muslims PART 2

[hectorberlioz]

Yet...Rome fell, and the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. They weren't mighty?

Yeah, other countries helped bring them down, but at least in the last two cases, a lot had to do with the idealogy of the government.

It possibly was God speaking through example about what failures those sort of controlling governments were...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yet...Rome fell, and the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. They weren't mighty?

Yeah, other countries helped bring them down, but at least in the last two cases, a lot had to do with the idealogy of the government.

Exactly, monarchies don't stand the test of time. But while they were in power, the leaders of those countries defined right and wrong for a huge amount of people.

And I don't think fundamentalist or monarchical rule will stand the test of time in the middle east either. But I think the muslim faith probably will. It will just become more like faiths in the western world, something mostly kept to the individual.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It possibly was God speaking through example about what failures those sort of controlling governments were...

Possibly, but I think it was just inevitable cultural evolution.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Exactly, monarchies don't stand the test of time. But while they were in power, the leaders of those countries defined right and wrong for a huge amount of people.

And I don't think fundamentalist or monarchical rule will stand the test of time in the middle east either. But I think the muslim faith probably will. It will just become more like faiths in the western world, something mostly kept to the individual.



Possibly, but I think it was just inevitable cultural evolution.

Which I would define as human fallibility.

[inked]

Tell that to the British, BJ. In point of historical fact, monarchy has been around millenia longer than democracies. Never forgetting that evolution would have us believe that kingship and god arise from the tribal chief (=king), I must say you ignore the obvious BJ. Rather you should say democracies don't last, they tend to totalitarianism. Some historian.......

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Tell that to the British, BJ. In point of historical fact, monarchy has been around millenia longer than democracies. Never forgetting that evolution would have us believe that kingship and god arise from the tribal chief (=king), I must say you ignore the obvious BJ. Rather you should say democracies don't last, they tend to totalitarianism. Some historian.......

Britian is much more democracy than monarchy. You're splitting hairs.

And the totalitarianism vs. democracy battle is always a matter of two steps forward, one step back. But I don't think western democracies are tending towards totalitarianism in the long run.

Even China has been slowly losing much of it's totalitarianist control over the years, and I think it will continue.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

World War One was largely about imperialism. At the time it had to be opposed. World War Two was much of the same, with the added pressure of the reparations imposed upon Germany post-ww1. This also had to be opposed, though this time the victors wisely avoided some of the reparation issues that may have lead to a third world war. This kind of mass-imperialism via warfare has largely (though not completely) been culturally-evolved out of western thought.

You remind me of the European youth who went into World War 1 saying it would be “the war to end all wars.�

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And I think it will continue to be as society progresses. Governments have realized that there are better ways to spread influence.

Otto Von Bismarck's "balance of power" failed. The "balance of power" was the time in European history where they attempted what you are talking about. They attempted to find a way to keep everyone peaceful. The solution was to have every country sufficiently strong to defend itself, but no one strong enough to make an attack. England had the most powerful navy, France the most powerful army, and Russia a string of alliances. Their powers all canceled out.

It didn't work, however. World War 1 was the decisive proof of that. It worked for a while, but it couldn’t last. After the Rwanda genocide, they said, "never again." But that also failed. Humans just don't function that way. We're too selfish and evil.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Anyone can participate in a democratic system by it's very nature. I only said to avoid basing a society on fundamentalism. They can participate, but they can't legislate morality purely on the basis of scripture. They have to convince the majority with real world examples.

In post 145, you wrote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem
*light-bulb over head

I have an idea! Let's go back to the old days of outlawing Catholicism! And while we're at it, let's get Evangelical Christians, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Orthodox Jews!


Just in the halls of the government. They can do whatever they like anywhere else.

Banning us from the halls of government doesn't sound very democratic to me . Or accepting, for that matter .

The only way to keep people from voting based on religious values rather than secular values is to keep the religious folk out of voting booths. Also, it is nonsensical and biased to demand a purely secular government over one that represents the beliefs of the people by being religious and allowing their religious values to influence their policy proposals.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

"Nearly" is a relative term. I'd say the fact that we were not wiped out and the fact that a nuclear weapon has never been used against humans since the two we used in Japan says a lot about how far society has come.

There have been crises averted in the past just as in the present. The fact that the human race was nearly wiped out is significant. The US and Russia both set up a lot of nuclear weapon safeguards after major crises in the Cold War because we came so close.

I honestly can’t see how you can say that anyway though, even aside from the history, in view of the current situations with Iran and North Korea, and WMD proliferation in general. It’s getting worse and worse as we speak.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Not "discard", just stop claiming that they are absolute.

I can’t understand why you point the finger at fundamentalists, when enormous numbers of liberals (including you) do exactly the same. People believe absolutely whether they have a scripture that claims to be absolute truth or not. The scripture isn’t the point.

Even if open-mindedness is related to accepting other people rather than being ready to change one’s own views, again, I would assert liberals are just as non-accepting as fundamentalists.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Again, you don't read my posts. Unlike the fundamentalists, I don't think the best world is one where we all choose to follow the same moral belief system. I think it's perfectly fine that one person can be a devout christian and another a devout muslim, along people like myself who don't really favor one system over the other. I don't even think it's necessarily the end of the world if two people think of each other as totally misguided. All I'm asking is that people try to look at the bigger picture a bit more. The big "us".

You only think it’s fine for people to be devout Christians or devout Muslims if they practice their religion in the way you think they should. Which means they shouldn’t practice their religion in the voting booth. Keep it out of the halls of government, you say, and avoid fundamentalist faiths. That isn't accepting .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Accept the fact that radically different worldviews can coexist peacefully and sometimes these different systems "work" even better for some societies. Sometimes they do not, as well. But, if so, concentrate on the specific issues.

In other words, believe your worldview, but keep it to yourself. Don’t vote based on your worldview, if your worldview leads you to approve or reject actions because of your religion and not the “real world issues.� Those real world issues being simply a secular worldview.

By saying they’re “real world issues�, you’re making the assumption that issues that come from a religious worldview are “fake world issues.� Or at least they are sufficiently less “real world issues� that they shouldn’t be acted upon in the voting booth.

But if I have experienced highly compelling evidence that demons exist, I'd say they're another real world issue. If I have seen highly compelling evidence that my religion is true, then my religion is part of the real world issues in a crucial way, and ignoring it in the voting booths would be denying reality.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

There is no better and worse, only different.

Have I introduced you to my buddy Moussaoui lately? His beliefs aren’t worse, they’re only different. I’m sure you’ll like him!

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And, when issues arise, look towards dealing with the issues, not the esoteric philosophies behind them. Because you aren't going to be able to really change those anyway.

History has shown differently. There have been massive changes in people’s beliefs, and some of these have been very rapid. St. Patrick is a brilliant example of this. So is the rise of Christianity, and, if we’re willing to accept less peaceful mass conversions as well, Islam.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Britian is much more democracy than monarchy. You're splitting hairs.

And the totalitarianism vs. democracy battle is always a matter of two steps forward, one step back. But I don't think western democracies are tending towards totalitarianism in the long run.

Even China has been slowly losing much of it's totalitarianist control over the years, and I think it will continue.

As has been pointed out, historical democracies have collapsed. Germany's democracy collapsed under Hitler. Greek democracy collapsed due to Greek imperialism and internal corruption. It changed into a totalitarian government. Many historians nowadays say America is still a "great experiment." Democracy is fading in Russia as we speak. France is losing its freedom of religion. Venezuela has lost much of its democratic freedom. I'm not saying democracy is doomed to failure. But the view that totalitarianism is going to win is certainly a historically supportable position.

The only reason you say the totalitarianism vs. democracy battle is always a matter of two steps forward, one step back, is because right now democracy is prevalent in many places. And there have been times, historically, of widespread peace among nations or success. This is true in countries with dictatorships as well *Tips the hat to Gwaimir.* However, historically, these periods of human success and peace have always collapsed again into war. The fact that we have democracies existing now and no World War happening now does not mean that it will always be so.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If I have seen highly compelling evidence that my religion is true, then my religion is part of the real world issues in a crucial way, and ignoring it in the voting booths would be denying reality.

Exactly. I'm still awaiting compelling evidence that a god does NOT exist.

It's very ironic to me that atheists/agnostics call other people's beliefs "myths" while they firmly (and without proof) cling to a myth themselves. ALL of these worldviews are on the same playing field, and IMO, atheism has much less evidence for it than Christianity - and they ALL have to do with what we think reality is (but not all of them make correct claims about reality).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Banning us from the halls of government doesn't sound very democratic to me . Or accepting, for that matter .

Nice selective quoting Lief. I've never condoned banning anyone from the voting booths. I suppose you missed this one a few posts later elaborating on that statement of mine when asked:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Just in the halls of the government.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What do you mean by this, specifically?

And to be a bit more on-topic, do non-Muslims have any say in Muslim society?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The basic separation of church and state. No "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" states and, more importantly, no laws based on scripture alone. Sure, laws may coincide with scripture (i.e. some of the ten comandments, etc.). But they have to stand on there own ground. Just being from a holy book aint good enough, and is, in fact, irrelavant to their implementation.

To put it bluntly, every opinion under the sun can be expressed, including religious ones (even the baby eating one ), but none are endorsed or implemented purely because some book says it what "the man" wants. Prove it's a good policy in the real world and convince the rest of the population. And expect opinions to change about what is and isn't good for society as times change.

It's called democracy.

In terms of historical interpretation. I stand by my sense of where the world is going (slowly democratic and global), but I also admit that it is purely theory on my part. I could be completely wrong and we are actually headed for a christian theocracy. But, if such is the case, I'll probably be one of the first casualties to the new inquisition, so I won't concern myself about it too much.

If you can take just one thing from all my comments it's this: consider (just consider), that it might be possible for someone to be a devout muslim and still share 90% of the views about what is good for society as you have. Don't let the 10% you may disagree on form your opinion.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Exactly. I'm still awaiting compelling evidence that a god does NOT exist.

There isn't any compelling evidence that proves or disproves the existance of a creator.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It's very ironic to me that atheists/agnostics call other people's beliefs "myths" while they firmly (and without proof) cling to a myth themselves.

The only "myth" I cling to is that "I don't know, and no one else does either." I'd call that less of a myth than some one who claims "I know, but I can't prove it.", which is what most religions/athiesm claim. You actually have more in common with an athiest than me.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

ALL of these worldviews are on the same playing field, and IMO, atheism has much less evidence for it than Christianity

Atheism and Christianity have the same amount of solid evidence. None.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and they ALL have to do with what we think reality is (but not all of them make correct claims about reality).

No, my belief system ignores what reality is because I accept the fact that I can never know for sure. Instead, I concentrate on trying to understand how things work that I can observe, human society.

You don't have to understand the physics of an internal combustion engine to work on your car.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In his place and time, yes. To you and me, no. Probably to the inhabitants as well.

Might does make right. It always has and always will. What has changed is that over time societies have come to realize that to sustain themselves they have to balance personal desires with those of the people at large.

So, then, it is wrong of us to say that, for instance, Elizabeth Bathory, Vlad Tepes, etc. were wrong for what they did; they were in fact right, and it would just be wrong for us to slaughter over 600 virgins in order to bathe in their blood? It was in fact morally right for the Countess Elizabeth Bathory, as she had to power, to do so? And it was right for Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews, since he had the power? I'm just trying to determine if I understand you correctly.

You leave out the factor of history and cultural evolution. When I say "best", I mean most successful, and I'd say democracy has supplanted most monarchies over time and will continue to.

Democracy has supplanted most monarchies at present, but democracy in the past was unsuccessful. I think monarchy will not make a strong comeback, but that's because I think everything is deteriorating.

Simply put: The more people with a voice as to the morality of a given society, the more equitable the morality becomes. This leads to a generally peaceful populace, which is good for everyone, even those who hold the power.

The peacefulness naturally generated by democracy being demonstrated by the wars and bloodshed in the 20th and now the 21st century? The American populace has a very large say in their government (which you take to be synonymous with right and wrong, I believe; correct me if I am wrong), but they don't show themselves to be peaceful.

If you mean god, it still doesn't change the fact that he is not actively-involved in helping direct his creation on a day to day, year to year, or even generation to generation basis.

I heartily disagree, but as you don't even believe in God, it doesn't seem worthwhile to get into the point here.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In his place and time, yes. To you and me, no. Probably to the inhabitants as well.

Might does make right. It always has and always will. What has changed is that over time societies have come to realize that to sustain themselves they have to balance personal desires with those of the people at large.

So, then, it is wrong of us to say that, for instance, Elizabeth Bathory, Vlad Tepes, etc. were wrong for what they did; they were in fact right, and it would just be wrong for us to slaughter over 600 virgins in order to bathe in their blood? It was in fact morally right for the Countess Elizabeth Bathory, as she had to power, to do so? And it was right for Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews, since he had the power? I'm just trying to determine if I understand you correctly.

You leave out the factor of history and cultural evolution. When I say "best", I mean most successful, and I'd say democracy has supplanted most monarchies over time and will continue to.

Democracy has supplanted most monarchies at present, but democracy in the past was unsuccessful. I think monarchy will not make a strong comeback, but that's because I think everything is deteriorating.

Simply put: The more people with a voice as to the morality of a given society, the more equitable the morality becomes. This leads to a generally peaceful populace, which is good for everyone, even those who hold the power.

The peacefulness naturally generated by democracy being demonstrated by the wars and bloodshed in the 20th and now the 21st century? The American populace has a very large say in their government (which you take to be synonymous with right and wrong, I believe; correct me if I am wrong), but they don't show themselves to be peaceful.

If you mean god, it still doesn't change the fact that he is not actively-involved in helping direct his creation on a day to day, year to year, or even generation to generation basis.

I heartily disagree, but as you don't even believe in God, it doesn't seem worthwhile to get into the point here.

monarchies don't stand the test of time.

1) Hitler was democratically elected.
2) Athens fell, also, and it was probably one of the most democratic states ever. A lot of democracies (in varying degrees) have fallen in the last couple centuries.

And the totalitarianism vs. democracy battle is always a matter of two steps forward, one step back. But I don't think western democracies are tending towards totalitarianism in the long run.

Okay, so regular monarchy, then two steps forward to democracy, one step backward to totalitarianism, so totalitarianism is one step ahead of a normal monarchy. Wha?

Britian is much more democracy than monarchy. You're splitting hairs.

At the moment, perhaps, but hardly throughout its history.

Originally Posted by Liefy

In other words, believe your worldview, but keep it to yourself.

*raises clenched fist to heavens*

Oh, for the days of Christendom!

Many historians nowadays say America is still a "great experiment."

And I'm not so sure about "great"...

Democracy is fading in Russia as we speak.

This is true in countries with dictatorships as well *Tips the hat to Gwaimir.*

Even when you compliment monarchy, you have to call it "dictatorship". *grumble*

Originally Posted by BJ

Nice selective quoting Lief. I've never condoned banning anyone from the voting booths. I suppose you missed this one a few posts later elaborating on that statement of mine when asked:

If you noticed, he actually said "Banning us from the halls of government".

I could be completely wrong and we are actually headed for a christian theocracy.

Tomorrow's Headline:

"Pope Assumes Authority Over World
British chant 'Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes'; Americans object to "pointy-crowned king in Rome"; Slovakia is oppressed"

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So, then, it is wrong of us to say that, for instance, Elizabeth Bathory, Vlad Tepes, etc. were wrong for what they did; they were in fact right, and it would just be wrong for us to slaughter over 600 virgins in order to bathe in their blood? It was in fact morally right for the Countess Elizabeth Bathory, as she had to power, to do so? And it was right for Hitler to attempt to exterminate the Jews, since he had the power? I'm just trying to determine if I understand you correctly.

It's not wrong for us to make judgements about the past, or even different cultures in the present. I'm just suggesting that people judge things in their own context. The extermination of the jews was largely a result of one individual holding all the power in a country. His might became right, and people followed him. But it would be a mistake to hold each and every German ultimately responsible, which we did not do for the most part, even if they participated, or at least did not try to stop, the killing. It was morally "right" in that place and time so their actions, while not accepted can be understood. Without understanding, one comes to conclusions like "all Germans want to kill all Jews" (and I still know some people who think that way).

The same can be said for much of the middle eastern population today, and I'm not talking about leaders. It's simply not fair to judge their actions by our standards. This does not mean they are completely innocent or that we turn a blind eye. But it also does not mean that we kill them all or try to bring them to christianity. It means we try to understand how they got where they were and how we can get them out.

It really seems quite simple to me, and I can't understand why so many find the idea so unpalitable.

[brownjenkins]

Forget it. I'm wasting my time.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Nice selective quoting Lief. I've never condoned banning anyone from the voting booths. I suppose you missed this one a few posts later elaborating on that statement of mine when asked:

Two points on this.

First is that your elaboration on what you meant did not in any way refute the interpretation that you wanted fundamentalists banned from the halls of government.

The second is that I've called you on that remark before, and you've never argued that I have been misinterpreting you. You've never said that you actually think it's fine for religious fundamentalists to hold government office. None of your most recent post argues that you weren't saying fundamentalists should be banned from government either- you only spoke against my voting booths comment. I believe the only way to truly separate church and state is to ban religious voters from the voting booths.

But of course I might be misinterpreting you about the halls of government comment, so would you mind answering this question? It hasn't been answered clearly enough for me. The only answer I've been hearing seems affirmative, but I might be misunderstanding.

Do you or do you not think that a law should exist that bans religious fundamentalists from government office?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If you can take just one thing from all my comments it's this: consider (just consider), that it might be possible for someone to be a devout muslim and still share 90% of the views about what is good for society as you have. Don't let the 10% you may disagree on form your opinion.

I have a great deal of respect for most Muslims, and for the majority of the Muslim world. There are a lot of close ties to Christian and Jewish thought and morality, and even the suicide bombers have some wonderful qualities that I want to emulate. Those would be enormous courage and willingness to die for what they believe is right. That's just brilliant, the passion for what is right is highly admirable, and I think Americans have a lot to learn from them. Among the non-extremist Muslim world there is also much to be admired, such as the emphasis on justice and moral values. I think the structure and existence of a standard of behavior, and the certainty of right and wrong in their religion is admirable.

I've already said this in previous posts, but it's worth saying again.

[inked]

Now, Lief, remember it is BJ you are conversing with. He really means that he wants to be able apply his societal value religiously so as to exclude anone not agnostic from the process of government so as to assure the implemetation of his views above and beyond all others because he is in harmony with the great societal more at the moment. He cannot realise that he needs to exclude the religiously anti-God on the same premise because that requires logic and understanding applied equally. So, having excluded properly the face and obverse sides of the coin we are left with the miniscule component of the side, or about 1-2 mm of surface, on which to role the government of the great unwashed. This coneptualization has a certain resonance with both Communism in theory and practice as well as Fascism and status-based social orders. It is the ever-popular, we know what is best and you will do it school of thought. It is equally employed by all sides. I guess you could say I'm agnostic about the statement when made by any other than myself!

[Nurvingiel]

Sometimes, Mooters need to include a lot more paragraph breaks in their posts. I think now is one of those times eh what Inked?

Not that I lurk in this thread. Cuz I don't. *darts eyes*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's not wrong for us to make judgements about the past, or even different cultures in the present. I'm just suggesting that people judge things in their own context. The extermination of the jews was largely a result of one individual holding all the power in a country. His might became right, and people followed him. But it would be a mistake to hold each and every German ultimately responsible, which we did not do for the most part, even if they participated, or at least did not try to stop, the killing. It was morally "right" in that place and time so their actions, while not accepted can be understood. Without understanding, one comes to conclusions like "all Germans want to kill all Jews" (and I still know some people who think that way).

Okay, I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying. Though I'm not sure why you bring "all Germans" into it; didn't I say "Hitler", not Germans or Germany?

I don't find the idea unpalatable (though I do disagree). I was merely using extreme examples to see if that was actually what you meant, since people (including myself) often say things which, if they really thought them out, they don't mean. I find that taking extreme examples of what one says are good ways of determining exactly what they believe.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Two points on this.

First is that your elaboration on what you meant did not in any way refute the interpretation that you wanted fundamentalists banned from the halls of government.

Really?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The second is that I've called you on that remark before, and you've never argued that I have been misinterpreting you. You've never said that you actually think it's fine for religious fundamentalists to hold government office. None of your most recent post argues that you weren't saying fundamentalists should be banned from government either- you only spoke against my voting booths comment.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The basic separation of church and state. No "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" states and, more importantly, no laws based on scripture alone. Sure, laws may coincide with scripture (i.e. some of the ten comandments, etc.). But they have to stand on there own ground. Just being from a holy book aint good enough, and is, in fact, irrelavant to their implementation.

To put it bluntly, every opinion under the sun can be expressed, including religious ones (even the baby eating one), but none are endorsed or implemented purely because some book says it what "the man" wants. Prove it's a good policy in the real world and convince the rest of the population. And expect opinions to change about what is and isn't good for society as times change.

It's called democracy.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe the only way to truly separate church and state is to ban religious voters from the voting booths.

No. The best way to separate individual belief systems from the state is to give everyone in society an equal say in the government. This assures that everyone will get a bit of what they want, while not monopolizing society.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But of course I might be misinterpreting you about the halls of government comment, so would you mind answering this question? It hasn't been answered clearly enough for me. The only answer I've been hearing seems affirmative, but I might be misunderstanding.

Do you or do you not think that a law should exist that bans religious fundamentalists from government office?

No law should exist that bans any particular person to run for any political office just because of their beliefs.

You will notice that my sentence that caused so much trouble and seemed to make you disregard everything else I've posted for weeks was followed by a "". Translation: off-hand joking-around comment.

And note what it was in response to:

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

*light-bulb over head

I have an idea! Let's go back to the old days of outlawing Catholicism! And while we're at it, let's get Evangelical Christians, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Orthodox Jews!

You think that was a serious comment, or a bit of sarcasm?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have a great deal of respect for most Muslims, and for the majority of the Muslim world. There are a lot of close ties to Christian and Jewish thought and morality, and even the suicide bombers have some wonderful qualities that I want to emulate. Those would be enormous courage and willingness to die for what they believe is right. That's just brilliant, the passion for what is right is highly admirable, and I think Americans have a lot to learn from them. Among the non-extremist Muslim world there is also much to be admired, such as the emphasis on justice and moral values. I think the structure and existence of a standard of behavior, and the certainty of right and wrong in their religion is admirable.

I've already said this in previous posts, but it's worth saying again.

Yes it is good to say again. Thanks.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Okay, I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying. Though I'm not sure why you bring "all Germans" into it; didn't I say "Hitler", not Germans or Germany?

I don't find the idea unpalatable (though I do disagree). I was merely using extreme examples to see if that was actually what you meant, since people (including myself) often say things which, if they really thought them out, they don't mean. I find that taking extreme examples of what one says are good ways of determining exactly what they believe.

Thanks. I try to avoid the extremes myself (though often fail), because I think they tend to miss the individual realities of much of history. For example, it's not easy to make an argument saying that you can understand why some germans participated in the holocaust, or why some suicide bombers kill innocent people. But I think I do understand some of the reasons that bring people to such a point, and I don't think it's just about the scripture they follow.