 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
With regard to Christians being more competent to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, there are both pros and cons. First, Ben Kenobi is right that (real) Christians do tend to take a somewhat longer view than your average politicians, who cannot see beyond the next election. Second, the problem is not with Islam as a whole, but with Islamic fundamentalism, which has its (somewhat less radical) mirror in the christian community, and which Christians will be more used to dealing with.
On the other hand, and this is not true with all Christians, but some Christians tend to view their opinions as God-given, and not open to question, which means the sort of negotiation and give and take that is necessary just won't happen. Also, they can forget (sometimes purposely) that they represent a nation that is nominally non-Christian.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
My feelings that I have now are a combination of  
But I want to express some thoughts that I have developed since yesterday as I watched the election unfold.
First, there is a historical parallel with something that could potentially develop in the near future. One of the reasons Reconstruction failed after the Civil War, was that the Republican Party could no longer afford to be tarred and feathered by the Democrats as a "nigger-loving" party and to be associated with "dangerous radicals" in regards to proposed Reconstruction policies.
So in 1877, the Republican Party took the first step in compromising its founding ideals, in exchange for political power by distancing itself from the plight and real concerns of Southern blacks.
Fast forward to today. IF the Democratic Party takes the election results as a serious mandate for internal party change then Democratic leaders will foster a reassessment of its own party. Reassessment could result in a better, stronger Democratic Party while reviving its ideals of equality and civil rights, or the Democratic Party will decide to distance itself from the concerns of gays and lesbians even more so than some Democrats already have.
If the Democratic Party reassesses itself, and decides that they should compromise on ideals of equal rights and civil rights in exchange for renewed political power such as the Republican Party had done towards the end of Reconstruction, then gay communities across the nation may face even more challenges. The reason? When the Republican Party renounced its ideals and drew back from Reconstruction, African-Americans were left without a political party to appeal for their concerns from the 1880s to the middle of the 1940s.
In the near future, if the Democratic Party decides to completely renounce all efforts to consider the concerns of gays and lesbians, then gay communities across the nation will be without a political party. I am well aware of Democrats who are homophobic or who cave into political pressures from Republican homophobics now, and in recent past. What I am saying though, is that as a WHOLE -- with the entire party -- it might turn its back entirely to gays and lesbians.
I do not know though, if this kind of negative, reactionary reassessment will even occur. But we cannot simply dismiss this as a fantastical scenario. In our nation's history before, political parties have made such reassessments in order to renew their political power.
What are other people's thoughts on this? |
My thoughts are that you should stop thinking of the Republican Party as being anti-gay. Being against "gay marriage" is not the same thing as being homophobic. Republicans favor domestic rights legislation. It is time for Democratic gays to drop their overly aggressive anti-Republicanism, as it only makes working together for better gay rights very difficult.
I would like to point to what almost happened to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Martin Luther King and his highly partisan organization demonstrated outside of Senator Dirksen's headquarters in Illinois. Dirksen at the time was a Republican minority leader of the Senate and was cooperating with Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson in attempting to override the Southern Democrat filibuster of the Civil Rights Act. As a result of Kings demonstration, Dirksen complained publicly and said that he would withdraw his support of the Civil Rights Act if these kind of demonstrations continued.
I hear no gay bashing from the Republican leadership. I do hear a substantial amount of Republican-bashing from gays. Republican-bashing has got to stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral
With regard to Christians being more competent to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, there are both pros and cons. First, Ben Kenobi is right that (real) Christians do tend to take a somewhat longer view than your average politicians, who cannot see beyond the next election. Second, the problem is not with Islam as a whole, but with Islamic fundamentalism, which has its (somewhat less radical) mirror in the christian community, and which Christians will be more used to dealing with.
On the other hand, and this is not true with all Christians, but some Christians tend to view their opinions as God-given, and not open to question, which means the sort of negotiation and give and take that is necessary just won't happen. Also, they can forget (sometimes purposely) that they represent a nation that is nominally non-Christian. |
The problem is with lack of freedom and democracy that encourages impoverished youth to joint radical organizations that seeks "revenge" against the "external" cause of the poverty. The solution is to bring freedom and democracy to a land bereft of rights and hope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
The problem is with lack of freedom and democracy that encourages impoverished youth to joint radical organizations that seeks "revenge" against the "external" cause of the poverty. The solution is to bring freedom and democracy to a land bereft of rights and hope. |
I think it's a bit more complex than that. After all, the 9/11 terrorists were not poor, uneducated types.
The lack of democracy in the Middle East, *coupled with governments that are perceived as lackeys of the hated USA* provides rich recruiting material for the extremists. A democratic government might actually stand up to the USA - or more likely make a show of it. Even if it did not, the basic implication of living in a democratic nation is that you had a hand in selecting your government and thus its actions are legitimate representations of the people's will. Since the governments in the ME are *not* democratic, the extremists can say - correctly - that they have no recourse but to act on their own, independent of their government (and in opposition to it). Whereas in a democracy they could fight for change within the system.
The real danger to us, IMO, comes from middle-class intellectuals (of a type) who reject modernity. The "Arab Street" (uneducated, poor) gives them cover and low-level footsoldier types, sure, but the leadership and the sort that can pull off a 9/11 style attack are more sophisticated.
ANYWAY, my basic point is that democracy may be an answer, but I think we must come to terms with the fact that real democracy in the ME will - at least at first - be somewhat hostile to us.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Well, what's next for the Republicans?
(A: going downhill)
---
Go Hillary-Bill '08!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2004 02:12
Bin Laden, you'd best listen to me, stay away from Tennessee. 
(there's a difference), which is detroying the moral character of our nation and thus destroying our nation. 
|