I think an argument could be made by religious persons (though I wouldn’t agree with it), that it isn’t lack of belief that stirs atheists into action but lack of belief that permits atheists to act.
Julie
In the case of Stalin, I think his belief in the coming “dictatorship of the proletariat” stirred him into action. Although you are correct that his rejection of morality based on other principles allowed him to justify his actions in killing millions. Same for Mao and Pol Pot. In other words, their actions were motivated by belief in a goal, and they felt they were justified in what they did by that goal.
Of course, you could argue that they were really motivated simply by the desire for power, just as you could find psychological explanations for terrorism by the KKK.
Marxism has a lot of parallels with apocalyptic religion - belief in an end to history, evangelism, a higher morality, and so forth.
I think at the extremes, nearly all ideologies come to be more alike than they are different, as Gadfly mentioned.
DanielWithrow -
Your cite is interesting, but -
[ul][li]I don’t see the relevance that “tree spiking was a technique invented by Wobbly loggers during the early twentieth century as a way of sabotaging sawmills…” If by Wobbly, you mean IWW, that was a fairly left-wing organization, which would tend to support the notion that tree-spiking is a tactic largely of the left. [/li][li]I will need a bit more that Foreman’s say-so that the only possible suspect was a “conservative Republican”. Especially since, as you cite, Earth First! endorsed tree-spiking at the time, and since Foreman himself mentioned the dead animals left “as a protest” on the site. He seems to know more about the whole affair than if he and Earth First! were totally innocent. [/li][li]The idea that Louisiana-Pacific is in some way responsible because they were not intimidated by the threats of those responsible is morally indefensible. And this part about how it is really their fault for not using saw blades that could cut thru tree spikes is verging on offensive. The whole poiint of tree spiking is to use spikes that cannot be cut thru at the saw mill. To characterize a failure to surrender to the demands of extremists as showing “a blatant disrespect and lack of care for their workers” is ridiculous. [/li][/ul]
Would you agree that any abortion clinic that does not shut down after receiving bomb threats is showing “a blatant disrespect and lack of care for their workers” and women who wish to obtain abortions?
Those who bombed the Army Math Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1970 (it was a Viet Nam war protest) set off their bomb at night. They expected the building to be empty. They were wrong, and they killed a young researcher who had nothing to do with the war in Viet Nam. Would you say that therefore the bombers were innocent? Why then do you feel that those responsible for the tree spiking should not be blamed when their actions lead directly to serious injury?
Nutcases are nutcases, and I don’t see any shortage of them on either side of the aisle.
Unfortunately for both sides.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes: I can positively state that very few if any children have died from anaphylactic shock arising from environmental contact with Atheism and Liberalism.
Well that is perhaps an interesting line of reasoning but it doesn’t address the fact that atheism has long been a facet of Communist ideology.
You know, “Religion is the opiate of the masses” and all that
First, the Wobbly cite isn’t directly relevant now; at the time it happened, given the weird nature of the crime, there was speculation that the spike was an old Wobbly spike. Again, this spiking did not fit the normal EF patter for tree-spiking.
Foreman’s info about it surely comes from contemporary news articles; if you’d like other cites, I encourage you to dig them up yourself.
You’re correct that L-P can’t be held totally responsible for the guy’s injury; at the same time, it would’ve behooved them to replace cracked saw blades with functional ones. Deliberate Spikes are far from the only source of metal in trees, and cracked sawblades are very dangerous.
If an abortion clinic knew there was an active and violent pro-life movement in its area, and it refused to pay for outside lights, and a clinic worker got mugged because of the lack of basic security – sure, I’d lay some of the blame at the clinic’s feet. Obviously the mugger is primarily at fault, but the clinic didn’t bother to set up minimal safety, and that’s sucky on their part.
Finally tree-spiking is designed to damage saw-blades, but not by shattering them: a normal saw-blade will be stripped by a spike in a tree. Spiking was never intended to injure anyone; when it became clear that it could injure people if the saw blade was faulty, EF folks renounced it as a tactic.
The central point is that the spiking in which this guy was hurt was not likely to be an EF spiking; nevertheless, most public EF people have renounced tree-spiking. It is therefore not comparable to abortion-doctor murderers.
Daniel
I should’ve responded to this:
- During the 60s and 70s, there were definitely violent domestic leftist terrorists. I’m confining my comments to the present day.
- The bombers were not innocent.
- If it turns out that the tree-spike in question was placed by an environmentalist, then the one who placed it is responsible, and my thesis about violent domestic leftist terrorists is false. If it wasn’t, my thesis is not false.
Daniel
True, which is why I questioned it.
Of course, it may be possible that the spike was there for eighty years, but, as you mention, Earth First! used tree-spiking enough to have a pattern. Since they used and encouraged the practice (before that point), and since they renounced it afterwards, I would imagine they were prime suspects, if nothing more.
Surely?
I don’t trust Foreman any further than I can drop kick him. It sounds an awful lot like something he pulled out of his ass to try to deflect suspicion from the only group in the area actively engaged in tree-spiking - and, as I mentioned, he seems to know a great deal about the motives of those who were trying to frighten Louisiana-Pacific out of logging the area.
In any case, it is a bit too self-serving to be credible.
Oddly enough, the only metal in the tree that damn near killed the sawmill worker came from a tree-spiking. The saw blade in question didn’t seem to have any trouble with any other trees.
And, as I mentioned, the bombers of the AMRC in 1970 thought they would bomb the place at night, and hold casualties to a minimum. They were wrong too.
And every mainstream pro-life advocate disavowed bombings and violence within hours after the first incident of abortion clinic bombing.
The parallels of tree-spiking and abortion bombings seem almost exact. Acts of violence, leading to death or serious injury, and renounced by the less extremist elements of the movements that motivated the violence.
As I said, nutcases are all alike, whether they want to “Save the Forests!” or “Save the Babies!”.
Regards,
Shodan
I humbly present the entire body of my work here at the SDMB as primary evidence contradicting the original argument.
And I don’t know how elucidator feels about the Magical Sky Pixie, but I nominate him as a crazy-assed liberal alongside myself.
And I second it, too.
Shodan, I followed the case while it was happening. I can vouch from memory that Foreman’s recounting of it was reflected in the contemporary media. If you don’t trust him, that’s fine, but you’ll still need to show some cites implicating him. Foreman’s no angel, but I’ve never seen any evidence whatsoever linking him to this spiking.
I look on it like this: A doctor performs abortions. She also has attracted the attention of a stalker. When she refuses to date the stalker, he shoots her and kills her. Is it appropriate to blame radical pro-lifers for her murder?
It isn’t making excuses for the radicals to say they’re not at fault in this case.
The tree spiking looks like it was done by an angry neighbor, not by someone working under EF’s rubrick. While I think tree-spiking is an unacceptable and unethical tactic, I’ll need to see some shred of evidence before I’ll hold any EFer accountable for this particular crime.
Daniel
The basic question is: what is a nut? [:D]
Lenin and Mao believed in the violent overthrow of oppressive governments by the proletariat. Were they nuts? Why?
US militia believes in the right of bearing of arms, so they can resist the government if necessary. Are they nuts? Why?
Falun Gong followers believe that each of them have this little “wheel” revolving around in their body and that Li is a living god. Are they nuts? Why?
BTW, Ted Kaczynski is not an environmentalist. If you read the Unabomber Manifesto, it should be clear.
What do you call, in the US, someone who is in favor of capitalism… but not runaway capitalism. Some social nets in other words is good. Isnt a communist or nazi… Thinks government should be small and interfere as little as possible.
What do you call him politically wise ?
I would think that would be a liberal. The problem with that designation is that liberal doesn’t mean what it used to anymore. Some leftists have wrapped themselves in the cloak of liberalism when they are about as illiberal as you can get.
A conservative, in the modern American sense of the term as I use it.
I am in favor of limited government, not no government. A safety net, not a nanny state.
Conservative principles as I state them:
[ul][li]Free markets[/li][li]Individual rights[/li][li]Personal responsibilities[/li][li]Limited government[/ul][/li]
And the opposite of these would be;
[ul][li]Managed economies[/li][li]Group rights[/li][li]The nanny state[/li][li]Government as solution of first choice[/ul] Probably just as many nuts supporting one set of principles as the other. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan