Dear Josephus,

I do not think Marxist atheism is good. I believe that government should neither suppress religion as the Marxists do nor aid religion as many other governments do. Religion should be no business of government. I think religion is another form of superstition, but people have a right to be superstitious. I think the philosophies of epicureanism, stoicism and cynicism are better ways to live than any form of religion. At this time in the world I think the Scandinavian societies are the best places to live. I wrote http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 which criticises the Marxist societies for their production of corpses. Because I don't care for your superstition is no reason to think I care for Marxism. Unfortunately many people will label those who disagree with them as Marxist. You apparently are one of them. Calling names is no substitute for reasoned argument or thought.

David F- Thanks for your comments on the US Civil War and the Egyptian Gods.

I've been a little busy today and haven't been able to give your comments justice.

1. US Civil War- My impression is the Civil War can be read a few ways, but the basic message I got was that Lincoln discounted the views of the South- as President he needs to govern for the US not just for the North and Union. (That's sort of what I mean by self determination but I may change this view based on priorities.) I'm sure it could be read your way too.

2. Egyptian Gods- I haven't read the Britannica Article properly. I suspect that other references might be better sources for me in this case. I'm careful with this time period as- there is often an issue that it's easy to assume that everything started with written history. Perhaps God was invented by man perhaps not- there is a hypothesis that God is an idealised leader- group behavior in animals is embodied through a hierarchy- there is the concept of the alpha- the alpha is usually the largest male- animals seem to understand the concept of the alpha. Within the framework of the hypothesis animals seem to recognise at some level the abstract (idealised) concept of the leader.

The recognition that animals are similar to man is perhaps controversial. The brain is build in layers- from the worm like brain stem, to the reptilian, mammalian, primate, human- its physical and conceptual structures.

Perhaps anthropocentric monopoly over intelligence is misconceived...

Dear Canem Malum,

I think Lincoln took into account the views of the South. A significant part of the population of the South were slaves. They most probably had a great desire to be free, and Lincoln took account of that. In the self determination of the South to set up another country the wishes of the slaves were not considered. States rights in that case meant the right to continue slavery.

At the start of the Civil War Scott commanded the US forces. At its end Grant commanded the Union forces. Two of my grandchildren are descendants of Scott, and two are descendants of Grant. I have visited the grave of John Brown who is one of my heroes. I regard Robert E. Lee as a great traitor, and slavery as a great stain on my country. I think the Confederacy were the Nazis of their day.

The country was greatly split at the time of the Civil War. Fourteen of the first sixteen presidents were slaveholders. It was time to ete the stain. Too many compromises had been made with slavery. The compromises were compromises with evil.

The recognition that animals are similar to man is not at all controversial. Man is an animal of the species Homo sapiens.

David F- Thanks for your feedback.

Comment 1. Sounds like your family has a distinguished history. You would have much greater knowledge about the US Civil War than myself. Soldiers and generals generally don't start wars it's the leaders. I get the impression that in order to move forward with our discussion would require me to understand the civil war better.

Based on my limited understanding I felt on first impressions that Lincoln could have done more to help the apparently critical cotton industry based in the South to avoid the war and the death of 30% of males South and 10% of males in the North. Of course it's easy to have 20/20 vision of the past. Like I said I would need to read much more to understand the situation.

Correlation does not imply causation though- so just because the argument used for the South to go to a "bad" war was for self determination doesn't necessarily mean that self determination is "bad". I'm sure that the Dalai Lama would disagree that self determination is a bad thing. I liked the movie Amazing Grace- but I'm certain that there was much more to it.

____

Comment 2. Not everyone I have discussed "animal/ man brain similarity" with is as enlightened as yourself perhaps. And even though " animals are similar to man is not at all controversial" perhaps Jordan Peterson (the hypothesis of God being an idealised leader) is in some circles

Dear Canem Malum,

No help to the South would have been enough. Their economy rested on slavery, and they fought to preserve slavery. Helping the cotton industry while allowing the oppression of slavery to continue would be to perpetuate injustice.

If the Chinese would not oppress the Tibetans by destruction of their culture and their religion the Tibetans would not want self determination. In a country where no one is discriminated against for their ethnicity, religion or race there is no desire to split off. The solution for oppression is not self determination but to allow no part of the population to be oppressed. The UDHR {Universal Declaration of Human Rights) is a step in that direction.

All human societies are not hierarchical and depend on a leader. An example is the American Indian tribes described in Pierre Clastres' "Society Against the State".

david f,
>In a country where no one is discriminated against for their ethnicity, religion or race there is no desire to split off.
Catalonia's the latest counterexample.