Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
denoir

International Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Basically you have to be a Jew, Christian or other non-believer in their eyes to produce the hatred and wrath in the general population of predominately Islamic countries.

Right........

Because Islamic cultures have no history of fighting amongst themselves.

Sunni and Shia are the best of friends.

All the Arab countries are all so friendly with Al Queada.

Palestinians kill far more Palestinians than they kill Jews.

Please mate, spare us all the big religious conspiracy theories.

Islam isn't coming to get you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...history between 2500 and 100 years ago as being pretty much irrelevant at this point...

I almost agree with you...

I usually don't look farther than 150 years ago because 1858 is when internationally recognised Ottoman land and property laws really came into force.  Nearly all the land owned by Jews and Arabs when Israel was founded had been held under extensions of those laws and registered in those same archives.

The next important event started in 1881 with the First Aliyah.  It was really that first large immigration wave of ~30,000 Jews that began to turn a 2000 year old dream into actions.  Israeli historian Benny Morris provides excerpts from 3 letters written by those first arrivals in 1882 that clearly convey those aspirations:

Quote[/b] ]Vladimir Dubnow wrote to his brother, the historian Simon Dubnow, in October 1882: "The ultimate goal ... is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years .... The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland."

Ben-Yehuda wrote in July 1882 to Peretz Smolenskin in Vienna: "The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, covertly, bit by bit ... We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy."

Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michael Pines wrote in October 1882 to Rashi Pin, in Vilna: "We have made it a rule not to say too much, except to those ... we trust ... the goal is to revive our nation on its land ... if only we succeed in increasing our numbers here until we are the majority [Emphasis in original] .... There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones."

In other words, the problem really started when the introduction of formal property ownership in Palestine (1858) combined with the quiet but powerful ambition of a large foreign community to acquire property in Palestine (1881).  They eventually acquired nearly 5% of Palestine by the time the UN came along and awarded them with 56%, which grew to 78% within a year.  I just wish they'd make it 100% asap and finally end this long nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Islamic cultures have no history of fighting amongst themselves.

Sunni and Shia are the best of friends.

All the Arab countries are all so friendly with Al Queada.

Palestinians kill far more Palestinians than they kill Jews.

My point exactly. When was the last global round of protests when Sunni and Shia groups were killing each other (i.e. in Iraq)? When was the last time the world cried for the tribal fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

I did a search on Google for protests against the Iran-Iraq war, and came up empty, where as there were, and are, plenty against the 2003 war. Why? Every example I've given so far seems to indicate that in-house fighting amongst fellow Muslims doesn't nearly bother them as much as even one infidel stepping on their holy soil does, even to more moderate Muslims.

Most Arab countries deem Al-Qaida a threat because they rely on increasingly tight ties with the US to keep their non-democratic regimes in power, and the US isn't exactly Al-Qaida biggest friend (though you would be tempted to think so by the great PR they are giving Al-Qaida and other militants). Al-Qaida hates these regimes for having ties with the US, and not strictly enforcing the Sharia laws.

What the Arab governments say and do, and what their own people thinks couldn't be further apart. As Froggyluv said, these regimes get a lot of press coverage while the ordinary people doesn't. The only difference between many Arab nations and the Western World is that we get mostly clean elections every 4 years, where as theirs are tainted by intimidation and fraud. What we want only matters on the campaign trail, and stops being relevant once (if) elected.

You can dislike the things your government does, but what is there to do about unpopular policy (like the Iraq war in the US) and the politicians stubbornly enforcing them? In many of these Arab countries, violence as advocated by groups such as Al-Qaida offers the only chance to get rid of these regimes. Most of the countries in the Middle-East are not democracies in our sense of the word, but they aren't theocracies like Al-Qaida would like to see either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunni and Shia are the best of friends.

And because of that they blow each other up with bombs?

There is something wrong with your knowledge of friendship me thinks. huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting and though-provoking post there Jdb.

But I think you've answered your own question as to the reason for absence of protests against Arab v Arab or Muslim v Muslim conflicts. Protesting against any government actions or policy in the majority of Arab countries can quickly find you in a world of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting and though-provoking post there Jdb.

But I think you've answered your own question as to the reason for absence of protests against Arab v Arab or Muslim v Muslim conflicts. Protesting against any government actions or policy in the majority of Arab countries can quickly find you in a world of shit.

Muslims are not restricted to areas where Islam originated though. Many protests are held in Europe, most of which either turn violent, or where the majority (in one country aided by members of parliament even calling for a third Intifadah, and later claiming they meant a peaceful one of civil disobedience, socialist pieces of sh*t) shout such peaceful phrases as "Hamas, Hamas, gas the Jews" and "Intifadah, Intifadah, death to Israel" (in this case I am describing protests in the Netherlands, a country with almost a million Muslims, happened in more places though, Paris, London etc).

With such phrases and actions it's not hard to see Islam as a violent, expansionist by force, religion. On the other hand, the Muslim youth we have here, mainly from Morocco are not considered by people from the Middle-East/North Africa to be the best example of true Muslims. I.e. there are also a lot of Turkish people here, but they don't nearly cause as much trouble as the aforementioned group. This would seem to be a cultural thing, Turkey being the more moderate group (and therefore easier to integrate in Europe).

Muslim youth (mainly Moroccan) are a far smaller group than ethnic Dutchmen, but they are overrepresented in the crime statistics by far. They go to the same schools as us, get the same chances we do, the Netherlands is no where close to being a racist country, but it often goes wrong (although of course there are also many well educated ones), and they don't appear to want to be part of our society. They stick to their own group and culture, which alienates them from the rest of the country, further diminishing their chances of becoming successful in their occupation (and therefore society, which makes crime a tempting option).

There have been cases with government officials that happened to be Muslim, refusing to shake a woman's hand for religious reasons. Shaking hands is an important part of the social interaction of Europe. When you want to live here, adapt. If that is not acceptable, I wish them a happy life in their own country, were their habits and values suit them better. We don't expect the natives of another country to use our customs when we go there either.

They only use the advantages of our country, like social welfare, and most of all the right to protest when it is in their best interest, and condemn our state the rest of the time for being sh*t. Only a part of society when society suits them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunni and Shia are the best of friends.

And because of that they blow each other up with bombs?

There is something wrong with your knowledge of friendship me thinks. huh.gif

I think he was being sarcastic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because Islamic cultures have no history of fighting amongst themselves.

Sunni and Shia are the best of friends.

All the Arab countries are all so friendly with Al Queada.

Palestinians kill far more Palestinians than they kill Jews.

My point exactly. When was the last global round of protests when Sunni and Shia groups were killing each other (i.e. in Iraq)? When was the last time the world cried for the tribal fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

I don't know what media you are exposed to, but I see countless news and protests about these very subjects where I live.

I remember all the hoo ha about Saddams treatment of the Kurds.

I watched all the Sunni vs Shia bombings and violence in Iraq daily on TV.

I don't remember the world ignoring it.

Quite the opposite. I remember the world all calling for the U.S. to fix it, and about 20+ armies from around the world actively deployed trying to stop it.

The same happened in Lebanon.

Many western countries were involved in the Iran Iraq war too.

There is a little old lady who regularly raises money for the victims outside my local pub.

I watched the rise of the Taliban regime on TV. Read about it in the papers. Everyone protested how evil they were, banning girls from schools, destroying TV's and smashing up those temples.

Everyone was up in arms that their governments were not intervening.

Foreign aid to Afghanistan didn't suddenly start after 9/11.

We've all watched as the U.S. has tried to intervene in the pakistan tribal area's. We've all watched as the government there has been overthrown.

There were world wide protests. Don't you remember when Bhutto got shot the other year?

The difference between the outrages over tribal violence in Pakistan and what's going on in Gaza is the scale.

In the tribal area's you are getting one giant bombing every few months and in Gaza you are getting one every couple of minutes. You can watch them live on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been cases with government officials that happened to be Muslim, refusing to shake a woman's hand for religious reasons. Shaking hands is an important part of the social interaction of Europe. When you want to live here, adapt. If that is not acceptable, I wish them a happy life in their own country, were their habits and values suit them better. We don't expect the natives of another country to use our customs when we go there either.

Traditionally when a culture is assimilated into another their customs are embraced and sensibilities are too.

That's why we have Santa Claus in Christian religion even though he is not found in the bible and is infact a pagan idol.

It isn't a case of the last guy in has to mimic all the older members of that society, it is a constant and fluid adjustment to each other that makes for a tolerant society.

If you are unable to adjust to Muslim sensibilities yourself, you aren't really in a strong position to be expecting them to adjust to Christian ones.

It's just racial intolerance.

I sort of expect that from deepest darkest Nigeria, but it's not something I regularly associate with the Dutch.

But there are extreme rightwingers in every society. Fundamentalism is not just an Islamic thing.

The stronger culture assimilates the weaker culture into it's own. They blend. Creating a fusion.

I don't personally feel in anyway threatened by Muslim culture.

I'm quite capable of not touching Muslim women.

It doesn't make me feel any less British.

I bow to Japanese people too and I can kiss Frenchmen on both cheeks without feeling I am a homo.

Understanding peoples customs and sensibilities better equips you to treat them with good manners.

It starts at home.

And yes, we do expect the natives of other countries to use our customs when we go there.

That is entirely natural.

Do you expect to be deported from your holiday in Dubai, Egypt or Bali for shaking hands with a woman?

Of course not.

You expect to be treated with a certain amount of respect for your obvious and basically harmless and well intentioned cultural differences.

Ex pat communities in muslim lands live together in their own little ghettos where they drink alcohol and eat pork andshake hands and sleep with eachothers wives to their little hearts content.

Why would you expect it to be any different when foreign muslim communites move to your own country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been cases with government officials that happened to be Muslim, refusing to shake a woman's hand for religious reasons. Shaking hands is an important part of the social interaction of Europe. When you want to live here, adapt. If that is not acceptable, I wish them a happy life in their own country, were their habits and values suit them better. We don't expect the natives of another country to use our customs when we go there either.

They only use the advantages of our country, like social welfare, and most of all the right to protest when it is in their best interest, and condemn our state the rest of the time for being sh*t. Only a part of society when society suits them.

It sends me into fits of incandescent rage when so-called 'progressive' or 'left-wing' people (a pigeon hole I generally belong in), leap to the defence of Islam.

Here in Australia, people generally have no problem deriding, mocking and ridiculing Christianity, and rightly so.

However, if you dare say one word against Islam, you'll instantly be decried as a 'racist' (when did Islam become a race?), anti-immigration and pro-Israel's liquidation of the Gaza ghetto.

"Why don't those Mormon virgins go on a sex tour of Thailand instead of accosting me in the street with their bullshit? If there was a god, the whole world would have access to $10 whores"  rofl.gif

"Why do the Muslim chicks wear the rags on their heads? Is it so they've always got a tea-towel ready to dry the dishes?"

"AAaaaaaarrrgh! That's so prejudice I can't believe it! Oh no! you're such a pig! YOu have be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions."

No I do not.

There is an exemption from the racial and religious vilification act here. And who is it for? Religious groups and schools.

A couple of months ago, a Jewish woman was fined for crossing the road against the lights. She argued that as it was the Sabbath, she wasn't allowed by religion to 'touch electrical devices'. The police withdrew the fine and the local council has now spent tax-payer's money on making the pedestrian lights automatic, so the button need not be pushed for the lights to change and our pre-enlightenment savage can wander about the first world with her third-world superstitions paid for by others.

True story.

@Baff

Quote[/b] ]It's just racial intolerance.

I sort of expect that from deepest darkest Nigeria, but it's not something I regularly associate with the Dutch.

C'mon mate, you're smarter than that.

A) As above, since when is Islam a race?

B) Accusing others of racial intolerance by comparing them with Nigeria?

It's definitely a grey area. Where is the line between adapting to new cultures and absolute right and wrong?

However, treating women as equals is just plain right, end of story, no fucking "oh well in their culture you have to understand that...". No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 (when did Islam become a race?),

The day you used the term to delineate a type of person rather than a religious creed.

Hence the term Mormon isn't racist, but the way you used it it in your joke is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOu have be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions."

No I do not.

big·ot  n.  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions.  You have every right to be a bigot.

In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Baff
Quote[/b] ]It's just racial intolerance.

I sort of expect that from deepest darkest Nigeria, but it's not something I regularly associate with the Dutch.

C'mon mate, you're smarter than that.

A) As above, since when is Islam a race?

B) Accusing others of racial intolerance by comparing them with Nigeria?

It's definitely a grey area. Where is the line between adapting to new cultures and absolute right and wrong?

However, treating women as equals is just plain right, end of story, no fucking "oh well in their culture you have to understand that...". No.

I concur that it is a grey area.

I consider myself to be very right wing. I hold strong views on immigration.

I also subscribe to racial stereotypes.

I do think it is reasonable to predict peoples behaviours and attitudes based on the societies and cultures they hail from.

Racial intolerance is when you are unwilling to accept these attitudes as reasonable or acceptable.

Racial discrimination is when you act upon those intolerances and treat people differently because of them.

So in our given discussion of Israeli's for example I believe them to be a highly aggressive and arrogant race based on my personal dealings with them.

However I do not feel that they are so without reason or that it does not make sense for them to be so given the circumstances in which they live.

I don't feel it is anathema to be both racist and racially tolerant concurrently.

Islam is a race when you use the word to refer to a group of people rather than a religious creed.

Depending on the context the word can be used for either meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baff1, if The Bard himself were alive today, and commissioned to write a piece of brilliant idiocy, he'd be hard pressed to beat that.

You see, there's a little bit of a clue in the word itself: Racism, it's to do with race.

You're presumption to change the English language as you see fit, forces me into the ridiculous position of having to inform you that there are adherents to Islam in every race.

Quote[/b] ]Racial intolerance is when you are unwilling to accept these attitudes as reasonable or acceptable.

Ever been to a public execution in Saudi Arabia? At first I was horrified at the thought, then I realised that made me a racist and now I can't wait to go and experience this ancient cultural custom!  yay.gif

@Bernadotte. What the fuck are you talking about? "Islam, Christianity, Judaism are ridiculous". Oh that makes me a bigot?

I hope you can find it in your heart to include me in your evening prayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shaking of hands thing is nothing to do with the equality women. Believe it or not, its a sexual thing. Many muslim men and women want to guard themselves against "temptation" and will go to such lengths to do so. A similar incident occured when a muslim colleague was looking down when he was speaking with a woman. She got upset and asked why he wasn't looking her in the eye as she spoke to him. He explained that lowering the gaze when talking to a woman is a great respect.

Foreign practises may appear to be crazy and strange to someone who misunderstands them. However, I agree that some "practises" are totally unacceptable - because they violate universal values. e.g. public executions, forced marriages, etc. But that being said, you can't put a number of people into one pot, label them, and blame them all. They are not all the same and they should be treated as individuals rather than someone belonging to a group; at least thats how we do it in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess people should not forget that there are different interpretations of Islam and the things it tells it´s believers.

When there´s a discussion going on about such stuff it´s only the extremists that get a big spotlight on their interpretation of their religion. Still, there are different believers of the same religion that do not live in extremism. They just don´t make that much noise, a behaviour that is also shown with moderate christians, moderate jews, moderate tree-lovers, moderate agnostics or whatever.

I simply don´t think that it´s reasonable to attack a complete group of people fenced in in some kind of refugee camp just to get a few. Oh yes, Israel says they are hiding behind cilians. Sure, sure they do. Think about it. You have a neighbor that has a gun and has friends with mucho guns. He´s also the one who pays for your kid´s education and helps you with smuggled goods or directly with money. Without him your life would be worse and the life of your children would be worse. You will not go to police and tell them about him. He has guns and friends with guns. You will not do that.

The israeli claim that palestinian civillians are supporting Hamas and are therefore responsible for the high deathtoll on civilian side is bullshit. The use of incendiary ammunition in crowded areas is murder. Intentional murder for political goals, not military goals. The result of the military strike is ridiculous at best. Oh yes, certainly the western world will have to pay for the rebuilding of infrastructure in the palestinian territories ONCE MORE just because the israelis still get a hard-on when having another war. What are the results of this war ? What did the israelis achieve ? I´d say it´s about time for the US to redifine their position towards Israel drastically. Right now the US support ethnic cleansing. That´s the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Bernadotte. What the fuck are you talking about? "Islam, Christianity, Judaism are ridiculous". Oh that makes me a bigot?

Well, all I can do is offer a big-print version of your original words if they weren't clear enough for you:

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>"...YOu have be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions."</span>

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>No I do not.  </span>

big·ot  n.  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions.  You have every right to be a bigot.

In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one.

I may be tolerant of bigots, but I'm not very tolerant of bigots who are unable to admit they are bigots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are unable to adjust to Muslim sensibilities yourself, you aren't really in a strong position to be expecting them to adjust to Christian ones.

Christian ones?

I think someone is forgetting that for most of Europe, religion is very low on their priority list, and they certainly don't wish to live by the rules of one, unlike especially the US. I.e. the Pope is still hailed in large parts of the Christian world that he visits, where as in Europe the support for his medieval declarations (such as anti-abortion and until recently completely forbidding the use of prophylactics) and those of his pedophile goons, is rapidly declining. There are some people in the Catholic church that are trying to push a more moderate and free "version", but they don't exactly seem to be very influential, with the election of such a conservative Pope. Our values and customs are far more based on humanity than on religion.

Imo the world would be far better off without religion.

Quote[/b] ]They are not all the same and they should be treated as individuals rather than someone belonging to a group; at least thats how we do it in the UK.

Of course they are not all the same, and many of them do adjust to a different culture (at least when in public, and as long as they don't break the law I don't care what they do in private), among others the aforementioned shaking of hands, but many strict religious people do not. Baff1 mentioned racial intolerance of not being understanding of other culture's customs, well they (the more zealous types) don't care for our feelings and customs, but we have to do for theirs, and that is racial tolerance? It's still one-sided. Muslims are not a majority in the Netherlands, so we don't have to do anything, if they were the culture would be different, and would suit them and not us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imo the world would be far better off without religion.

I think what were seeing now with militant Islam and what we've seen in the past with puritan Christianity is religion being used as a vehicle by evil men for dubious goals. Even if you erased the so-called 'major religions' from the globe, they would find some other divisive avenue to pursue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what were seeing now with militant Islam and what we've seen in the past with puritan Christianity is religion being used as a vehicle by evil men for dubious goals. Even if you erased the so-called 'major religions' from the globe, they would find some other divisive avenue to pursue.

Of course it wouldn't, as you said these men would always find a way. However with major religions the leaders have the chance to influence (and in many cases poison the minds of) millions, making it almost too easy. You can't fix the world all at once, but removing one major factor for it's global problems wouldn't hurt wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JdB if you forgot the growth of religions - read some history books Did you forget what influence the pope + catholic church in medieval times had? Inform yourself about Luther, Reformation and the Peasants' War...

Imho its more about good education and the tolerance of different cultures+religions, isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baff1, if The Bard himself were alive today, and commissioned to write a piece of brilliant idiocy, he'd be hard pressed to beat that.

You see, there's a little bit of a clue in the word itself: Racism, it's to do with race.

You're presumption to change the English language as you see fit, forces me into the ridiculous position of having to inform you that there are adherents to Islam in every race.

Quote[/b] ]Racial intolerance is when you are unwilling to accept these attitudes as reasonable or acceptable.

Ever been to a public execution in Saudi Arabia? At first I was horrified at the thought, then I realised that made me a racist and now I can't wait to go and experience this ancient cultural custom!  yay.gif

@Bernadotte. What the fuck are you talking about? "Islam, Christianity, Judaism are ridiculous". Oh that makes me a bigot?

I hope you can find it in your heart to include me in your evening prayers.

Then I suggest you look the word "race" up in the english dictionary before using it again.

If you are going to argue semantics it helps.

And yes, it does make you a bigot. Nothing wrong with that. That's just what the word means.

Once again if you insist on arguing semantics ignoring the dictionary definition of the words you are using is a mistake.

Personally I'm not into public executions, but I recognise that they are acceptable in many cultures and perhaps even necessary to maintain civil order.

Not every country has the same level of state controls and infrastructure as my own.

Is it better to have a death penalty than to have a surveillance society and a disarmed population living in a police state, with every element of their lives envigilated, lisenced and prescribed by government eddict?

Is that really freedom either?

I'm not even sure I prefer it.

I do however feel that different circumstances require different solutions.

My ancestors used public executions too. There was a time when that was acceptable here. It is not beyond the realms of my imagination or education to understand it.

I try not judge other people by standards that are not relevant to them.

Saudi isn't England. Neither is America.

They murder people in the name of justice by my countries standards.

But who am I to judge? Our cultures and circumstances do not directly equate.

While murder is a crime here, I do not rule out making a decision to kill someone should circumstance call for that drastic action.

I'm just lucky enough to live in a society where that circumstance hasn't cropped up.

It is of note that it took a lot of previous state decreed murders to get my society to the point where that is no longer occouring here.

(Although we still kill plenty of foreigners and feel justified to do so).

It didn't happen overnight and I don't feel that because it does not happen here that it is an implicit human justice that can be equally applied throughout the rest of the world.

My "civilisation" is built on the very barbarity it has come to abhor.

It was a necessary building block for this society to have become what it is today. Yours too.

Why should I judge others as immoral for attempting to achieve a progressive society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imo the world would be far better off without religion.

I think what were seeing now with militant Islam and what we've seen in the past with puritan Christianity is religion being used as a vehicle by evil men for dubious goals.

As much as we agree about how much the world has suffered under organised/institutionalised religion, I think we also realise that we won't be able to get rid of it any time soon.  The best we can do is give extremists more incentive to become moderates and moderates fewer excuses to become extremists.  Unfortunately, the past few decades have mostly seen the opposite trend.

Around 30 years ago when the people of Iran overthrew the Shah it sent a wake up call throughout the region that Muslim fundamentalists forced to extremism could topple monarchies.  The Saudi monarchy got so scared that they began to pacify the fundamentalists by paying them off and even giving them governmental positions within the ministry of education.  Decades later it's no coincidence that the majority of 911 hijackers were Saudi.

Meanwhile something quite similar has happened in the US.  During the past 40 years the Republican party has become increasingly dependent on the support of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians which represent 20 - 30% of Americans.  One of their strongest beliefs is that the second coming of Jesus Christ will not occur until the "Israelites" have repopulated the holy land.  For them, the Palestinian people are not just terrorists, they are an obstacle to the Christian salvation of the entire human race.  Take for example George Bush's support for the evangelical Reverend Hagee during Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon:

Quote[/b] ]Last month the Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas, convened a meeting in Washington of 3,500 members of Christians Unified for Israel. The organisation is dedicated to building support for Israel, even in states where there are few Jewish voters.  Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican presidential hopeful, attended the rally, as did Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador.

Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “miracle of God†and suggested that a ceasefire would violate “God’s foreign policy statement†towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace.   “The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching . . .   Rejoice and be exceeding glad — the best is yet to be,†Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.

President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedomâ€. He is said to have added: “God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.â€

The support for Israel of 50 million American evangelicals chimes with the reality of the Administration’s foreign policy, which refuses to tolerate terrorist organisations — or the Middle Eastern regimes linked to them. Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy in the administrations of the first President Bush and Bill Clinton, said recently that evangelical supporters of Israel were now an “important part of the landscapeâ€.

-- Times, August 4, 2006

I don't expect the US will be able to weaken the influence of Muslim extremists as long as their own Middle East policies continue to be so strongly influenced by Christian Bible prophecy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As much as we agree about how much the world has suffered under organised/institutionalised religion, I think we also realise that we won't be able to get rid of it any time soon.  The best we can do is give extremists more incentive to become moderates and moderates fewer excuses to become extremists.  Unfortunately, the past few decades have mostly seen the opposite trend.

While I pretty much entirely agree with the rest of your post, I don't feel the last 3 years have accelerated extremism at all.

I feel quite the opposite.

I think it has been getting less and less each year.

(Although I do not believe it is something that can ever be eradicated).

If we look at the huge advances made in cultures like China and India for example, and yes even Pakistan, the world has become a very rapidly more moderate place.

As a planet we are simply much richer. Our infrastucture and technology is constantly providing us with increased wealth.

And that is the primary driver of all moderation in my opinion.

I'm an optimist. I think things are generally getting better.

I think it is within man's basic nature to improve his lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't feel the last 3 years have accelerated extremism at all.

I feel quite the opposite.

I think it has been getting less and less each year.

(Although I do not believe it is something that can ever be eradicated).

Oh, I agree completely. My post was more about the reasons for the rise of extremism during previous decades. Btw, I give much credit to the growth of the internet for the decline over recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×