Does the world improve/worsen without ideologies and religions

Violence causes the biggest disasters in the world.

      Anyone who defends the beliefs of an ideology or religion is partly responsible for ensuring that no acts of violence are committed in the name of their worldview.

Every Muslim must make it clear to like-minded and different believers that he opposes Jihadists.

Every Jew must take a stance against moving the borders of Israel.

Every Christian must admit that terrible crimes have been committed in the name of his faith. Every Christian must be aware that the biblical passages that condemn homosexuality cause huge problems for homosexuals - even up persecution.

Every Catholic must distance himself from the negative attitude of the Catholic Church and Caritas towards family planning in developing countries, as this leads to hunger, misery and violence.

Every social democrat should distance himself from the class struggle. Struggle leads to conflict and strife, after all. Social democrats must clearly distance themselves from violent left-wing extremist groups.

All parties that are to the right of the center must clearly distinguish themselves from right-wing extremist groups so that the atrocities of the Nazis can no longer be repeated.

It is certainly undisputed that all ideologies and religions have already been an origin of acts of violence.

B u t - do people without religion and ideologies simply become selfish and egoistical? Don't the morals decay? Doesn’t the social inequality worsen even more?

The influence of the churches fell drastically in the 1960s. However, the statistics reveal that the number of thefts among the local population has not increased.

The non-religious also try hard to get along well with their colleagues and circle of friends. In a tension-free environment, most people realize that their own selfishness usually harms them. We continue to love our neighbor because we, too, want to be loved by our fellow human beings and not because a moral code dictates this.

Divorces have certainly increased, but was it better, in the past, when people reluctantly persevered in marriage? I suspect that pro rata the consensual divorces have increased.

Those who openly confess the Christian faith must be aware that their way of life is judged critically by their fellow human beings. When a certain discrepancy becomes substantial, he is justifiably marked as a hypocrite. The sad examples include Catholic priests who assault children.

The Catholic and the Reformed Churches are losing lots of members.

The number of people without a denomination has risen sharply.

Only a few Catholics and Reformed (or Protestants) are still convinced that their faith alone create bliss. As a result, their churches lose some of their force and momentum for one, yet on the other hand their faith no longer leads to conflicts. Catholics and Reformed people today live without conflict with each other and with people of other faiths.

All churches benefit from the fact that people feel comfortable in the fellowship of like-minded people.

The same applies to clubs of all kinds, but also to parties and political groups.

              Most Europeans will agree that the world has not become worse with religious communities that are weaker or less forceful.

But can one then derive by analogy that the world will not become worse without socialism? Or is the Left’s fear that without class struggle the weaker will lose in our society a valid one?

Switzerland is a country where the wages of the low earners are as high as hardly any other country, although class struggle has been less important than in most other countries.

The functioning social partnership is a hallmark of the Swiss success model.

Just as religious people realize that their own egoism mostly harms them, politicians that are free of any ideology can realize that everyone is better if low earners also do well.

Battle of the World Views

in German published 2018-08

Are the do-gooders winning the fight?

There was a struggle between the Catholic world view and the Protestant world view in the 16th and 17th centuries.

        And in the 19th century, the ideologies of socialism and communism emerged. Marx launched the class struggle.

The left and right world views are still in a fight today. The question is what world view is better for the country, the economy and all sections of the population.

In the second half of the 20th century the gap between the workers and the factory owners become increasingly smaller. There are more and more small businesses, and the workers are decreasingly unskilled and have more demanding jobs. Are there still clashes between the left and the right?

There are more and more intellectuals in the social-democratic parties. The classical left-right conflicts are losing their importance.

The new arguments are taking place between do-gooders, realists and populists.

                    Catholics ----- Protestants

                              Left ----- Right

              Do-gooders --- Realists --- Populists

Populists exist on the left and right.

The term “Realists” is also difficult to grasp. It could be equated with the concept of a “rational person”. For the left, the term “do-gooder” is a sarcastic, hateful or contemptuous denigration of individuals or groups.
In social media, the do-gooders resist the use of this term, but I have not been able to find a less negative synonym. Maybe “predominantly emotionally driven people”?

I described the negative influences of do-gooders on the development aid, foreign policy (e.g. the bloody attempt to remove Assad) and on family planning in my post “The Problem with Do-gooders” from March 12, 2018. But the influence of do-gooders is also precarious when it comes to the refugee problem. No one has a miraculous solution here, but Chancellor Merkel's “Welcome Culture” is certainly a prime example of the negative influence of do-gooders in politics. 

The introduction of the euro was also shaped by do-gooder thinking. No sincere person can claim that the introduction of the euro happened at the right time and to the right extent. The realists would certainly not have agreed to the introduction of the euro, nor would the populists. But the European economy would probably not thrive any better with the far-right populists.

Do the do-gooders have a do-gooder ideology? I think so, and like all ideologues it is hard for do-gooders to admit mistakes. The do-gooders still won’t admit that the introduction of the euro was a mistake. And they won't admit that they recently held the view that peace with Assad wasn't possible.

The more influence do-gooders have, the stronger the populists become! The repeated moralizing admonitions of the do-gooders drive people into the arms of the populists. You good people should just imagine constantly listening to the pious sayings of missionary Christians.

We need good people, but not do-gooders!

What world view do you have? Comments are very welcome.

A critical view of human rights

in German published 2018-05

The first written document dealing with human rights originated very early on in history. In 539 BC Cyrus conquered Babylon. He freed the slaves, declared that all people have the right to choose their own religion and created racial equality. These and other decrees were inscribed on a baked-clay cylinder in Akkadian cuneiform.

In 1215 the Magna Carta was written in England and in 1628 the Petition of Rights. These documents aimed to protect the individual from the arbitrary power of the rulers.

In 1787 came the US Constitution, in 1789 the French Declaration of Human and Civil Rights and in 1791 the US Bill of Rights.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations. These 30 articles of human rights are certainly an important step towards a better and more humane world.

        However, are the human rights as stated in the documents above valid for all time and universally? Or can they be viewed critically?

Are they carved in stone and as sacrosanct as the tablets of law that Moses received on Mount Sinai?

I believe that human rights can be changed and adapted. The same applies to international law and the Geneva Refugee Convention.

        We shake our heads when we hear that many US citizens believe that owning and carrying weapons is a human right.

But there are also rights that are missing in the 30 articles. There is no article that guarantees bodily integrity. There is no article from which one can deduce that the circumcision of girls is prohibited. If the circumcision of girls were to be officially outlawed, then the question of whether the circumcision of boys can be tolerated would have to be dealt with and physical integrity would have to be declared as a universally applicable human right.

The drafters of human rights are kowtowing to religions and ideologies. As a realist, however, one must come to the conclusion that the religious representatives are still too strong and that they would obtain the support of leftist ideologues in a dispute.

        Is there a right to family planning?

In the proclamation of Teheran, in 1968 a passage was incorporated by the International Conference on Human Rights stating that each couple should be granted the fundamental right to freely decide on the number of children they have.

One would assume that all reasonable people support this human right. But once again, ideologically minded people (Catholics and left-wing greens) have problems with this human right that, if enforced, would benefit everyone in the world.

Every year, about 8.8 million people, mainly children, die of hunger, which is equivalent to one death every 3 seconds. But the do-gooders want to take their time and count on the fact that with more schooling, the number of children will decrease.

Lack of access to family planning is estimated to result in 63 million unwanted pregnancies annually and 40 million abortions, which can often be a life-threatening risk for affected women in developing countries, as they are not carried out by medical professionals.

         Are human rights universally valid? Can we criticize violations of human rights in other cultures? Are we strangling the peculiarity of foreign cultures and is it a case of Western cultural imperialism, asks Otfried Höffe. The colonial expansion of Europe has deeply offended much of the world politically, economically and, above all, culturally.

We have a strongly individualistic image of man. In other cultures, the collective is more important than the individual. In such societies, the group as a whole is in the foreground, and is more important than the self-realization of the group members. In such societies, human rights are logically less important and it is more difficult to introduce democracies. Collectivist societies are mostly dictatorships and for dictators, human rights are an obstacle to their exercise of power.

Many countries are not yet ripe for democracy. Human rights can only be enforced in democracies. If we impose the human rights idea on such countries, we destabilize these countries. It is starry-eyed to want to assert all human rights in dictatorships.

Do not all societies have a right to non-interference? Has the West's interference in Iraq, Libya and Syria paid off for the people living there?

Otfried Höffe finds that in intercultural discourse, an ethical universal must be found that can be justified by argumentation.

Religious freedom is a human right. Are all religions protected by human rights?

Is Scientology a religion? This question is not answered in the same way in all countries. If so, is Scientology a religion worthy of protection?

Is Islam a religion worthy of protection and promotion? Certainly, most Muslims practice a religion that is respected by most people. However, there are more than a hundred passages in the Qur'an that can be interpreted as requiring, in some circumstances, violence against Jews, Christians, or those of other faiths. The Islamists rely on these passages.

Is the content of the Koran compatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations? Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopts the above italicized wording as a condition for the actions of asylum seekers.

Articles 18 and 19 guarantee the right to freedom of expression without declaring that certain principles must be respected. Can left-wing and right-wing extremist groups that propagate ideologies that endanger peace or call for violence also invoke Articles 18 and 19?

Peace

in German published 2017-12


Everyone wants peace.

Not true, unfortunately!

For ideologues of all kinds, their own version of the truth is more important than peace.

According to Marx, peace will only come when communism has achieved world dominion.

What kind of behavior does the Bible recommend?

The New Testament states:

Jesus said unto him: Put up your sword again, for he who lives by the sword shall perish by the Sword. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

The New Testament advises highly defensive behavior. However, the New Testament writers certainly did not want their faith to become a state-sponsored religion. Subsequently, many wars were waged and terrible atrocities committed in the name of the Christian faith.

In prehistoric times, and even in the last century, tribes of primitive peoples were almost constantly fighting.

If a tribe wanted to live in peace, it was overrun by the neighboring tribes. Each tribe had to arm itself well and practice the art of warfare. These exercises quickly became warlike conflicts.

In ancient Greece, war was considered a normal condition in relations between the poleis in Greece. Accordingly, peacetime was usually described using terms such as spondai, which roughly translates as a truce (Wikipedia).

In North America, wars between the immigrants and the Indians led to the subjugation, expulsion or extermination of a large section of the native Indian population. But there were also frequent armed conflicts between the Indian tribes.

In the Middle Ages, it was practically a matter of honor for the feudal lords to increase their territory by means of wars.

Today, peace is repeatedly shattered when states try to maintain their unity by force of arms.

In recent years, Islam has proven that the only-true religions cause wars.

        And the Christian West tried to enforce its values by force of arms in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Syria, with catastrophic consequences.

As long as people are guided by emotions rather than by reason, they cause enormous misery.

I suggest that our history books be rewritten.

Alexander the Great, Charlemagne and Napoleon must be removed from their pedestals and must be shown to have been responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and all those responsible for the peaceful revolution of the GDR in 1989 were exemplary.

Ideologies

Can we live without ideologies?

Are there good and bad ideologies?

For me, personally, socialism, communism, capitalism, nationalism are all terms with a negative connotation. But the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) are also kind of ideologies.

All of these ideologies have brought terrible misery to mankind.

The time has come for us to live without ideologies and seek pragmatic solutions for living together.

All ideologies claim a monopoly on truth. That is why people with different ideologies can never live together in peace.

Nor can a convinced ideologue be a democrat, for he is more committed to his ideology’s truth than to the rules of democracy.

Lots of people who support a weakened form of socialism do not realize that they are followers of an ideology. This form of socialism is the most widespread ideology in the developed world.

I call it the rose-colored ideology.

How much longer can the ideologies that dominate today survive?

Children usually adopt the ideologies of their parents. A child taught in the Christian faith will keep his conviction, a Jewish child will most likely remain a Jew and children in Islamic countries will become Mohammedans.

Is it permissible to indoctrinate children in such a way that they only manage free themselves from their acquired bonds after years of inner conflict? Isn’t it time to stop supporting schools that are shaped one-sidedly either religiously or politically?

          Parents should live by example when it comes to their ideology, but they must not indoctrinate their children.

Matthew, Luke and John would turn in their graves if they found out that babies are currently being baptized in Christian churches. According to the New Testament, those who turn to Jesus of their own free will should be baptized.

Genital mutilation of any kind should be prohibited or proscribed.

Isn't religious freedom a precious thing? No, by their very nature, religions are intolerant and there must be no tolerance of intolerance.

The Quran was written by Mohammed and Mohammed was a warlord in the second half of his life.

The books of the Old Testament were the basis of a state religion, and this religion had to hold the Jewish people together and was the motivation to conquer land by force.

The Christian faith came into being under Roman rule. If the Christian faith had directly or indirectly called for resistance against Rome, it would have promptly been fought radically. The Christian faith only had a chance because its nature is defensive. The New Testament does not call for violence at any point, but it often quotes the Old Testament, which does not distance itself from violence.

The three holy books cause violence all over the world, because all three claim to be the only true ones, which means that their followers cannot live together peacefully.

Far-sighted Christians, Jews and Mohammedans should sit together and agree that all passages in their holy books that call for violence have no more meaning nowadays.

Communism and socialism are pseudo-religions and both call for a class struggle. Fighting and peace do not go together.

Can you be against all ideologies and religions? Doesn't selfishness get the upper hand then? I'm sure we all agree that man should stand up for more noble things.

After the French Revolution the motto was: Liberty, equality, brotherhood. The terms fairness and justice are also important to me.

We shouldn’t strive to find the truth, but the best ethics.

Muslims are influenced by their Islamic culture, children of socialist-thinking parents are influenced by socialism, but all should clearly distance themselves from any intolerant aspects of their parents' worldview.

Islam, socialism, various forms of nationalism and neoliberalism are the worldviews that are most intolerantly propagated by their followers today.  

Islam

(in German published 2017-09)

Islam is still seen as a respectable religion in Europe.

The Quran is the foundation of Islam.

There are more than a hundred passages in the Quran that could be interpreted in a way that calls for violence to be committed under certain circumstances against Jews, Christians and people with other beliefs. Islamists refer to these passages.

In my opinion, you cannot view Islam as a respectable religion and condemn Islamists at the same time, for they refer to the Quran and the Quran is the foundation of Islam.

The Mohammedans rightly point out that there are also passages in the Bible that can be interpreted in such a way that under certain circumstances they call for violence against people of other faiths. Hasn’t the time come for Christians, Jews and Muhammadans to explain which parts of their holy books should no longer be taken literally? Passages that deal with violence should especially be mentioned.

We should speak plainly. When translated from the Arabic, Allah should not be translated as God. God is God and Allah is Allah.