, you assume that it's only the left that wants or needs to "protest." Should the left wing be grateful for the right to protest? Aren't individual freedoms ultimately right wing ideals? See this is where everything falls apart, and one simply has to follow the money. Republicans demand less government, less spending, and the individual freedom to conduct business without interference. Meaning simply pay less tax. Yet they happily draft legislation to govern the private lives of citizens, from the bedroom to the art gallery to the record store, and the Bush administration takes the US budget from a healthy surplus to a horrific deficit in a couple of years. The right accuses the left of "social engineering" when it tries to make policy that helps disadvantaged people, yet happily seeks a constitutional amendment to prohibit gays from marrying.
I would suggest that the majority of protest historically in the US has come from the left (perhaps because the left has produced so few presidents). In the Soviet Union, I'd imagine it wasn't the left that wanted to protest. Or in China or Cuba. In Canada, you get protests from both sides.
I'd say that individual freedoms are a Western ideal, not limited to left or right in America.
I would totally agree that on paper Republicans are hypocritical. But I think that view often stems from ideas of politics from a generation ago. At this point they're a mishmash, just as the Democrats are. Hilary Clinton is probably more of a Republican than John McCain. Personally, I'd love to see them ditch both official parties and reform around current politics. A true left/green party could probably see more success than being hidden in a Democrat party that gives lipservice to leftist ideals. Or have the Reps, Dems and a "Freaking Common Sense" party.
I don't know what else to say man, it may very well be that we're here in this time and place because our ancestors were the meanest sons of bitches in their respective time. But that's evolution, and precludes God's blessing for our dominance, so I'll drop that.
Nat
If you assume the non-existence of a God.
