the paradox of prophecy and the tragic dilemma of leadership - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sticky · 09-21-2007, 05:42 AM

This is a very wellwriten and concise article from MICHAEL B. OREN and MARK GERSON in today's Wall Street Journal.

The article is non-partisan, timely, and presents an interesting dilemma that we all may or may not have thought of but that people in decision making positions are continuously faced with.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...DMyNDA0Wj.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal Online

Jonah's Dilemma
By MICHAEL B. OREN and MARK GERSON
September 21, 2007; Page A14

This year, as on every Yom Kippur, Jews throughout the world will recite the Book of Jonah, one of the Hebrew Bible's shortest and most enigmatic texts. Jonah is the only Israelite prophet to preach to Gentiles, and the only prophet who clearly hates his job. And yet Jews read the book on their holiest day of the year because of its message of atonement and forgiveness. But Jonah also conveys crucial lessons for all Americans as they grapple with crises in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and yearn for far-sighted leadership.

"Go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it," God commands Jonah, explaining that the Assyrians must repent for their sins or face divinely-unleashed destruction. The task seems straightforward, yet Jonah balks. He tries to flee, first to sea and later to the desert. If Nineveh heeds his warnings and is spared, its citizens will later question whether the city was really ever in danger and assail Jonah for forcing them to make needless sacrifices. But if Nineveh ignores his exhortations and is destroyed, then Jonah has failed as a prophet. Either way he loses -- that's the paradox of prophecy. And so he bolts, only to discover that God will not let him out of that bind. Jonah must be swallowed by a big fish before begrudgingly accepting his mission.

Jonah's quandary is routinely encountered by national leaders, especially during crises. Winston Churchill, for example, prophetically warned of the Nazi threat in the 1930s, but if he had convinced his countrymen to strike Germany pre-emptively, would he have been hailed for preventing World War II or condemned for initiating an unnecessary conflict? As president in 1945, Harry Truman predicted that Japan would never surrender and that a quarter of a million GIs would be killed invading it. And so he obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only to be vilified by many future historians. But what if the atomic bombs were never dropped and the Battle for Japan claimed countless casualties -- would history have judged Truman more leniently?

Recent presidents, in particular, have struggled with such dilemmas while wrestling with the question of terror. Jimmy Carter failed to retaliate for the takeover the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. Marines out of Beirut in 1983 after Islamist bombers destroyed their headquarters, and Bill Clinton remained passive in the face of successive al Qaeda attacks. And yet, had these presidents gone to war, would Americans today credit them with averting a 9/11-type attack or would they have been denounced for overreacting? If American leaders had stood firmly earlier in Iran, Lebanon or Afghanistan, would U.S. troops today be battling in Iraq?

President Bush presents a striking example here. After 9/11, he cautioned that the United States would again be attacked unless it acted pre-emptively in Iraq. But while there is no way of knowing whether terrorists would have struck America if President Bush had refrained from invading Iraq, many Americans now denounce the president for initiating an avoidable, unwinnable war. This is the tragedy of leadership. Policy makers must decide between costly actions and inaction, the price of which, though potentially higher, will ultimately remain unknown -- a truly Jonah-like dilemma.

Unlike presidents, of course, Jonah knew the outcome of his decision: A penitent Nineveh would not be destroyed by God. And yet he so feared the paradox of prophecy that he risked his life to escape it. In the end, the citizens of Nineveh repented and were saved -- and the Book of Jonah was revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

America's leaders, by contrast, are unlikely to replicate Jonah's good fortune. They must decide whether to keep troops in Iraq, incurring untold losses of American lives and resources, or whether to withdraw and project an image of weakness to those who still seek to harm the U.S. If diplomatic efforts fail to deter Iran from enriching uranium, American policy makers will have to determine whether to stop the Islamic Republic by force or coexist with a highly unstable, nuclear-armed Middle East. They will be reproved for the actions they take to forestall catastrophe, but may receive no credit for averting cataclysms that never occur. For Mr. Bush and his successors, this will remain the tragic dilemma of leadership. It is an onus worth contemplating on this and every Yom Kippur.

Mr. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center and author of "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present," is a visiting professor at Yale. Mr. Gerson is co-founder and chairman of the Gerson Lehman Group.

Sun Tzu · 09-21-2007, 08:45 AM

I think that being President is the type of job where you are not going to please everyone. You are going to make some made, and some happy. Every decision is going to have this type of effect. I saw an interesting movie a few years ago called Deterrence. One of the character’s part was the President of the US. He made the comment that it was the President’s duty to follow an agnostic mindset while in office. That of course is not true, but I thought it brought up a good point.

If a Christian President (a true Christian- not one claiming to be) is in office, then that person enters the office with the solid belief the Armageddon is going to happen. They have the belief that this world as we know it is going to come to an end. Does that have the potential to influence decisions? It would seem to me that thinking as an Agnostic (neither confirming, nor denying the existence of God) it puts the focus on the here and now and exclusively on the civilization’s progress. Not to say a Christian wouldn’t.

I debate with many of my friends about this country being founded on Christian-Judea values. I disagree.
The puritans came here to practice their spiritual beliefs, but the country was founded later because of problems with England. Where does it refer to Christ in the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

Master_Shake · 09-21-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I debate with many of my friends about this country being founded on Christian-Judea values. I disagree.
The puritans came here to practice their spiritual beliefs, but the country was founded later because of problems with England. Where does it refer to Christ in the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution?

Exactly, the Puritans didn't "found" the country, it was "founded" by Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Franklin and others who went to great pains to justify the government on the strength of the people's inherent rights, not on those rights given by Jesus, Moses or whoever.

Infinite_Loser · 09-21-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master_Shake

Exactly, the Puritans didn't "found" the country, it was "founded" by Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Franklin and others who went to great pains to justify the government on the strength of the people's inherent rights, not on those rights given by Jesus, Moses or whoever.

Apparently, you haven't read the Declaration of Independence:

Quote:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

/endofftopicness

ratbastid · 09-21-2007, 12:38 PM

The majority of the founding fathers weren't Christian. They were Deists. Entirely different religious philosophy from Christianity. Look it up.

The assertion that our nation was founded on ANYTHING Judeo-Christian is utter bullshit.

tecoyah · 09-21-2007, 12:47 PM

Natures God....and a Creator....hmm

No wonder the Native Americans Lived here, they understood it all before we ever wrote it down.

Infinite_Loser · 09-21-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The majority of the founding fathers weren't Christian. They were Deists. Entirely different religious philosophy from Christianity. Look it up.

The assertion that our nation was founded on ANYTHING Judeo-Christian is utter bullshit.

*Ahem*

I do believe the quote I, well, quoted said: Exactly, the Puritans didn't "found" the country, it was "founded" by Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Franklin and others who went to great pains to justify the government on the strength of the people's inherent rights, not on those rights given by Jesus, Moses or whoever.

Yuppers. That's what was said.

Edit: But ugh... Since we're on the subject... Jefferson called himself a Christian; So too did John Adams. Franklin advocated a faith in God free of dogma and believed that, without religion, man would have no moral compass. But, really, that's off-topic. Best saved for another day, right?

Sticky · 09-24-2007, 08:06 AM

Wow. I think we went straight on a tangent right away.
Maybe it was the religion connection in the article of the title.

I posted this becuase I thought that in these times, where politics is so overly partisan and with the ease and quickness that information spreads due to the technology that we have, people quickly forget that there is another side to a decision - the unchosen decision.

I am not talking about any specific situations. I just find that the way things are today any decision is very quickly determined to be the wrong decsion.
It is always much easier to say the the unchosen decision would have been the better course of action - so we do that.
Would the unchose decision, if it had been the one chosen, also have been determined to be the wrong course of action? I think so.
This is the dilema a decision maker (in any area of life) is faced with.

Maybe this is more of a philosophical thread, but I was intending to bring up the issue of how hard it really is to say that another decision (course of action) would have been better, yet we do this all the time.

ubertuber · 09-24-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Jefferson called himself a Christian

He also hacked the hell out of the New Testament to remove the parts he considered to be later additions. It's completely misleading to say that Jefferson was a Christian in the modern sense. The Jeffersonian bible has little in common with modern practice.

Since Jefferson was the chap who wrote the draft of the Declaration of Independence, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that his inclusion of the vague word Creator indicates Judeo-Christian principles.

roachboy · 09-24-2007, 08:43 AM

what exactly is prophecy in the article?
any statement made in the future tense, any prognostication---and these based on anything at all, since from the bizarre-o viewpoint of the article's authors, what matters is the form of statement (future tense, x will do 1, y will not do 2...) and not the data that may or may not have been involved in shaping such statements--so you erase any plausible reference to informational base because you've transposed perfectly ordinary sentences into this realm of "prophecy" and by doing that you (the authors of the article) render all of them functionally equivalent.....so it follows that the nonsense concerning iraq as a "potential terrorist threat" pushed by the bush people gets equated with biblical/talmudic/koranic prophecies get equated with winston churchill or harry truman

anyway, if you're going to arbitrarily collapse statements made by any number of figures, interchangeable because they can all equally be read about, then why not generate scenarios that involve a manifold of possible narratives that obtain at each moment, one of which comes to be in force because it is chosen, the others remaining metaphysical because they were not...

this manifold set-up puts the Leader in a position of the Demiurge, the one who through his actions integrates the maximum and the minimum--that is who makes selections from within the manifold of possibilities and so mediates between the world of Forms (the manifold) and this mortal coil.

and if you're going to do those things, then why not use the article as a pretext for placing the bush people's various claims made to hawk their idiotic war in iraq on par with any number of other, formally equalivalent such statements.

and this is non-partisan how exactly?
in the blinkered little world of the authors, we should be grateful for the iraq debacle because had it not happened, maybe "we" woulda been attacked again. by who? no matter. on what basis is that claim made?
none.
but if there's no basis for it, then why is it made?
because of the notion of the manifold, because within that hypothetical space, it's possible. and so is everything else.

so where does this get us?
nowhere.

it is always possible to set up some grand metaphysical schema and run basic operations which exploit its characteristics.
if you are a religious person, perhaps this move makes some sense or at least has an aesthetic appeal.
if you aren't, however, there's no there there.

Infinite_Loser · 09-24-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

He also hacked the hell out of the New Testament to remove the parts he considered to be later additions. It's completely misleading to say that Jefferson was a Christian in the modern sense. The Jeffersonian bible has little in common with modern practice.

Since Jefferson was the chap who wrote the draft of the Declaration of Independence, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that his inclusion of the vague word Creator indicates Judeo-Christian principles.

[moreofftopicgoodness]

Ya' know... I'm failing to see the point here. Whenever *I* point out that certain people aren't "Christians" because of what they choose to follow and/or what rules to adhere to, I promptly get the "Who are you to say who's Christian or not?" rebuttal. So... To keep with tradition... "Who are you to say who's a Christian or not, especially when they call themselves such?"

...Of course, this is all forgetting the fact that Jefferson regularly attended church services and believed Christianity to be the foundation of a republican government.

[/endofftopicgoodness]

Sticky · 09-25-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and this is non-partisan how exactly?

You read it as partisan. Had I cut out the date and authors would it still be partisan?
I guess anyone can read what they want.
I was trying to focu on the issue itself - the dilemma that a decision maker has when trying to decide what to do. Does the decision maker choose one course of action and be criticized for taking that action or choose the other course of action and be criticized for not taking the other action.
I thought this was an interesting issue to discuss.
Maybe it is more for the Philosphy board...maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

in the blinkered little world of the authors, we should be grateful for the iraq debacle because had it not happened, maybe "we" woulda been attacked again. by who? no matter. on what basis is that claim made?

Did they calim that? I did not notice.

roachboy · 09-25-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

President Bush presents a striking example here. After 9/11, he cautioned that the United States would again be attacked unless it acted pre-emptively in Iraq. But while there is no way of knowing whether terrorists would have struck America if President Bush had refrained from invading Iraq, many Americans now denounce the president for initiating an avoidable, unwinnable war. This is the tragedy of leadership. Policy makers must decide between costly actions and inaction, the price of which, though potentially higher, will ultimately remain unknown -- a truly Jonah-like dilemma.

maybe the thread really is stuck on the question of whether jefferson et al were xtian or not.

Sticky · 09-25-2007, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

maybe the thread really is stuck on the question of whether jefferson et al were xtian or not.

Oh well...that is an interesting thread anyway.

roachboy · 09-25-2007, 10:21 AM

the question about decision-making as the article you bit presents it comes with a lot of conceptual baggage. that is mostly what i focussed on in my earlier post--pulling apart the assumptions that inform it. within that kind of platonic view, options can be understood as simultaneously "present" in a sense, even though only a limited set of them are implemented. outside that view, the article is an exercise in counterfactuals. trick is that counter-factuals usually end up in one or another form of platonism, so i thought i'd just skip that step.

the partisan accusation was more a throwaway line--it doesnt interest me particularly---but the logic of the piece is peculiar and more interesting for that.

personally, i dont recognize any particular distinction between philo and politics, so it could be either place.

Al Setalokin · 07-26-2008, 04:46 PM

Most importantly, Sticky, do not forget that Jonah, who spent 3 days in the depth of depths, is a pre-figuring of Jesus Christ, who was resurrected (spit up by "the fish") after 3 days in the "belly of the Earth". And in staying with the "fish motif", it was amongst fisherman that he gathered the apostles, and the miracles of the "loaves and fishes" is expounded in Matthew Ch.16 immediately following his mention of the "sign of Jonah".

Sticky, perhaps the real paradox here is whether or not this generation shall repent in time to avoid the 'carved in stone' prophecy of a nuclear holocaust beginning in the Middle East, and imminently too, as so many children of Abraham seem to profess belief in these days. Look here: Israel Warns World War III May be Biblical War of Gog and Magog - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Arutz Sheva

WHERE IS OUR HOPE? HERE:

Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

"31"derful verses....

ONE BLOOD, Sticky....ONE BLOOD. Or do you not recognize the authority of St. Paul, the Pharisaic Zealot turned apostle, who called himself the "least of the apostles"? A man who studied under the rabbi Gamaliel, who was surely widely recognized as a master of Israel? Remember, the Old Testament cannot be understood in the proper spirit lest the New Testament, the faithful Gospel of Christ, be recognized as its fulfillment.

Oh,Sticky....oh my beloved non-partisan Sticky.... Paul (formerly Saul, who was also prefigured by King Saul, the same that persecuted David, who in turn was a prefiguring of Christ!...) was converted after he had been KNOCKED OFF his "HIGH HORSE" while on the way to persecute the brethren in Damascus.

To all that even remotely care about the article that Sticky posted, a much better understanding of the significance of Jonah can be found here:
JONAH: GOD?S COMEDY

Yours in Christ,

Al

"And here we lie still, ever enticed by a false hope in this mad prison of glass chains and cotton whips." - Anonymous

09-21-2007, 08:45 AM	#2 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I think that being President is the type of job where you are not going to please everyone. You are going to make some made, and some happy. Every decision is going to have this type of effect. I saw an interesting movie a few years ago called Deterrence. One of the character’s part was the President of the US. He made the comment that it was the President’s duty to follow an agnostic mindset while in office. That of course is not true, but I thought it brought up a good point. If a Christian President (a true Christian- not one claiming to be) is in office, then that person enters the office with the solid belief the Armageddon is going to happen. They have the belief that this world as we know it is going to come to an end. Does that have the potential to influence decisions? It would seem to me that thinking as an Agnostic (neither confirming, nor denying the existence of God) it puts the focus on the here and now and exclusively on the civilization’s progress. Not to say a Christian wouldn’t. I debate with many of my friends about this country being founded on Christian-Judea values. I disagree. The puritans came here to practice their spiritual beliefs, but the country was founded later because of problems with England. Where does it refer to Christ in the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution? __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking* Last edited by Sun Tzu; 09-21-2007 at 03:59 PM..

09-21-2007, 12:47 PM	#6 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Natures God....and a Creator....hmm No wonder the Native Americans Lived here, they understood it all before we ever wrote it down. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

09-24-2007, 08:43 AM	#10 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what exactly is prophecy in the article? any statement made in the future tense, any prognostication---and these based on anything at all, since from the bizarre-o viewpoint of the article's authors, what matters is the form of statement (future tense, x will do 1, y will not do 2...) and not the data that may or may not have been involved in shaping such statements--so you erase any plausible reference to informational base because you've transposed perfectly ordinary sentences into this realm of "prophecy" and by doing that you (the authors of the article) render all of them functionally equivalent.....so it follows that the nonsense concerning iraq as a "potential terrorist threat" pushed by the bush people gets equated with biblical/talmudic/koranic prophecies get equated with winston churchill or harry truman anyway, if you're going to arbitrarily collapse statements made by any number of figures, interchangeable because they can all equally be read about, then why not generate scenarios that involve a manifold of possible narratives that obtain at each moment, one of which comes to be in force because it is chosen, the others remaining metaphysical because they were not... this manifold set-up puts the Leader in a position of the Demiurge, the one who through his actions integrates the maximum and the minimum--that is who makes selections from within the manifold of possibilities and so mediates between the world of Forms (the manifold) and this mortal coil. and if you're going to do those things, then why not use the article as a pretext for placing the bush people's various claims made to hawk their idiotic war in iraq on par with any number of other, formally equalivalent such statements. and this is non-partisan how exactly? in the blinkered little world of the authors, we should be grateful for the iraq debacle because had it not happened, maybe "we" woulda been attacked again. by who? no matter. on what basis is that claim made? none. but if there's no basis for it, then why is it made? because of the notion of the manifold, because within that hypothetical space, it's possible. and so is everything else. so where does this get us? nowhere. it is always possible to set up some grand metaphysical schema and run basic operations which exploit its characteristics. if you are a religious person, perhaps this move makes some sense or at least has an aesthetic appeal. if you aren't, however, there's no there there. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-25-2007, 10:21 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the question about decision-making as the article you bit presents it comes with a lot of conceptual baggage. that is mostly what i focussed on in my earlier post--pulling apart the assumptions that inform it. within that kind of platonic view, options can be understood as simultaneously "present" in a sense, even though only a limited set of them are implemented. outside that view, the article is an exercise in counterfactuals. trick is that counter-factuals usually end up in one or another form of platonism, so i thought i'd just skip that step. the partisan accusation was more a throwaway line--it doesnt interest me particularly---but the logic of the piece is peculiar and more interesting for that. personally, i dont recognize any particular distinction between philo and politics, so it could be either place. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-26-2008, 04:46 PM	#16 (permalink)
Al Setalokin Upright	the sticky paradox unravelled Most importantly, Sticky, do not forget that Jonah, who spent 3 days in the depth of depths, is a pre-figuring of Jesus Christ, who was resurrected (spit up by "the fish") after 3 days in the "belly of the Earth". And in staying with the "fish motif", it was amongst fisherman that he gathered the apostles, and the miracles of the "loaves and fishes" is expounded in Matthew Ch.16 immediately following his mention of the "sign of Jonah". Sticky, perhaps the real paradox here is whether or not this generation shall repent in time to avoid the 'carved in stone' prophecy of a nuclear holocaust beginning in the Middle East, and imminently too, as so many children of Abraham seem to profess belief in these days. Look here: Israel Warns World War III May be Biblical War of Gog and Magog - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Arutz Sheva WHERE IS OUR HOPE? HERE: Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. "31"derful verses.... ONE BLOOD, Sticky....ONE BLOOD. Or do you not recognize the authority of St. Paul, the Pharisaic Zealot turned apostle, who called himself the "least of the apostles"? A man who studied under the rabbi Gamaliel, who was surely widely recognized as a master of Israel? Remember, the Old Testament cannot be understood in the proper spirit lest the New Testament, the faithful Gospel of Christ, be recognized as its fulfillment. Oh,Sticky....oh my beloved non-partisan Sticky.... Paul (formerly Saul, who was also prefigured by King Saul, the same that persecuted David, who in turn was a prefiguring of Christ!...) was converted after he had been KNOCKED OFF his "HIGH HORSE" while on the way to persecute the brethren in Damascus. To all that even remotely care about the article that Sticky posted, a much better understanding of the significance of Jonah can be found here: JONAH: GOD?S COMEDY Yours in Christ, Al "And here we lie still, ever enticed by a false hope in this mad prison of glass chains and cotton whips." - Anonymous

09-21-2007, 12:38 PM	#5 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The majority of the founding fathers weren't Christian. They were Deists. Entirely different religious philosophy from Christianity. Look it up. The assertion that our nation was founded on ANYTHING Judeo-Christian is utter bullshit.

09-24-2007, 08:06 AM	#8 (permalink)
Sticky	Wow. I think we went straight on a tangent right away. Maybe it was the religion connection in the article of the title. I posted this becuase I thought that in these times, where politics is so overly partisan and with the ease and quickness that information spreads due to the technology that we have, people quickly forget that there is another side to a decision - the unchosen decision. I am not talking about any specific situations. I just find that the way things are today any decision is very quickly determined to be the wrong decsion. It is always much easier to say the the unchosen decision would have been the better course of action - so we do that. Would the unchose decision, if it had been the one chosen, also have been determined to be the wrong course of action? I think so. This is the dilema a decision maker (in any area of life) is faced with. Maybe this is more of a philosophical thread, but I was intending to bring up the issue of how hard it really is to say that another decision (course of action) would have been better, yet we do this all the time. __________________ Sticky The Stickman