The Neutrality Myth

[patkelly]

The US claims neutrality in its relationships with many countries throughout the world. It professes respect for different cultural values and claims it would never interfere in the cultural identity or values of other sovereign nations. However, these claims do not match the day-to-day reality experienced by those whose cultures feel the constant pressure of Americanism encroaching upon them.

Though the US government may not have any specific policies whose obvious goal is to turn the world’s nations into additional American states, the envelope of Americanism is unquestionably expanding. This would not be so bad if it only meant that new McDonalds opened next to mosques or that General Motors cards began showing up on Chinese highways. The problem occurs when Catholic churches and schools begin opening next to Buddhist Temples or when catering to the needs of western tourists begins to take precedence over local needs.

Though US policy may prohibit cultural interference, the same type of policy does not apply to religious institutions or other groups bent upon increasing their flocks. Though all religions endorse some form of active evangelism some are more adapt at this than others. More often than not, religions make their initial inroads into virgin territory by opening some type of altruistic mission such as one designed to help the poor or sick. A clinic is opened which is followed by a church that then evolves into a school. Further down the road more churches spring up without the unnecessary prerequisite of community benefit programs. Local populations that once supported local temples or mosques now direct their donations towards additional church expansions while temple elders scratch their heads and try to get by with a dwindling flock.

No religion or religious state is more open and up front about their expansionist designs than Israel. In a way, one could rationally compare the state of Israel to the Vatican except the Jewish religion includes a well-equipped army to help implement its expansionist policies. The only real difference here seems to be there is no desire on the part of Jewish settlements to accept or convert Muslims into the Jewish faith. The source of new members seems to flow into Israel from the rest of the world helped along by government policies that encourage the immigration of members of the Jewish faith.

Not long after 9/11, President Bush went to extraordinary means to attempt to disassociate religion from the actions of terrorists. His position that none of this has any real relationship to different religious beliefs or religious institutions themselves only sidesteps the real problems we are all facing. Our world is unquestionably getting smaller with cultural and religious beliefs negatively impacting upon one another. Where religions once thrived within informational vacuums void of countering beliefs that challenged the validity of particular religions, now things have changed. In spite of President Bush’s attempts to protect religious sensitivities and prevent the inherent conflict within all religions from winding up on the table in full view of everyone, his efforts are doomed to failure.

The so-called war against terrorism is really only the first volleys fired in the much greater global war for cultural and religious supremacy. Humanity is destined to fight this fight as it proceeds along the path to more realistic understandings. Attempts to deny who the real enemy is will only serve to prolong the conflict.

[HemlockGrey]

You seem to think globalization is a bad thing.

[data_link]

You know, one can make a very good argument for the usefulness of Starfleet General Order Number One with examples like this.

[Raptor 597]

Yeah, patkelly somebody I know came speak too a class, he cycled all thru Europe, the Middle East, & Asia. He was saying how in New Delhi for example Europeans went there with the Hippie bead thing, eating snickers all day and how the women were interested in the guys with the European Tourist outfit, while he ate & did everything local. He was pretty dicussed and rode thru Tibet, and mett the Taliban before 9/11, going too Mongolia.

[data_link]

You seem to think globalization is a bad thing.

Globalized religion = very BAD thing.

[HemlockGrey]

Hm? It's the individuals choice, isn't it? Does the Catholic Church still operate the Inquisition?

[data_link]

Hm? It's the individuals choice, isn't it? Does the Catholic Church still operate the Inquisition?

Theoretically, however in a country whose entire educational system is sponsored by the Catholic church, theory doesn't translate to reality.

[HemlockGrey]

Theoretically, however in a country whose entire educational system is sponsored by the Catholic church, theory doesn't translate to reality.

And you would rather the church leave that country a wrecked shell?

[data_link]

And you would rather the church leave that country a wrecked shell?

The people are usually happy before the US shows up - if happiness can be achieved without the luxuries we enjoy in the US, then why not leave it that way?

[patkelly]

Cyril - I am by no means anti-globalization. Globalization is an inevitable fact and nothing short of a nuclear holocaust can prevent it. My concerns relate to which religion will win out over all the others and take its rightful place as the world's one true religion. The only other alternative is that we continue to assume our particular religion just happens to be the right one and all the others are nothing more than myths and unfounded superstitions.

[HemlockGrey]

The people are usually happy before the US shows up - if happiness can be achieved without the luxuries we enjoy in the US, then why not leave it that way?

That's interesting. Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church was based in Rome, which, incidentally, is in Italy.

[HemlockGrey]

My concerns relate to which religion will win out over all the others and take its rightful place as the world's one true religion. The only other alternative is that we continue to assume our particular religion just happens to be the right one and all the others are nothing more than myths and unfounded superstitions.

And what exactly is the problem with that? People have the right to believe what they wish to believe - if you are an atheist, and the Roman Catholic Church steadily gains converts, do you feel personally threatened? Are you terrified that other people will hold beliefs that are different from yours?

[patkelly]

Cyril - Ever hear of 9/11?

[HemlockGrey]

No. I've been living under a rock for the past year.

Perhaps I should revise my statement - people have the right to believe what they want to as long as they do not attempt to harm others. Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church has not ordered it's Crusader armies to march on Constantinople for several hundred years.

[data_link]

That's interesting. Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church was based in Rome, which, incidentally, is in Italy.

Correct. But our point is that it is the US which through their foriegn relations policies, open up the path for religious organizations to begin prostelyzing (sp?). This is what we think they should stop doing, claiming to be neutral and then letting religious organizations be the ones to carry out charity operations without any regulation.

[HemlockGrey]

Correct. But our point is that it is the US which through their foriegn relations policies, open up the path for religious organizations to begin prostelyzing (sp?). This is what we think they should stop doing, claiming to be neutral and then letting religious organizations be the ones to carry out charity operations without any regulation.

So...you believe that the United States should stop interfering in foreign countries by regulating what organizations can provide charity to foreign countries?

[Darth Wong]

That's interesting. Last I checked, the Roman Catholic Church was based in Rome, which, incidentally, is in Italy.

Last time I checked, President Bush went to the Pope for advice on what kind of restrictions to limit scientific progress in biotechnology. Those assholes have a lot more (destructive) influence than you seem willing to admit. They have been standing in the way of scientific progress for virtually their entire history.

How many Africans are dying today, in part because of thousands of Roman Catholics telling people that condoms are evil? How many people will die or suffer needlessly of otherwise treatable diseases in future decades, in part because of Christians telling people that it's wrong to "play God" with genetic engineering and cloning technology despite the obvious benefits?

[data_link]

And what exactly is the problem with that? People have the right to believe what they wish to believe - if you are an atheist, and the Roman Catholic Church steadily gains converts, do you feel personally threatened? Are you terrified that other people will hold beliefs that are different from yours?

Actually, we dislike people who using their religious beliefs, ignore secular realities in their attampt to force outdated concepts of morality on other people. This is of course, what the Catholic and all other churches try to do. When you disrupt people's lives in order to gain converts, when you deliberately give them medical supplies that allow them to have low infant mortality rates and then refuse to teach them about proper use of birth control so that their population soars out of control, when you disrupt the crucial relationship between people's ideology and their technology level, you are doing harm. This is what we don't like.

[data_link]

Correct. But our point is that it is the US which through their foriegn relations policies, open up the path for religious organizations to begin prostelyzing (sp?). This is what we think they should stop doing, claiming to be neutral and then letting religious organizations be the ones to carry out charity operations without any regulation.

So...you believe that the United States should stop interfering in foreign countries by regulating what organizations can provide charity to foreign countries?

Either that or stop paving the road for globalization in those countries.

[HemlockGrey]

Last time I checked, President Bush went to the Pope for advice on what kind of restrictions to limit scientific progress in biotechnology. Those assholes have a lot more (destructive) influence than you seem willing to admit. They have been standing in the way of scientific progress for virtually their entire history.

True. However, my point is that the Roman Catholicization of the third world is not because of any America institution.

How many Africans are dying today, in part because of thousands of Roman Catholics telling people that condoms are evil? How many people will die or suffer needlessly of otherwise treatable diseases in future decades, in part because of Christians telling people that it's wrong to "play God" with genetic engineering and cloning technology despite the obvious benefits?

I am a bit sketchy in this area. Does the Roman Catholic Church merely oppose the distribution of condoms, or does it actively attempt to destroy/remove/shutdown the use of condoms in area through methods other than preaching? If it's the former, then the people have a choice, and it is ultimately they who are responsible, is it not?

[HemlockGrey]

Either that or stop paving the road for globalization in those countries.

But don't you realize that interfering with aid given to another country in an effort to prevent interference with that country is an inherent contradiction?

[Darth Wong]

True. However, my point is that the Roman Catholicization of the third world is not because of any America institution.

OK.

I am a bit sketchy in this area. Does the Roman Catholic Church merely oppose the distribution of condoms, or does it actively attempt to destroy/remove/shutdown the use of condoms in area through methods other than preaching? If it's the former, then the people have a choice, and it is ultimately they who are responsible, is it not?

Yes and no. As I said, they are only partly responsible. However, to be even partly responsible for 17 million deaths is a pretty bad thing. Shouldn't they be doing everything in their power to prevent something as horrible as 17 million deaths?

When you indoctrinate children to believe that they will go to Hell if they use condoms, you can argue that whatever happens to them is their own fault. However, the fact remains that you were not looking out for their objective welfare, and you bear some culpability.

[data_link]

Either that or stop paving the road for globalization in those countries.

But don't you realize that interfering with aid given to another country in an effort to prevent interference with that country is an inherent contradiction?

How so? If the country isn't already recieving aid, then preventing others from giving it to them isn't a contradiction - you seem to be including those other countries as part of the system of the country potentially recieving "aid," which they are not.

[HemlockGrey]

As of right now, I'm not actively opposing you, Wong, I'm just trying to probe a bit deeper into the matter.

When you indoctrinate children to believe that they will go to Hell if they use condoms, you can argue that whatever happens to them is their own fault. However, the fact remains that you were not looking out for their objective welfare, and you bear some culpability.

What about their parents? If the parent does not hold this belief, cannot they teach their children differently? If they hold the same view, do they have the right to teach their children what they believe?

And, what if they believe that they are acting in their children's welfare by keeping them from Hell? I realize that isn't objective, but do they have a right to do what they feel is necessary to protect their children in the end?

[HemlockGrey]

How so? If the country isn't already recieving aid, then preventing others from giving it to them isn't a contradiction - you seem to be including those other countries as part of the system of the country potentially recieving "aid," which they are not.

So, you rather have a country not recieve any aid - no medical supplies, education, etc. - than have the option of changing their cultural beliefs?