When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

When I argue with Christians, I sometimes use the word God, which is occasionally confusing to them considering the fact that I don't believe in God. When I refer to God, I'm not really talking about God, but rather Biblical doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of its adherents. Abstractly I don't object to an all knowing, all loving God that answers prayers and reunites you with your loved ones after death, but I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of God. If you were to say, "it's not God's fault", you would be correct.

Similarly, when I speak of "free markets", I am not talking about your idealized utopic vision of a volunteerist sociecty, I am actually referring to market doctrine, it's real world effects and the words and attitudes of it's adherents. Abstractly I don't object to a volunteerist utopia. Abstractly I don't object to any utopia. The problem is that I don't believe in utopia - be it one with invisible hands or one with invisible deities. I do object to all the real world suffering and strife that seems to be done in the name of unfettered markets.

It's not the Free Market's fault.

1. Concepts do not have the capacity for thought or emotion, nor the ability to speak, so I agree with you that free markets do not state anything, however, it's adherents - Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and yourself - in defense of free markets assert their affection for greed and selfishness, while cursing the evils of empathy, compassion and dogooderism. They never provide any evidence to support these assertions, and real world evidence seems to contradict these assertions.

2. I understand that corporatism has no place in your utopic vision of a free market, but that doesn't seem to stop corporations from bankrolling the free market movement. I'm not sure if corporations think they exist within the spirit of the free market or if they are just using the free market as a tool to manipulate people into supporting plutocracy. Either way, corporatism and the free market are in completely solidarity on subjects of taxes, deregulation, privatization and organized labor.

3. Again, I understand that violence and coercion have no place in your utopic vision, but in the real world, as illustrated in great detail in The Shock Doctrine, coercion and force seem to be the only reliable methods of forcing market principles of austerity on an unwilling public.

4. Again, I understand that concepts are not capable of promoting ideals, but adherents to free market ideology use anti-scientific arguments against climate change regulation. I would respect their arguments more if they were based on the principle that regulations should not be used, even in the face of environmental disaster. It wouldn't be a very persuasive argument, but at least it would have some integrity.

5. Write off corporatists and Republicans all you like, but they outnumber you by the billions. If you are all fighting for 'free markets', whose vision of the free market do you think will win the day? Probably not yours.

6. Keeping people from joining together is a time honored totalitarian tactic. I can cite you examples if you need them.

7. Would you agree that deregulation, privatization, taking power away from labor and lowering taxes are free market principals? Is there some reason why these principles should not function as you intend them to if they are implemented by force? Milton Friedman has lavished much praise on the free market reforms put in place by authoritarian regimes. Only one of you can be correct, and I'm siding with you on this one.

8. An unregulated market is an unregulated market is an unregulated market.

9. A better system: A balance of 'pro employee' socialism with 'pro employer' capitalism where free enterprise is allowed to thrive, but abuse of labor, the economy, the political system or the environment is not.

10. This is pretty much the same as 5, but I wanted to make it an even 10, so....

11. Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?


I know you said you didn't want to be spoonfed by a liberal, which I took to mean you don't want to read about "The Shock Doctrine" from the person who wrote "The Shock Doctrine". How's about a bargain, if you read the book, I'll promise to read something you care about of similar length. Freidman? Adam Smith? Selma Von Heyak? Whatever you want me to read, so long as it is a legit, important mainstream book. Also, I'd send you the book in the mail so you don't have to give your money to some pinko commie bitch, and I'll use my own cash to buy 'Road to Serfdom' or whatever it is you want me to read. It's only appropriate for the socialist* to give his book away, while purchasing the capitalist book.

Fair?

In all honesty, I think you'd get a lot out of the book. All of the dirty deeds are carried out by governments, corporations and Chicago based economists. None of it lives up to your ideal of a free market and all of it could be correctly defined as statism. It really makes sense of our foreign policy; which nations are chosen and why; why every president seems to have to have his own conflict... I'm officially anti-Libya now (I'm sure your happy to hear this) because the CIA is a recurring theme in all of these tales and they are usually the ones that teach strategic foreign allies how to torture, kill and disappear anyone who stands up to the despotic puppet of choice. The only negative you might get out of the book is seeing how closely Friedman works with the government, the right wing and despotic dictators. It's all cited and footnoted. If Chomsky were into some nasty shit, I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd want to know.

Have a bitchen summer. - dft

*dft is not really a socialist. He wants a system that balances the rights of the worker with the rights of the boss.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Response to your 10 reasons list below.

1. Patently false. Free markets do not "state" anything, as it's a system of free exchange between people without coercion. Free markets do not have an opinion of altruism or empathy or greed or selfishness anymore than it can of Biblical literalism, axiology, utilitarianism, happiness, Chinese philosophy and so on.

2. Also false. Corporations enjoy corporate welfare, government subsidies, franchise monopolies and crony-capitalism. All of those things are not part of a free market, as they constitute intervention.

3. Ridiculous on its face. How can voluntary interactions without coercion (aka, a free market) be implemented through "force" and "terror"? Here again, you're conflating free markets with government/corporate collusion.

4. Free markets don't promote anything. It's the free exchanges between people without coercion, and was used effectively to aid science in the past. Jonas Salk gave the polio vaccine away without a patent. He was free to patent it and charge through the nose for it, which is what a corporation would do, but he chose to voluntarily give it away. Free market in action.

5. Meh. Republicans speak the rhetoric of free markets, but they believe in them as much as the Democrats do.

6. Sounds like someone is paranoid.

7. False. Government "implementing" anything is not free in nature. Government uses the threat of violence to "implement" their policies, which is antithetical to free markets.

8. I like how you added this to the list. Irrelevant to free markets, except at least as far as governments encroach on free markets by regulating private exchanges among the people.

9. Free markets are capable of faults. So is capitalism. I'd charge you to offer a better system. An ad hoc system of government plus capitalism is a regulated market, and we've seen those fail countless times in the past 100 years. Our current economic mess comes from central planning and interventionism, not free markets.

10. I don't listen to those people, so I cannot respond.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Top ten clues that the Free Market movement is a racket.

1. It states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good.
2. It claims to be anti-corporate, yet is completely funded by corporations from the ground up.
3. It claims to be about liberty, volunteerism and non-aggression, but can only be implemented through force and terror.
4. It promotes irrational/anti-scientific thinking when science gets in the way of business. (read: Global Climate Change).
5. It is largely embraced by Republicans, whom are easily manipulated into believing corporatist falsehoods on a regular basis.
6. It is obsessed with keeping people from organizing, under the guise of 'individualism'. Corporatists know that we are much easier to dominate as separate individuals.
7. In cases where free market reforms have been implemented by a government, it has resulted in plutocracy.
8. In failed states where no government or taxes exist, chaos reigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmn9asN-8AE
9. There is no empirical evidence to prove the merit of Free Market doctrine, and plenty of evidence against.
10. It is embraced by the biggest propagandists of our times, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Ayn Rand, etc.

OK I'm looking in the mirror. Fking perfection.

Moving on...what am I to make of your post? You've twisted a Wake-TFU vid about the dangers of unchecked radical vermin in a fading, overly-tolerant society to blaming America first? Newsflash: every country's history is written in blood.

Left-wingies are a hell of a lot closer to their cousins the communists (100 million murdered worldwide) than I am to being a turbaned vermin promoting violence in the name of God.


>> ^Yogi:

Up until just after the 1960's children in our schools were taught that it's a wonderful thing that we massacre'd the Native Population. There was even a little boy in a cartoon telling everyone how he wishes he was there killing them when they would wait to the men went out hunting and massacre the women and children.
Also in the 60's there was an exhibit in a museum where children could play on a Blackhawk helicopter and fire on a Vietnamese village.
I'm not saying this isn't a good video I upvoted it...I'm just pointing out that we should look in the fucking mirror. QM I'm looking at you.

>> ^bobknight33:

Why lies? The man has done nothing to indicate this . He believes in GOD. There is nothing wrong with that.
>> ^gwiz665:
lies



I hope you aren't familiar with Robertson. Your absolutely right on there being nothing wrong with believing in God. That is not what most thinking people have against Mr. Robertson. Instead, they hold it against him that he repeatedly stirs up fear and/or hatred and claims to be doing it in the name of God. That's something that should make him MORE offensive to those that do believe than to those that don't.

Mr. Robertson on the Haiti disaster:
"It may be a blessing in disguise. ... Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Those devil worshipers had it coming and maybe they can turn this into a blessing by abandoning their heathen ways. Pat's record needs to be better known so nobody defends him by accident anymore thinking he's being persecuted for believing in God. He's being persecuted for acting like God is the same kind of hateful fear monger that he himself is.

Schizophrenia was my first thought as well. The voices in a schizophrenic's mind can eventually become unbearable. If the mother in this case was not religious then she would have some other name than "god" for the voices. It's possible that the baby seemed evil to her or she had to release the demon inside. If she felt remorse afterwards then it was during a moment of clarity.

In centuries past, the best music was written in the name of God, from bad asses like Bach, Mozart, Handel, Haydn and Beethoven. These days, religious music is pretty much the worst stuff out there. Sad.

When will the megachurch-goers learn...

And on the news report: "Young has fallen into the same trap as many other tele-evangelists", "bought into the greed in the name of god"
It boggles my mind that these people do not recognize that all those tele-evangelists want to do is get rich and gain power.
You see, the more a person wants power(and/or riches), the less he should get.

Exhibit A:If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.


Exhibit B:Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.

The fatal flaw in your plan is how to get A without doing the very things you want to eliminate in B. Exactly what plan can you present to 'abolish' religion that will not necessarily involve wars and killing people to change their beliefs?

Side note-God, my response is long... I hate long posts and so hate my own post...

There was a time when I would have insulted you for such a... magical fairytale-type post. However, age has tempered my youthful arrogance and I will attempt to be more respectful.

You have an illusion that is polar opposite from the fanatics who propose that God is our savior and that if everyone follows his word we will all be saved… (Your argument is that the belief in God is our destroyer and that if everyone abandons his word we will all be striving for the betterment of humanity…) You assume that religion is not the excuse for war but the problem itself... If religion is truly the excuse, as I claim, there will be more wars even if religion is abolished and all the wars that have happened, not in the name and constant glorification of God, but for other reasons, will repeat themselves. If religion is the problem, as you state, then wars will dry up and poof, comfort for the world. The betterment of mankind… Um, I need to write a self-help booklet with a title like that…

Think of your ideal utopia... and now, make it real. No wars, no conflict (like trade wars, where entire areas starve out, etcetera,) on massive scales leading to the degradation of other countries. Nothing interesting for the news huh? Just a few murders and social discord now and again? Just near-utopia? No massive riots when corporations cause the subjugation and poverty of millions... No mass rape in Africa? Can someone say boring!

Sorry, I can only respect your opinion so much. I understand your opinion but think it a little wishful thinking. I wish you were right on the money and that religion was the cause, but the rose-colored glasses are not for me. You asked an A/B question and the answer is a mix of A and B-We certainly would invade another planet and try to reason with them. If our terms (The complete surrender of their finate resources and land) of reasoning failed, we would kill them all and take their resources.

Christianity was the excuse we used on the Indians not because we truly believed in god, but because A-It is a form of control and B-It makes us the savior instead of the animal. As I said before, we cannot slaughter because of greed... we need another reason. In other words, religion is a tool and if broken, we will make another one.

Let's look at some wars fought around the world and why... Vietnam? The expansion of communism (Because, we Americans could not abide our competitor actually advancing.) Iraq? Boredom and glory. Rome's barbarity? Conquest. Germany? Racial superiority. The American Civil War? Expansion of Federal powers. The hundreds of mini-conflicts between warring peoples due to poverty? Starvation. The crusades? Religion. Does religion win over in history as the leading cause? Yes. Has religion been involved in the aforementioned wars as a secondary motivator?-No, not even motivator, I mean excuse?-Yes. Germany was supported by the pope and hunted a religious people---for the resources. (Also, just because those nations I used as examples may have been supported by the religious or purported to be religious, they did not fight under the constant "support" or glorification of God. In other words, those wars were fought for religion as much as Iraq was fought because of weapons of mass destruction…)

Will there be something to replace religion on a massive scale if the excuse dies? Yes. Reminds me of the episode of South Park when the world fought a war simply because they could not agree on the name of their all-atheist nation...

We grow bored, we bomb Iraq. We need oil? We take it. We need other resources? Here we come. Government subjects massive amounts of people to poverty? We burn it down. By we, I mean humanity. Oh, Germany is certainly more reasonable than a few hundreds of years ago... cept that whole gassing incident... and I know Africa, a country that sold their own into slavery for the most part, is more reasonable... cept the whole raping and tribal fighting. You know one tribe fights another because they believe male-anal penetration is wrong? Yet male-oral is okay... and the other tribe thinks male-oral is fine, but anal is wrong… so naturally, they both have to kill each other…

So disagree, it’s your right. I just see a lot of "religious" stubbornness in your argument that is equal to the other side's arguments... You are basing your guesses of what might be; I am basing my estimations on what has been...

>> ^Shepppard:
Disagree completely.
If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.
Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.
Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.
As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.
I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?
I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."
Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

Disagree completely.

If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.

Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.

Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.

As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.

I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?

I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."

Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

"People will seek god in many ways, but never in ways that endanger their children."

Never say never, there Bob. There are numerous examples of parents killing their children, either by direct action or inaction, in the name of god/religion.

1) Aug 2008: the Neumann family, the Christian Scientists in Madison, WI who allowed their daughter to die of diabetes rather than take her to a hospital, which is something their religious beliefs forbid.

2) April 2009: Marie Moore shot her son, Mitchell, in the back of the head at a Castleberry, FL gun range before shooting herself. In a suicide note left for her boyfriend, whom she calls "King," Marie Moore refers to herself as a "failed queen," writing, "I had to send my son to heaven and myself to hell."

There's even video of this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vPnMbLr5nc

3) Muslim honor killings; too numerous to list here.

In conclusion (gee, I feel like I'm in Comp class again), religion makes people do wacky, unimaginable things, up to and including filicide.

Transcript:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

read the article.
it goes into further detail.
bibles instead of bullets...nice ring.but it is false.
this is what i referred to as the deplorable tactic of twisting scripture to justify horror.on one hand it eases the conscience of a religious soldier,and on the other has the facade of preaching the gospel.
ill call it what it is...bullshit.
what if,lets say hypothetically,your town of devout christians was invaded by muslims.and those muslims sought to save your soul by preaching the one true god..allah..and gave everybody in town english versions of the qu'ran.would you embrace this action?deem it true and holy?
or would you view it as blasphemous and maybe even heretical?
how would you view these things as you watched your neighbors die and their houses burned?
how would you feel about these muslims then?
how would you feel if these muslim soldiers called themselves warriors of allah?
and how would that be different if they called themselves warriors in christ?

truth is a relative perception,and when christians start to call themselves warriors in christ,and that this is a "crusade" against the muslim heathens and that fact alone justifies whole-sale slaughter.when young men are convinced that they are killing in the name of GOD.
well.....we should all stand up and take notice.
because religious rhetoric is just that..rhetoric.
be it muslim or christian.
and i defy anyone to find me a passage where jesus spoke of whole-sale slaughter as being righteous or divinely inspired by god.
those young men are being deceived by those who would exploit their faith to enact atrocities by twisting scripture.be they muslim,christian or jew.
they are false.

for most of human history wars were fought using religion,but it was always the same goal.dominance of resources to perpetuate the powerful,by using the poor,ill-educated and "disposable".religion is a powerful tool to ignite the masses into a war spirit.
in the past 100 years that has shifted to nationalism,but still the same goals,using the same people.and always with the same results...death.
not for those who engineered these wars,be they the papacy,the crown or germany,US..oh heavens no.
it is the highest form of blaspheme..to murder in the name of god.

you seem a decent sort JF,dont fall into the trap those who speak falsely would lay for you.
there is never a holy reason to kill,maim,murder or go to war...never.
there is only greed.

siaiaia (or whatever your name is), you are in dire need of an education in both religion and epistemology. Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge. One can have historical knowledge, knowledge of art theory, the knowledge of the human condition which has informed so many poets and novelists, musicology... The list goes on and on. Which is to say that there is no reason why one should expect that a religious truth (if such a beast exists) should be classified as scientific.

Furthermore, your understanding of religions as primarily sets of doctrines--systems beliefs--is profoundly inadequate. Let's ignore the Eastern religions, for all of which that's not clearly not true, and look at an example from Western history. In the first century BCE, Roman orator and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote a book entitled De Natura Deorum, or On the Nature of the Gods. In it, he portrays a fictional but plausible conversation between himself, a Stoic philosopher, and an Epicurean philosopher. Throughout the dialogue, it becomes starkly clear that, though all three follow the Roman religion, they can barely find a single belief about the gods that they hold in common. This detachment of doctrine and religion--of dogma and religious practice--was the norm throughout the ancient Mediterranean world.

Only with the rise of Christianity does anything like your criticism of religion become even coherent, let alone plausible.




With regards to the palestinian bomber - why did the IRA not do suicide bombing?? Eh? Because the palestinian bomber believes he is doing something in the name of God, and doing a righteous thing before he dies.

Or maybe because it's one of the few acts that a Palestinian can take with any effectiveness against Israeli oppression.

Suicide bombing was not invented by Muslims, but by Hindu Tamils. And not for religious reasons--both murder and suicide are strongly enjoined every Hindu tradition I'm familiar with. The problem was that one group--the native Sinhalese (primarily Buddhist--a pacifistic religion)--was oppressing the Tamil minority. They invented the suicide bomb as a technique by which a minority could strike at a militarily powerful oppressor.

There are strong parallels between the Palestinians and the Tamils. In both cases, the rulers speak a different language than the oppressed minority, having a different culture right down to religion. In both cases, the majority overwhelmingly outguns the minority. In both cases, oppression of the minority is acceptable to the populace of the majority group.

It is unsurprising, then, that the Palestinians should have adopted the suicide bomb--no matter what their religion. There was a complex set of circumstances replicated in both circumstances which produced the kind of attitude which gives rise to a suicide bomber.



This does not, of course, apply to the 9/11 hijackers, the Taliban, or a number of other groups. Nonetheless, I think my point is clear: fixating on a single aspect of a society, like religion, to explain complex social phenomena is a huge mistake.