US State Department Admits “We Cannot Kill Our Way Out of This War”

Apparently the political and religious right are pitching a fit about the admission by a spokesperson for the US State Department that America, or indeed anyone, can win this battle by trying to kill all of the violent and fundamentalist Muslims.

The fact is that the more violent Muslims that are killed, the more new violent Muslims will be created.

It’s likely that even many on the left here in the United States will not agree with this solution but it is, so far, the only thing that makes sense: The real solution is to show the violent and fundamentalist Muslims that truth can’t be found in a holy book but in the continued expansion of our knowledge about our Universe through scientific experimentation and analysis.

The root of the problem is that these people believe that their senses are lying to them and that the words that were written in a book more than 1,000 years ago, by someone who had no more insight than anyone else who lived at that time, carry more weight than what they can observe and and experience.

The reason we’re not talking about that fact here in America is that a large percentage of the American public believe the same thing. They simply adhere to a different holy book.

There is no real difference between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians so far as where they look for their understanding of reality. They each look to a book that was written more than 1,000 years ago by people who had no more insight into how humans think and act than anyone else who lived during that time.

This cycle of killing will continue until everyone is willing to admit that you cannot learn about humanity or the Universe we inhabit through a holy book. In the meantime, the problem may go away for the moment or may shift to the fundamentalist believers of a different religion, but the problem will continue so long as there are humans who believe that ancient books filled with what is, at best, conjecture, grant their readers more insight into the human condition and how to live in and care for the Universe than the rigorous testing of what we experience.

3 thoughts on “US State Department Admits “We Cannot Kill Our Way Out of This War”

  1. I’m far from being convinced that any book can legitimately be described as the root cause of the killing and the hatred. It seems to me that the problem is more likely to be rooted in the commentaries and the explanations and the interpretations and the applications pushed and promoted by those who purport to know about these things.

    If the problem were intrinsic to the holy books then burning all the books would presumably eventually result in world peace: but such an idea is surely as simplistic as fundamentalism itself.

    The root problem, as I perceive it, is a self–serving, hostile and wayward attitude (sometimes described as an ego) that is willingly fed and nurtured and which finds its justification in a supposed righteousness, the source of which could be anything from a book, thru traditions and attendant apparitions, to a sacred cow.

    And the cycle will continue. We’ll hear of wars and rumors of wars but we must see to it that we’re not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. That’s what my holy book says, anyway, which proves that I’m right about everything, so there.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s good to hear from you Mick. I have no illusions that all of the violence in the world would disappear if suddenly religion was no longer a factor and I’m sorry if I gave that impression. However, I do believe that religion is a perennial problem that cannot be permanently corrected since a literal interpretation of most holy books requires adherents to be violent.

      That being said, I think that any life philosophy has the potential to become extreme and violent over time. Once you have a set of directives that a group of people feel are essential for society to function properly, it’s possible for a group of adherents to be willing to resort to violence to ensure that those directives are kept in place.

      The difference, to me anyways, is that when you begin with a philosophy that has as its foundation the idea that what we do and how we do it should be flexible over time based on scientific experimentation and with the goal of the betterment of humanity as a whole, you help insulate it against the possibility of violence.


      1. I’m uncomfortable with the notion sometimes put forth that religion is a problem or, as you’ve stated it, a perennial problem that cannot be permanently corrected. I submit that the historical record clearly demonstrates that religion is a human endeavor that naturally attends the human spirit so if there is a problem in that area it follows that the problem is to do with human nature itself. If one supposes that religion is the problem then the logical solution is to eradicate it and that simply isn’t a practical or wise course of action

        Up to a point I agree with you that a literal interpretation of most holy books requires adherents to be violent but I don’t think your idea is quite complete. If you were to add that it isn’t only the literal interpretation that causes the violence it is the selected reading of certain passages in the holy books, which is an art that is taught by artful dodgers inside faith communities, I’d pretty much say you’d nailed it.

        The spiritual novice begins his or her journey embracing elitism but with maturity progresses to egalitarianism. Such an attitude instills inward peace and that leads to outward displays of tolerance and even affection. Obviously, this sort of approach isn’t going to suit fanatics and fundamentalists because if it becomes widespread their puerile “us and them” stance will render them surplus to requirements.

        Is there any chance of the majority of religionists becoming mature believers? I would say no chance whatsoever. If there is no “us and them” all the fun is gone out of it and one is left to work on one’s own flaws and failings and who wants to do that? So the problem will remain until the end of time and the best anyone of us can do is to debate what causes it.

        I suppose a legitimate contender for the least violent or most peaceful religion would be Buddhism but even adherents in that community have let down their side down from time to time.

        Ah, well.

        It’s not too late for a Sherlock Holmes joke, is it?

        Sherlock Holmes gets up early one morning and goes out. He comes back some several hours later carrying two sacks of lemons.

        “I say, where did you get all those lemons, Holmes?” asks Dr. Watson looking up from his breakfast.

        And Holmes replies: “A lemon tree, my dear Watson.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.