Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 19, 2010 at 10:28am

What say ye liberal Humanists now... ?

When Good People Back Bad Wars
By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com
15 September 2010

Never Forget: Bad Wars Aren’t Possible Unless Good People Back Them

... before we get too far away from something we would all just like to forget, will you please allow me to just say something plain and blunt and necessary:

We invaded Iraq because most Americans - including good liberals like Al Franken, Nicholas Kristof & Bill Keller of the New York Times, David Remnick of the New Yorker, the editors of the Atlantic and the New Republic, Harvey Weinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry [and Humanist Magazine. see below] - wanted to. ...

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/266-32/24-when-good-people-...

-- -- --
Humanist Magazine. Iraq war and occupation 2008

http://secularhumanism.blogspot.com/2008/01/humanism-and-occupation...

http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/IraqDebate2.php

Fighting for Iraq:
A Case for Liberation

"Fighting for Iraq: a Case for Liberation," is by Jende Huang, who argues, "The justification for [liberating Iraq] can be drawn from Enlightenment values as well as common human decency. The dignity of the individual, the power of the life of the mind, and the creative potential of all of humanity are values that can and should be extended to all peoples. . . . The reluctance to extend such basic considerations as universal human rights to those living on foreign soil is disturbing. The tragedy of the Left is in its new found unwillingness and inability to apply the idea of 'justice for all,' to, well, all."

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/Huang.html

Re: Humanists Debate Alternative Views on Iraq War


Fighting for Iraq:
A Case for Liberation
by Jende Huang
Published in the Humanist, January/February 2008

AS WE APPROACH FIVE YEARS since the liberation of Iraq, it still appears too soon to tell if it's been a success or not. From a humanitarian intervention point of view, the tragedy of death and destruction brought on by the faulty decisions of the administration of George W. Bush must be balanced with the unjustifiable idea of allowing Saddam Hussein to remain in power to continue terrorizing the Iraqi people. A difficult moral calculus by liberal hawks led to the decision that, despite whatever reasons the Bush administration put forth for going into Iraq, the opportunity to free the Iraqi people from decades of oppression was worth the risk. ...

Comment by Fred Edwords on September 20, 2010 at 11:08am

Dear Geraldo, At the time the United States entered the war in Iraq, I was editor of the Humanist magazine, and all the articles I published at the time and for three years afterwards not only opposed that war but also opposed the war in Afghanistan--the latter being a controversial position even among humanists. But I have personally opposed both these wars consistently from their beginning and still do. Thus the pro-war article by Jende Huang is taken out of context. It appeared beside an article against the war by Michael I. Niman ("Would You Buy a Used War from This Man?") and was run only because a number of readers felt that the minority humanist viewpoint should also be heard. Therefore my successor as editor ran that, which was an appropriate enough thing to do, since humanists are open to the airing of dissenting views.

Comment by Fred Edwords on September 20, 2010 at 11:44am

The Internet doesn't discriminate. The free online membership will be for all who sign up. It just isn't live yet.

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 20, 2010 at 3:50pm

Dear Fred Edwards,

regarding, "... the pro-war article by Jende Huang is taken out of context. It appeared beside an article against the war by Michael I. Niman ("Would You Buy a Used War from This Man?") ... "

Yes, I remember the two articles side by side. I feel that Humanism is a progressive philosophy. All the Humanist Manifestos of AHA state that to be the case and all advocate peace and diplomacy over war whenever possible. I felt it was important to remind people that there were Humanists who were taken in by the justifications for war. So, I included that reference as a cautionary tale.

Overall, I'm grateful for the more liberal stance and concerns that the editors of Humanist Magazine have taken up.

-- Gary

Comment by Susan Stanko on September 20, 2010 at 3:54pm

What say ye liberal Humanists now... ?

Looks like generalization to me.

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 20, 2010 at 4:06pm

Dear John D.

You said, "Don't fight a war unless you have a very solid plan to win it quickly and secure the peace quickly."

Your statement is a statement of military strategy of goals, expectations and outcomes. I think the moral high ground is NOT getting into a war when it is unnecessary.

I don't care to get into an argument about just wars or just "preemptive strike." But unless all HONEST diplomatic measures have been exhausted and an attack has been clearly made, we should choose peace. A humanist friend in my area has said, and I think it wise, "I'm against violence and war, except to stop violence."
Clearly our justification to attack on Afghanistan and Iraq did not meet that moral criteria. Interesting, that the pretext was originally to capture Bin Laden. Remember that? We didn't capture Bin Laden, and many people more informed than myself suspect that was not the real motive for our intervention in Afghanistan.

peace,
Gary

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 20, 2010 at 4:38pm

Dear John D.,

It's more than an opinion for me, it's my deeply felt conviction and I know it's not a conviction that is always taken seriously or understood or shared by many Americans. In fact, I would guess only a few. I can accept that some feel there is sometimes a moral justification for military or violent foreign intervention.
So I really don't want to get into a pretense of a rational discussion on one side or the other... except...

consider Kant's categorical imperative of "what if?" .

The world might be a more peaceful place if our first priority was, fair trade, peace, cultural exchanges and diplomacy.

I'm not going to post anymore on this subject, I leave the topic to others if they choose to participate. I've never found there to be a logical resolution. We would just keep going is circles of "what if...?" etc.

Propaganda aside for justification of military interventions, I would agree that we (in this case the USA) have a right to be secure in our borders. But by UN Charter, that is the right of every other member nation as well.

PS.: I don't think drones launched from the state of Colorado to Afghanistan, makes the USA any more safe in it's borders.

Gary

Comment by Fred Edwords on September 20, 2010 at 6:35pm

In response to Fred Werther's question:

"Will the online members have access to a forum for AHA or something. Email list whatever?"

Actually, everyone in the world already does have such access. There are two opportunities:

The Discussion Forum at http://secure.americanhumanist.org/Page.aspx?pid=218 and the "Rant & Reason" blog of the Humanist magazine at http://blog.thehumanist.com/ .

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 24, 2010 at 2:33pm

MILLENNIUM GOALS

1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2: Achieve universal primary education
3: Promote gender equality and empower women
4: Reduce child mortality
5: Improve maternal health
6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7: Ensure environmental sustainability
8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Source: United Nations
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
International UN Summit
http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/

See also:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[Note: There is some international progress and cooperation on the Millennium Goals. This international movement launched by the United Nations has received close to zero publicity in the USA mainstream press.]

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on September 25, 2010 at 8:35pm

EMPATHIC CIVILIZATION

this is ssssoooooo Humanist.
It's so good to see a social biological vindication of Humanism.

Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society.
This is from a YouTube Channel, RSA Animate, that has lots of neat stuff. (Yes, I said "neat", I just dated myself.)

You Tube Channel. RSAnimate.
The EMPATHIC CIVILIZATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

posted by Gary

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 45
• Next ›
• Page