Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: extremist christian terrorist hijacks plane!!
all_i_want said:
Would have I done the same for a Christian Communist? I am sorry, but I am at a loss about how to respond to this. How is that even relevant?
I figured it would be baffling. But it's relevant in the fact that it is also a faith-based subculture, as is evangelical or conservative Christianity. They would rather I called them Christian Communalists, so they aren't lumped with Mao/Stalin/etc. Understandable.
I'm sure they aren't Maos or Mansons (Manson was into communal living)... just not very bright theologians.
all_i_want said:
If you must definitely know, I have nothing against Christianity. I was not happy to hear that the hijacker turned out to be who he is. He is not only a Christian, but he is also Turkish. I am not saying that Christian terrorism is the next big thing either, I am merely trying to show you that no religion, even yours, is completely good, and religious people, no matter who their god is, can do evil deeds.
I agree, although I do make the distinction that some strains of a religion are far more dangerous than others, and some are far more peaceful than others. Some religious strains encourage you to love your neighbor, while others encourage you to bomb your neighbor.
In any event, you don't have to look too far to find pluralists within the Islamic community:
Free Muslim Association
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
On the other hand, you don't have to look very far to find fanatics of any religion, or fanatics who want to remove religion from private life, either. The objective we all seem to forget is that we long to exist in a pluralist society. This is forgotten on any side of the aisle.
all_i_want said:
Also, I am sorry but I have no idea how Chavez or Ahmedinejad or giving Texas back to Mexico is even remotely relevant to what I was talking about, either.
We were discussing threats, that's what urged me to comment on Chavez/Ahmadinejad. And giving back Texas is very much the equivalent to "giving back Palestine" in my opinion. It's not far-fetched to imply that Clinton and Carter took the bait when it came to people like Yassir Arafat, and somehow this established their reputation as peacemakers. Only in a world gone mad is it "peacemaking." It hasn't achieved anything to soften the blow for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And I threw in the Texas comparisan because that's precisely what it would amount to if the US was pressured by militants to give land back to the previous owners.
One of Harry Truman's most defining moments - in my opinion - was when he supported Israel's right to exist. If Truman went down as one of the most admirable Democrats in modern history, then why isn't today's Democratic Party following his footsteps? Are they more illiberal than not?
But anyways, unless I've made a point, it's off-topic to you, and it's your thread, so we'll move right along.
all_i_want said:
To sum up in one sentence, conservatives could use a dose of skepticism, and be a little more critical of their government, of their religion and of the motivation of their leaders. Self-examination is not necessarily a bad thing, you know.
I agree, again - I think you have a good point here, but on "civil liberties" in a time where we need to protect our homeland, I disagree with the extremes (as I see it, not to be taken personally) that it has come to. It's better to overestimate a threat than to underestimate it.
It seems as though many social anarchists view fear as a bad thing in absolution. There are good things that come out of fear, such as taking necessary precautions in order to protect those you have vowed to defend.
The Patriot Act...
The NSA Wiretapping Program...
Increased Airport Security...
Just how are these policies a threat to law-abiding citizens?
Whose lives have they ruined?
And what are the alternatives?
Are the alternatives just as effective?
I would suggest that without them, it would be a threat to our survival. They are a threat to those who have something to hide, yes, and if that's the case, they have committed treason. Civil liberties would truly be threatened if we reinstated Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Act on private citizens. While I question the degree of loyalty on American soil, there has to be room for patriotic dissent. And there is. It's okay to suggest that we have been involved in an unjust war. I don't see it that way, and debating the pros and cons should allow us to challenge our logic and search for evidence that further serves our causes. But to suggest that we're doing "too much" to defend ourselves on our homeland is a little far-off when we have been awakened by a long-ignored force of violence. We should realize that we had to make reforms on homeland security as step #1 in protecting us from more wild acts of terrorism.
I would say that over this last year, I've been a little more rebellious on the party line in terms of social policy, and more willing to find common ground to compromise on emotional issues, but still holding on to the principles I believe in. It's really based on what can benefit society as a whole, rather than the individual, without forcing either to accept an iron fist. In other words, social pluralism - favoring rights for religion and secularism without selling out your conservative or liberal principles.
But foreign policy is a different story. I refuse to compromise on our safety in order to appease social anarchists who have no historical basis to support their stances on homeland security, which I find dangerous at best.
So yes, I agree that self-examination is GOOD for democracy. So is constructive cross-examination. While I claim no expertise on European politics, I did stumble across a quote that I found rather meaningful by George Osborne in a speech he made.
"Let me do something politicians do all too rarely. Let me acknowledge some of the achievements of my opponent. I think making the Bank of England independent was an idea whose time had come. I think sticking to the tough spending plans inherited from Ken Clarke was the right thing to do. I believe Gordon Brown's efforts with Tony Blair to help Africa's poor are genuine and they have our total support. Part of our new approach to politics is never being embarrassed to say when you think your opponent is right; and it means you earn the right to be heard when you say where they have gone wrong."
George Osborne
Shadow Chancellor
English Conservative Party.
I'm going to say something that will make a jaw hit the ground. I think it was good for Hillary to give President Bush a little credit for pushing to rebuild New York City after 9/11. It gives her the right to her criticisms, although I am skeptical of many of them. We saw the same moral courage from those on the left who applauded President Bush for advocating an eco-friendly policy - although it didn't really contradict conservatism in general.
So it's now a call for theocracy?
