Posted January 1, 2003

Regarding "A Religion of Peace?" by Justin Raimondo:

You have brought out a salient point about the negative common denominator of religion, especially of the monotheistic faiths: that in practice they can often be competitive, mutually exclusive, and condescending toward the other monotheists not of their own kind. While we should respect differences, possibly this can be attributed to the continual promotion of fear and ignorance by those who stand to benefit from the status quo of keeping their own flock under tight control.

We could respond to this in the fashion of John Lenin [sic], and wish away the religions of the world, which are in many cases already adapting to survive. Another novel approach might be to acknowledge that we are, regardless of the ugly empirical evidence that we at times present, spiritual beings in physical bodies, and what have we got to lose by trying this:

In our own community, a grassroots movement is on the table to bring together on a regular basis Jews, Christians, Muslims and Deists/Universalists, as well as open-minded others, to pray, fast, feast, and network for peace and justice together.

Any other community can accomplish the same thing. The starting point is a quiet place to reflect upon one's own social, business and ecumenical religious connections, and then begin drafting letters and making phone calls to set the network in motion, with some inspiration from the Benevolent Being. If one is daring and enters into places of worship where he ordinarily would not go, one will be more likely to succeed in forging a bond and adding friends to the Peace Network, much to the demise of those who make a profit from keeping people pliant, isolated and perpetually at war through fear.

~ L. Cabirac

I have the utmost respect and admiration for Justin's geopolitical knowledge and insights, but I must take exception with his interpretation of religions. To say that there is no such thing as a religion of peace is patently false. In fact, every one of the world's great religions advocates as one of its main tenets "love your neighbor."

Jesus teaches us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. A Christian truly following the teachings of Jesus would have a bumper sticker that reads "God Bless Al Qaeda" instead of "God Bless America." When the Koran advocates "Jihad against the Infidels," this is merely an allegorical way of saying that "non-holy" thoughts must be combated within an individual's consciousness. Hinduism, which Justin incorrectly describes as a pantheistic religion, is really a monotheistic religion. The different Hindu "gods" are actually "facets" or attributes of one God. Even Shiva the Destroyer is not intended to be an icon for violence. He merely represents that aspect of life which causes the passing of the old to make way for the new. Keep in mind, this religion is at least 5,000 years older than any of the Abrahamic religions. I tend to give the Hindus the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps maybe they know some things the West has yet to figure out.

The other point I disagree with is that Faith is in direct opposition to reason. In my belief system, if God is perfect, then God must be logical as well. If I read anything in any scripture that does not seem logical, then I can be sure I am not correctly interpreting the intended meaning. By the very nature of God, it cannot (yet) be proven scientifically. It is necessary to perceive and discern the spiritual in a spiritual context. That is where Faith comes in. I also believe that as science advances, what Justin calls contradictions (I prefer to call them "paradoxes") will be proven as well. Einstein proved several seemingly contradictory Truths mathematically, using scientific principles.

Clearly, it is not the religions causing the lack of peace, but the people who take allegorical meanings literally to serve their own twisted motives that are the problem. Remember also, the leaders of all major churches in the West are united and unanimous in their condemnation of our administration's unjust, immoral war. I bet most people in Israel are in favor of peace too.

~ Mark T. Matranga, Sacramento, California

Happy New Year and May Almighty God Bless you brother in this world and hereafter and may Almighty bless your pen so you may write more truth. Happy new year and many more.

~ Lilly Mohammed

As a Buddhist, I'm afraid I have the dispute the following assertion:

"A religion of peace? There isn't any such thing. All religions, all the time, inspire dogmatism that ends in violence because of the simple definition of faith, which is the suspension of reason."

The historic Buddha repeatedly admonished his followers not to accept his teachings on faith, but rather to decide whether or not they agreed with their own experience. In keeping with this teaching, Buddhism, as a religion, is remarkably free of anything that might be referred to as dogma. Consequently, the Buddhist world has largely avoided anything that could be called a religious war. In other words, Buddhism can well claim to be a "religion of peace."

~ David Y.

A wonderful article that should be read by every American. Honest and courageous reporting is now a thing of the past. Unfortunately as I keep telling my friends and family, our children and grandchildren will spend their lives repairing the damage done by these self appointed "men of peace and goodwill."

~ Imran Ahmed, New Jersey

...Religion is defined alternatively as faith in a supernatural creator, which is described in John 1:1 as the Greek logos, or a set of beliefs, values or practices possibly based on earlier teachings. I presume the commentators at Antiwar.com take the undesirability of war as an article of faith, certainly current saber rattling should dispel any pretensions that the undesirability of war is a generally accepted fact.

One key to rationality, to my mind, is an accurate articulation of the issues, particularly when tempers flare. I admire Mr. Raimondo's zeal, and agree that Wars of aggression are inherently wrong. However, his zeal, in this instance, seems to have led him to overstep, perhaps in a small way, like other more hawkish souls' zeal have led them to overstep. Christianity, Judaism nor Islam should be confused with the actions of their followers. Christ, only, personified his teachings.

I wish Mr. Raimondo well in his endeavors but hope he will restrain his zeal lest he increase the confusion which drives the madness.

~ Dave Lewis, Chaos-onomics.com

Raimondo's latest column is an excellent example of talking about something one knows nothing about. What he says about Rachel's tomb is exactly the situation on the Temple Mount – Muslims and tourists can enter, but Jews cannot. Why doesn't he say anything about this?

As for Rachel's tomb – almost every week Breslev Jews are arrested by the IDF for trying to enter the tomb. Jews can pray there only on special occasions when they have permission from the army. The rest of the time it is solely Muslim.

Joseph's tomb in Nablus is solely Muslim. Jews praying there were murdered in the beginning of the Intifada. ...

~ J. Benjamin, Attorney

(Keep in mind that I am a loyal reader and fervent supporter of Antiwar.com and its goals. ...)

Justin, in your latest article, "A Religion of Peace?," you make a curious statement:

"A religion of peace? There isn't any such thing. All religions, all the time, inspire dogmatism that ends in violence because of the simple definition of faith, which is the suspension of reason. When rationality breaks down, dialogue is impossible and war is inevitable. It's as simple as that."

Justin, the problem that this creates is simple, yet fundamentally disturbing to all of your readers. This is because it calls into question the very objective of Antiwar.com (from, "Who We Are"):

"Antiwar.com is dedicated to building an international opposition to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets."

Basically, the reader is now forced to now ask themselves, why is this a bad thing? Faith in any type of religion, idea, or morality is, according to you, a "suspension of reason." What is the rational position that tells me why globalist and interventionist forces are something to fight against? You can merely prove that they exist, and that they will be bad for a huge lot of people. Agreed.

But how can you, without appealing to faith or the morality that derives from it (from what else does morality derive?), say that globalist, interventionist, or even terrorist forces are evil (or something to be opposed)? Isn't the definition of right and wrong itself dependent on some type of faith and/or morality? If anything, your logic should lead you to join those forces, as it is certainly illogical to oppose them. Unless – you have faith in something?

...If anything, it seems quite logical for me to join them. Why should I be Winston Smith instead of O'Brien?

You seem to be morally opposed to such a course of action. ...

(I'm not sure if the 90% of the time I agree with you or the 10% of the time that I don't make me such a fan. I have faith in your cause, even if you don't. Please keep it up!)

~ Josh Paige

I've been following your articles since right before the start of the Kosovo War back in '99. Overall, I've agreed with a majority of what you've said. Of course, a few posts did seem a bit over the top, but generally your views about war are almost 100% agreed with mine. ...

Well, I'm a practicing Christian (of the LDS variety). In fact, I just got back in August from serving a two year mission for my church. I think that in reality all religions do preach peace, but evil men will tend to abuse religion as a fig-leaf. It would be a very interesting study to see how many people have been killed in defense of atheism by modern regimes and compare it to the number killed for religious reasons. I'm willing to be the numbers are similar.

Fact of the matter is that evil men will always use the "philosophies of men mixed with religion" as a fig-leaf to their ambitions. Whether that false priesthood is in the form of apostate Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, democracy, equality, atheism, science, progress, race, or whatever else it doesn't matter. Had those who instigated the crusades been born in Communist Russia, they probably would have used the "good of the people" or some other dreck to justify their murderous intent.

So, my point is that religions don't kill people, people do.

~ Jonathan Goff

Regarding "The Unresolved Problem of the United Nations" by Joseph Stromberg:

I just wanted to compliment you on a well written and thought out piece. I'm not sure I agree with everything you say (then again, I'm a leftist anarcho-communist loon, so that's not surprising) but you've raised some good points for me to think on.

~ Karl P.

Joseph Stromberg replies:

Thanks for your comments.

This was an interesting article. I liked the analogy of the United States civil war. I think this was a very good way of presenting to the reader the actual issues at stake. Keeping peace may require war, especially if the state to be restrained is as powerful as or more powerful than, any collective body of states.

This reader is left with the consideration that war under either an international state system of rival power blocs or under a United Nations is therefore inevitable. Given that states wage war against the civilian population and that the state system requires nuclear weapons and massive military expenditures for self preservation – I am uncertain as to which death I should prefer. There are strong arguments to be made that death in a civil war is at least as horrific as death in an imperialist conflict but I simply cannot find it in myself to prefer one death over the other.

~ Charles Stegiel

Foreign Bribery

Regarding Rick O.'s letter of December 26:

George Bush (and his gang) is the one responsible for the current pathetic state of the US economy. George Bush (and his military machine) is the one most responsible for more bombs (and weapons of mass destruction) that are used to kill others. The new totalitarian police state in the US is most responsible for any repression in the world. Foreign Aid is generally Foreign Bribery, and is pitifully small compared with the gargantuan amount spent on weapons of mass destruction that are used willy-nilly to threaten war around the world.

~ Derek Kelly

Ex-Soldier

Thank you for what you are doing.

I am an ex–U.S. soldier. I defected because I know of the corruption and ignorance in the war being planned.

I want to become active in helping spread the ideology, but I also need help. Could you give me some connections or advice on who would most likely be able to help me get on my feet? I have been to Brussels, Amsterdam, and Paris just trying to get settled. I ran into many hospitable people who sympathized with me and condoned my actions. I did not want to be dependent on them so I came to the States. After a year in Europe (stationed in Germany) seeing the States again hit me hard. It is not so easy here.

~ Anonymous

Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:

The best resource I can give you is the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors. http://objector.org/

Israel's Heroes

Regarding "Ethnic Cleansing: Past, Present and Future" by Ran HaCohen:

Mr. HaCohen's essay states this regrettable situation in a clear and concise way. I'm glad to have found this web site. Some day the fighters for a just peace in Israel will be seen as among history's courageous few. My dream is to some day be able to visit a peaceful Israel and meet some of these heroes. And to then travel freely to "The Palestinian State" (whatever it may look like) and meet the Palestinian survivors in an equally peaceful setting.

Until that time, the largest part of my personal disgust is the discovery that the US government is standing by and letting this (cleansing) all go down for some inconceivable reason(s). I don't think I'll ever again take any US government statement as true without deep investigation.

May your efforts bear fruit.

~ Gary Gralton