I can whole heartedly agree with what you said here. Really the economic incentives of capitalism and the stability capitalism requires can have profound influence on a society moving forward. If we were to back off on the rhetoric, I think the first Middle Eastern country that would evolve as you suggest would be Iran. It is ripe for change, the moderates in Iran just need some space to bring the change about. It already has the democratic institutions in place even if one does have to be a Islamic cleric to run for office high offices and it has a highly educated class within its society. Ted Koppel did a special on Iran just recently and it was really interesting listening to what normal Iranians had to say. It was about two months ago and it was on Discovery Channel. If it repeats, I'd recommend watching it.
They weren't killing buddists. In fact most of our founders were sideliners ie not really a part of the revolution. Some question whether their intent followed the intent of those in the revolution...which has been a rather large debate among scholars. In ways, our founder gave our government more power than the King of England. Some random people egged on the revolution by throwing tea into the ocean, and throwing rocks at British soldiers (overexagerating so-called 'extremely violent' events)...giving what I consider general propaganda to push a feeling within the country. Although the stem was moving that way ever since Britain pushed it's debt upon the country and the intellectually rich had chosen to move in that direction. We moved away in a defensive manner. What violence was committed was merely like a snake warning a person that they're not welcome. Washington ran a tight ship, and our military standards were fairly stringent on how to engage the enemy. Carpet bombing germany and japan.... Not that I find this all admirable, but idealism and war are often a bad mix. Washington used to preach about honor and uniformity, while the man often lost battles under that flag...he famously won a critical attack against the hessian by sneaking-up on them. Not really the standard format he obliged. Wars a practicality of survival, and general principle. Sometimes that line has be walked on with a lean that most people would consider immoral. I blame the guys, not the religion. But killing a buddahist because you want succession is retarded. I don't agree with you desire to move it to the opposite side of the spectrum. The semantics are useless. There's nothing tactical good about killing a buddahist. Nothing. Those that ran the 'communist' (or whatever one wishes to call them) countries were extremly deadly, and no joke. Their political idealogy was force, and they needed to be looked at with a weary eye. Muslims in general are just a shitload of individuals, not a organization or state. Gtech is a bit too eager, imo. While I recongnize it's history is not so wholesome, I believe one has to take a step back and assume that most people will not be out to kill you. Communist leaders of the past (e.g those in russia) were a far different threat than the average terrorists...and it's a bit unfair to compare all this to the average muslim. I would definitely not consider those communists pals or buddies...just as I wouldn't look at muslim extremists as guys I would invite to the barbecue. To some level I'm glad there's a general moral opposition to the former communist leaders and to the current muslim extremists. I'm not going to view these people as all equally desireable people.
I don't think the founding fathers were terrorists either, I'm simply saying that the difference between a noble revolution and a bunch of terrorists can often times be in the eyes of the beholder. No I don't think they would approve of the violence we see today any more than the next peacefully minded person. I do think however that like so many rational people they would realize that not all terrorists are Muslim and not all Muslims are terrorists. They would recognize Muslims' right to exist and worship as they believe and would simply do what I have been suggesting. They would reach out to moderate and peaceful Muslims, who make up the majority of Muslims and strive to find a solution to reduce the violence and reduce the hate. You mean like the abortion clinic bombers who justified their violence on their religion. I don't defend the terrorists. Those who individuals kill the innocent or perpetrate acts of violence civilian populations should be condemned and punished. What I will go to great lengths to defend is the right to believe in the religion of one's convictions and I will defend those who want to simply live a peaceful life, like the vast majority of Muslims (particularly Muslim Americans). You are condemning all Muslims based on the actions of a minority so in essence you are condemning the Muslims who peacefully live in Detroit, obey the laws of this country and pay their taxes. You are condemning the Muslims who live here in my community of Portland Maine and desire nothing more than to raise their families in our peaceful and diverse community far away from the violence and poverty they fled in Somalia. By your own words in this thread if one of my Muslim neighbors were to be elected to office you would deny them their Constitutional rights to freely express their religion by taking their oath on a Qur'an instead of a Bible. For what reason? Simply to not offend your sensibilities. I do not and will not stand up to defend violence or hatred in any form, but I will stand up for those who simply want to peacefully coexist and I will judge people on an individual basis. I will not condemn a whole religion or a whole people based on the acts of a minority.
Iran would be a lot more western friendly if parts of it's political structure weren't closed-off (e.g those unelected officials). I'm sure many of the Iranian would love nothing more than to watch cbs at night and porn before they sleep. : ) I do not hate the average muslim.
You are correct they were not and that wasn't what I was implying. There was a massive difference between our revolution and the violent revolutions we have seen throughout the world in the last fifty years. I was simply trying to drive home a point that often times who is the hero and who is the terrorist is a matter of prospective. The King of England would have certainly viewed them as terrorists. I am attacking the definition certain people want to use to define terrorism and by going to the extreme opposite end and using an example that would strike a nerve. I'm also attacking the notion that every violent act by a Muslim is automatically religiously motivated as opposed to being motivated for social or political reasons. As you pointed out, General Washington ran as honorable of a war as one could hope to ever run. Agreed. This is putting it too kindly. Killing innocents is repulsive and immoral. So is a voluntary war of aggression. You'll never get an argument from me on this. But were the people so evil? It should be noted that China is still communist, are they extremely deadly? Again we agree on this. I'm comparing the mentalities of some American's about the two situations not the two groups themselves. I might mention the name Joe McCarthy. There is nothing wrong with this as long as we do not persecute all the people of a religion for the acts of a minority.
Yet you remind me to never forget they are? No one that I'm aware of is saying all muslims are terrorists. It's not far fetched to suggest that most all terrorists are muslim, but even then, I don't recall anyone in this topic suggesting such, even though other muslims do believe it's true. http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1941.cfm It's not politically incorrect to be aware. The use of minority and majority are simply platitudes and I've covered those before. What happens when "moderates" speak up? As shown in this video, right here in America, they are ostricized and thrown out of their mosques. Gee, I wonder why a muslim preaching a message of peace would be ostricized from his mosque in America? Do you know why, klb? For that matter, if a muslim showed up in a mosque anywhere and said "hey yo!, I think we been dissin' on dem Jews way too much. They deserve Israel." How long before his throat is slit? BTW, I've been meaning to ask... are you now or have you ever been a muslim? I'm beginning to think you are a recent convert. I won't disclose the patterns as to why I believe such, just yet (at least), but am curious. Still trying to equate all the terrorism in the world in the name of islam with a half dozen (or so) abortion clinic bombings from the 90s? If that's not giving legitimacy to terrorists, I don't know what is. Sure you do. But you do it in a different manner. With silence, by attempting to side-track the terrorist issues and by trying to use moral equivalence. Incorrect. I have not used the denominator of "all," at all. I'm well aware that there are many muslims who are not committed to their religion and specifically choose to not follow their religion's teachings of killing non-believers and to not follow their religious scriptures of hatred towards Christians and Jews. They are good people, despite their religion, not because of their religion.
You also avoid using the denominators "not all", "some" or "a minority". By your omission you infer all and brand the majority for the acts of the minority.
Interestingly there are a lot of parallels to Iran's government and other democracies in the world. Remember we didn't always directly elect our senators instead they were elected by the legislature of each state (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm). By the same token the supreme leader of Iran is elected by the Assembly of Experts which are elected by the people. Anyone who is really curious can read more at http://www.leader.ir/langs/EN/index.php?p=leader_law (oh yes that is the Iranian Government's official website. ) So Iran's government is a unrepresentative republic, which means the mechanisms for change are already in place. We just need to back off so that hard liner's don't have as many excuses to crack down on descent. It should be remembered that we do not directly elect our President, rather we elect delegates to the electoral college, which in turn normally vote for the candidate of their party. Each state gets so many electoral votes and each state handles these electoral votes differently. In some states, which ever candidate wins the most votes for the entire state takes all the votes in other states it is on a district by district level. It should be remembered that as a result of this system that while Al Gore won the popular vote he lost the electoral vote.
man, this thread has been a great read the last few days. KLB , why is it every time someone shred's apart your arguments you automatically go on these tirades about the socalled atrocities of the american colonists. You ever think there were none, its not like the indians were lined up 1x1, they fought battles and wars and the indian's just came out on the losing side. And you seem to like talking about abortion clinic bombers (aka christian terrorists), how can you even compare them when the amount of terrorist attacks, suicide bombing and by muslims must, far outnumber the amount of abortion clinic bombings by christians. You say that you dont want people judging islam by the actions of a few but then how would you describe what is going on in the rest of the world. islam seems to have its hands full right now, conflicts in sudan, ethiopia, somalia, kashmir, the chechens, the balkins, sunni's vs shia's, afghanistan, iraq, lebanon and every seculars favorite topic the israelites vs the "so called" palestinian people? That doest really seem like the actions of a few, not all those problems can be the fault of christians, israel or america. It just seems to me like islam has a bigger problem with the world, than the world has with islam. Happy new year everyone
The difference are a bit more apparent within those two systems, though. I wouldn't say they're remotely indentical in results. It's two completely different strutures. One was a demonstration of state-values (the senate) with the harmony of popular opinion (the house), while their constitution is primed on religious values in several forms of authority. Yes, but the electoral college almost always follows the will of the majority in their given state. If it was up to popular vote, the cities would dominate political power. That would concentrate power far too much. Our form of federalism was wise on some many levels. It demands are far more widespread desire. Although personally, I think they need to breakdown the electoral votes given to each region. Have a max of 15 per region...rather than giving 24 or 45 to a state. It's getting silly that one state could have so much say.
Oh there are many differences to say the least and I much prefer our system. My point was that unlike most of the Middle East it has the solid underpinnings that can allow for the citizens to change the course of their country through elections over the course of time. With the exception of maybe Jordan (I'm not positive about them) this is totally missing from the Arab countries. Yes most of the time it works out just fine but when it doesn't it causes resentment. I could argue both sides of this issue. I can see pros and cons of the status quo or changing things. In general I tend to favor (but not certain of) dividing electoral votes on a district by district level.
The blues should just pick one place to live together and form their own preverted utopia. It is quite obvious geographically, 99.9% of the US would rather make up their own minds about what they do.
The conservative christian movement should understand that even in the bible jesus said render onto ceasar what is ceasars and give to god what is righfully to god. Even jesus understaood that state and religion should be kept seperate. I mean if he is mulim let him swear on a koran. Whats teh big deal
debunked. Last year I was called to jury duty and learned a very great lesson. It was for a bastard who was repeatedly raping an eleven year old girl in a trailer park while her mother, a single parent, worked. I asked the judge to be relieved of this burden based on religious grounds. I informed the judge that I already believed the man guilty and that therefore he should be put to death. The judge, a very insightful woman, replied that she was very familiar with the very same Bible and that I had been selected to continue in the screening process for possible election to the jury. She ordered me to go home that night and return the following day showing her where in the Bible my participation was precluded. To my surprise I discovered the opposite. I found it in Acts. Where Paul defended himself before Festus, stating: Act 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all. This showed me that one can hold dear every principle of Heaven and salvation while honoring and obeying the secular law without offense to either concept. The two need to be separate.
Why do people constantly lob Christians and Conservatives together? I'm sure there are just as man liberal Christian nutjobs...
We are to obey the law of the land so far as it does not go against God's law. Not all of God's law is suitable for all people. The last 8 commandments are very much secular. The first 2 you would not enforce for all people. You can't force people to obey the first two commandments or they won't really be obeying them. The judge was probably aware that the person was guilty. In a case like that the trial is more of a formality than anything. No doubt they had DNA evidence, testimony from the girl, etc. The country needs people who can accept that people can be found guilty and are willing to punish the wrongdoers in accordance with the law. It's rediculous how many sex offenders get off light and then go do something worse to more kids.
Kalvin... As to part one of your thoughts I agree. The beauty of America is that were we to face a law we felt unconstitutional we have the remedy of the voting booth. As for part two I guess I'm saying that that is exactly the point. And why I do not feel anyone should be forced to swear an oath on a Bible they do not believe in. First for secular reasons which you have just noted, and second for religious reasons, being that even we, as Christians, are told not to do so.
P.S. As I told the judge, I felt he was guilty before the trial even began and that I believed he should be put to death.