Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[Boon 0]

Obviously, outsiders such as myself can see the majority adopting the psyche in regards to American interests.

 

I'm glad we have a resident expert to tell all the Americans what we're thinking.

 

Since you recognize the dissent in the country- I reiterate:

 

I think the point Vyce is emphasizing is that it is presumptuous as well as pompous for people who are not Americans to be telling Americans what our psyche is.

[cbacon 0]

So, we should believe your lies instead? Dude, no offense, but anonymous sources at commondreams.org don't really cut it as the 'most truthful' or 'unbiased' sources.

 

Just a thought, though.

 

You can believe what you want. But anyone with any sense of rational thought and the time to research such manners can easily find the truth.

 

As for 'anonymous sources', you do know Common Dreams is a conglemerate of various columns from other major news sources (domestic and international) by various credible journalists, right?

[EricMM 0]

Omigod you guys.

 

Okay, I for one am against a missle shield, star wars, whatever.

 

First of all, nothing like that is one hundred percent perfect. Despite the costs, it's not. SO, what that means is that anyone who's going to want to be able to threaten us with any sort of MAD will have to have IMMENSE stockpiles of weapons, at least more than they do now.

 

If you don't see that as an instigation for proliferation, you're delirious. In a perfect world everyone would be ICBM proof. But we don't live in one. If we build starwars, it will just unbalance the same cold war balance that has prevented a world war for decades.

[cbacon 0]

Obviously, outsiders such as myself can see the majority adopting the psyche in regards to American interests.

 

I'm glad we have a resident expert to tell all the Americans what we're thinking.

 

Since you recognize the dissent in the country- I reiterate:

 

I think the point Vyce is emphasizing is that it is presumptuous as well as pompous for people who are not Americans to be telling Americans what our psyche is.

Obviously we don't know exactly what goes on in the average Bush supporters mind (frankly, i'd rather not know) but we can draw conclusions based on actions, and that is the majority of voters are in agreeance with the reckless ideologies of this current administration.

[Justice 0]

What question started the discussion? It has been the context from moment 1.

It's not the context of World War II, which is the context that the Atomic Bombs are in. You simply can't remove this completely from WWII.

 

You introduced nuclear warfare. How is that not being the aggressor when it comes to nuclear warfare?

 

Because we weren't the ones who started the war in the first place. Trying to act as though the Atomic Bombs being dropped suddenly started a new war. Was it the beginning of the age of the Nuclear Warfare? Yes. But it didn't start any warfare. We weren't the aggressors because we didn't start initial hostilities. If hositilities started with an Atomic Bomb, you'd have a point. But they didn't, so you really don't.

 

*snip, SPECULATION.*

 

Read: I can't defend against it, so I'll just cut it out and ignore it. The casualties from the bomb were speculation at the time, too, you know. It's pretty dumb to try and dismiss one because of speculation because that's purely what it was decided on.

 

The fact that you say it is "simple math" shows the state of mind you guys have in regards to this subject.

 

The fact that you can't comprehend the idea that both plans of action were speculation when the decision was made shows your complete lack of thought on the subject. Lemme put YOU in the position. Choose one. If you can't, then you are a hypocrit:

 

Operation Olympic: Invasion of the Southern Islands of the Japan, likely to have at least 500,000 casualties American (Happy medium between the two numbers given). After that we firebomb Japan into submission, causing an estimated 3,000,000 dead.

 

Fat Man and Little Boy: Complete devestation of two cities at the cost of 300,000.

 

What do you choose? If you can't give me an answer, then you lack the capacity to judge the action in any way.

 

But my point is that _today_ people believe "This many dead vs. this many potential" was justified. Which is why I said "still". Even in retrospect you feel that killing that many people was justified. You can see it in the past 2 pages of this thread.

 

But that argument doesn't hold water. Just with think that was justified means that we are any more likely to light off one today. There are people from other countries who believe the same as we do, why aren't they mentioned? This entire idea that because we are the only ones who did it, we are the only ones crazy enough to do it again doesn't add up. Hell, I'm sure other countries could find their own justifications as well for using nuclear arms. Seriously, you are arguing non-existant semantics since anyone can justify anything if it comes down to it, regardless of history (Not even considering how flawed your example is) or country.

 

So now war is more complex than an equation. What happened to simple math? The analogy fits, the US changed the rules of war when they dropped the nuclear bomb. They also showed a willingness to use a nuke when they felt it was justified... and that justification was based on speculation.

 

No, the analogy doesn't fit. Just because a police officer shot a person in a certain situation, does that make him more likely to shoot at someone in the future? No, because it's completely dependent upon the situation. You are completely ignoring any context that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in.

 

I bolded that part because I love it so much. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that there was something assured in this whole thing. Where was the plan where we knew everthing beforehand? Can you cite the plan where we magically knew what was definitely going to happen? Or perhaps the whole 'It was speculation' is a magnificent straw man so that you can ignore anything that might go against your argument?

 

"Do you think the US would be capable of a first strike nuclear attack?"

 

"Yes. You used them before. Infact, you were the only country to ever use it on another country."

 

Do you guys take _any_ responsibility for dropping the bomb?

 

I think ANYONE could be capable of a first strike nuclear attack, given the right situation. The entire idea is completely situational, which is why your trying to pass this judgement is moronic: Could the US do it? Yes, given the right circumstances. Give me the cicumstances, and I can give you a good answer.

[Justice 0]

You can believe what you want. But anyone with any sense of rational thought and the time to research such manners can easily find the truth.

One can find anything he wants if he 'researches' it. Of course, your idea of truth revolves around 9/11 being a response rather than an attack, but whatever.

 

As for 'anonymous sources', you do know Common Dreams is a conglemerate of various columns from other major news sources (domestic and international) by various credible journalists, right?

 

'Anonymous sources' that report things like these incredible US massacres of the Iraqi people, Allawi shooting prisoners, etc. And much of their credibility is up to you: they post articles by Noam Chomsky.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Justice

[cbacon 0]

Fun with numbers:

 

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.

 

Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:

 

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 47%

 

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. 40%

 

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. 9%

 

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

 

God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. 44%

 

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. 39%

 

Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process. 10%

 

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists."

 

By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. And its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain.  1 Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

 

(CBS) Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

 

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

 

There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/...ain657083.shtml

[Justice 0]

*Shrugs*

 

Believe what you want to believe. I didn't know that religious freedom meant we all had to be atheists.

[cbacon 0]

One can find anything he wants if he 'researches' it. Of course, your idea of truth revolves around 9/11 being a response rather than an attack, but whatever.

 

If it wasn't a response to American foreign policy. If not, then what?

 

 

'Anonymous sources' that report things like these incredible US massacres of the Iraqi people, Allawi shooting prisoners, etc. And much of their credibility is up to you: they post articles by Noam Chomsky.

 

For the most part, they are reputable sources. Go ahead, take a look at the main page now. Yes, there maybe times when you'll get an article from an 'anonymous source' but those should be taken for what they are. Often they contemplate other issues that are being reported by reputable sources so there shouldn't be a need to dismiss them so easily. I don't recall them ever posting anything by Chomsky, his stuff is usually up on Zmag, but if they did it would be nice.

[Boon 0]

Here's a figure for you- approximately 95% of the entire population believe in a higher power of some kind or another.

 

With that, we can conclude that the vast majority of the entire population believe that their higher power, whomever it is, had something to do w/ creating life.

 

Suddenly half of America believing in creation doesn't seem all that terrible.

[cbacon 0]

*Shrugs*

 

Believe what you want to believe. I didn't know that religious freedom meant we all had to be atheists. 

No, but when it outweighs science so dramatically it becomes a bit of concern.

 

When you have religious fundamentals dictating presidential elections, it's a concern.

 

When you apply religious ideologies to political actions, its a concern.

 

When you have religous fundamentalists that see that the book of Revelations dictating the end of the world soon, then waging on war on the 'evil' arab world, then the more war the better because we'll all be facing Judgment Day soon enough, then it's a concern. And that's really not that far of a stretch.

[cbacon 0]

Here's a figure for you- approximately 95% of the entire population believe in a higher power of some kind or another.

 

With that, we can conclude that the vast majority of the entire population believe that their higher power, whomever it is, had something to do w/ creating life. 

 

Suddenly half of America believing in creation doesn't seem all that terrible.

Ok, that just furthers my point about religious fanatacism. Unless your talking about 95% of the world's population and if so, i'd like to see a source for that.

 

And say if it is true, so what? I personally believe that there is some sort of 'higher power' (or at least i'd like to) but thats nowhere near the same thing as taking the Bible as a literal interpretation of how the world came to be.

[Boon 0]

Explain to me what decisions Pres. Bush has made that are dictated from the religous right. I'll give you stem cells as a gift, but you give me some other instances where the policies have been reigned by the religious right.

 

And maybe you missed it up in Canada, but the election wasn't dictated by religious fundamentalists. It was dictated by a lot of things, but Christian fundamentalism wasn't one of them. You could argue that the war in Iraq is dictated by religious fundamentalism, but you'd be a damn fool, b/c what you said really is a stretch. Religious fundamentalists that promote war b/c Judgment Day is coming like you say they do are few (if there are even any, I've never heard anybody say "blow up them A-Rabs b/c God is coming to judge us!!"). Even if there are people like that, they don't run this country from behind the scenes in this puppet regime you think has been established.

 

The war was about oil, it was about spreading democracy, and it was about getting Saddam out of power. To say it was about some religious crusade is bullshit nonsense.

[Justice 0]

One can find anything he wants if he 'researches' it. Of course, your idea of truth revolves around 9/11 being a response rather than an attack, but whatever.

 

It was a response to American foreign policy. If not, then what?

Perhaps I should be more specific:

 

This ghastly molecule aims to turn the world into its very own enslaved global market. And the plan is well underway. The attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center was just one response to it.

 

I forgot to mention that they were simply freedom fighters fighting the power. My bad.

 

For the most part, they are reputable sources. Go ahead, take a look at the main page now. Yes, there maybe times when you'll get an article from an 'anonymous source' but those should be taken for what they are. Often they contemplate other issues that are being reported by reputable sources so there shouldn't be a need to dismiss them so easily. I don't recall them ever posting anything by Chomsky, his stuff is usually up on Zmag, but if they did it would be nice.

 

Here's one.

 

He's on there more than a few times. Hell, the article you posted not long ago is there, even. Their writers are so far to the left that I it's not hard to dismiss them as they begin to intone on a giant neo-con plot to rule the world through Wal-mart or some other such brilliant topic.

[Boon 0]

I was talking about America-

 

Straight from the horse's mouth-

 

Suffice it to say that if by atheist you mean somebody who consciously rejects as falsehood the claim that gods exist, we're about four percent of America.  If by atheist you mean somebody who lacks belief in gods for whatever reason (and this form of atheism is compatible with the agnosticism that simply doesn't know), then we're about one-fifth of the world's population.

 

-Cliff Walker

"Positive Atheism" Magazine

[cbacon 0]

This ghastly molecule aims to turn the world into its very own enslaved global market. And the plan is well underway. The attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center was just one response to it.

 

 

I forgot to mention that they were simply freedom fighters fighting the power. My bad.

 

Ok, and I agree with the statement you quoted, which is that it was indeed a response, which you disagree with. I asked you if it wasn't a response to US foreign policy, then what was it?

 

Here's one.

 

He's on there more than a few times. Hell, the article you posted not long ago is there, even. Their writers are so far to the left that I it's not hard to dismiss them as they begin to intone on a giant neo-con plot to rule the world through Wal-mart or some other such brilliant topic.

 

Oh, neat.

 

And while the articles they post do have a tendency to be far left, it's hard to argue much of what they're saying. Some are extreme left, but most of what they post derive from reputable sources and publications.

[Justice 0]

No, but when it outweighs science so dramatically it becomes a bit of concern.

No offense, but Darwin had a theory. It's never been actually proven or anything. Just because it's the main belief of SCIENCE~! doesn't mean much. Science can and sometimes is wrong. Look at Hawking on Black Holes. Theories = written truth.

 

Secondly, I've always sort of subscribe that if I were ever to really believe the bible, that much of 'creation' could easily concide with Big Bang and evolution, with 'days' being the simplest way to represent the gross amount of time that it all took. Of course, being agnostic, I'm not really a firm believer in anything.

 

When you have religious fundamentals dictating presidential elections, it's a concern.

 

Not exactly true.

 

When you apply religious ideologies to political actions, its a concern.

 

Huh? No offense, but religion is often tied with morals. While I don't agree with everyone's morals, it's impossible to disconnect them from politics and dumb to try and suggest it's actually possible.

 

When you have religous fundamentalists that see that the book of Revelations dictating the end of the world soon, then waging on war on the 'evil' arab world, then the more war the better because we'll all be facing Judgment Day soon enough, then it's a concern. And that's really not that far of a stretch.

 

Okay, now you're just pulling stuff out of your ass.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Justice

[Justice 0]

Ok, and I agree with the statement you quoted, which is that it was indeed a response, which you disagree with. I asked you if it wasn't a response to US foreign policy, then what was it?

I disagree with the context, which attempts to downplay 9/11 by justifying it. But we've been through this before, haven't we?

 

Oh, neat.

 

And while the articles they post do have a tendency to be far left, it's hard to argue much of what they're saying. Some are extreme left, but most of what they post derive from reputable sources and publications.

 

Whatever. I don't find it to be that reliable, but it's all based on one's opinon. *Shrugs*

[cbacon 0]

I'm not saying that's the case for the majority of Americans, or the reason for going to war. But there are a large number of evangilists who believe this. I suppose im talking about the extreme fanatics who believe this stuff, but moderates still share some their ideology.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Omigod you guys.

 

Okay, I for one am against a missle shield, star wars, whatever.

 

First of all, nothing like that is one hundred percent perfect. Despite the costs, it's not. SO, what that means is that anyone who's going to want to be able to threaten us with any sort of MAD will have to have IMMENSE stockpiles of weapons, at least more than they do now.

 

If you don't see that as an instigation for proliferation, you're delirious. In a perfect world everyone would be ICBM proof. But we don't live in one. If we build starwars, it will just unbalance the same cold war balance that has prevented a world war for decades.

This thread is quickly turning into a right-left pissing contest (shock of shocks!) so I'm just going to requote Eric's concise assertion, because I think it's spot-on.

[Boon 0]

Yeah- I'm sure they share some of the same ideology, but you can say that about everybody. There's always some things in common, but suggesting that these extreme fundamentalists are calling the shots from behind the curtain doesn't fly.

[cbacon 0]

Ok, and I agree with the statement you quoted, which is that it was indeed a response, which you disagree with. I asked you if it wasn't a response to US foreign policy, then what was it?

I disagree with the context, which attempts to downplay 9/11 by justifying it. But we've been through this before, haven't we?

 

Speaking of context, I believe your getting it mixed up again if you believe they 'justify' the 9/11 attacks by saying it was right for them to occur. It's a difference between justifying reason and action. But I guess we've been through this before too.

 

Whatever. I don't find it to be that reliable, but it's all based on one's opinon. *Shrugs*

 

*nods*

[Justice 0]

Omigod you guys.

 

Okay, I for one am against a missle shield, star wars, whatever.

 

First of all, nothing like that is one hundred percent perfect.  Despite the costs, it's not.  SO, what that means is that anyone who's going to want to be able to threaten us with any sort of MAD will have to have IMMENSE stockpiles of weapons, at least more than they do now.

 

If you don't see that as an instigation for proliferation, you're delirious.  In a perfect world everyone would be ICBM proof.  But we don't live in one.  If we build starwars, it will just unbalance the same cold war balance that has prevented a world war for decades.

This thread is quickly turning into a right-left pissing contest (shock of shocks!) so I'm just going to requote Eric's concise assertion, because I think it's spot-on.

omg cockfight

[Boon 0]

Where did anybody doubt that this would instigate other countries into proliferation?

 

I wouldn't call the world in balance post-Cold War. The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union collapsed, and America didn't. I'd call it harmony. The world is set with America as the hegemon.

 

I'd still like to hear from the people who think America would start a nuclear war- Rudo was the last one who really talked about this a few pages back, and it's still shady.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Omigod you guys.

 

Okay, I for one am against a missle shield, star wars, whatever.

 

First of all, nothing like that is one hundred percent perfect.  Despite the costs, it's not.  SO, what that means is that anyone who's going to want to be able to threaten us with any sort of MAD will have to have IMMENSE stockpiles of weapons, at least more than they do now.

 

If you don't see that as an instigation for proliferation, you're delirious.  In a perfect world everyone would be ICBM proof.  But we don't live in one.  If we build starwars, it will just unbalance the same cold war balance that has prevented a world war for decades.

This thread is quickly turning into a right-left pissing contest (shock of shocks!) so I'm just going to requote Eric's concise assertion, because I think it's spot-on.

omg cockfight

I think I'll just make you secretary of Penis Wars so I don't have to come into this folder for my usual schtick.

 

Additionally, I think missile defense systems are a bit silly, but they have never been as silly as Star Wars. Thank god whatever they're working on currently doesn't have a retarded name.

[cbacon 0]

Counterpunch: God's Will, According to the Bush Administration

Counterpunch: Keeper of the Faith? God's Will, According to the Bush Administration By DAVID DOMKE

 

September 10, 2004

 

In his address to Republican Party delegates and the nation last Thursday, George W. Bush used the words freedom or liberty, in some form, 34 times. Say this for the president: he can hammer home a message. Among these instances was this declaration: "I believe that America is called to lead the cause of freedom in a new century. I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world." These words both lay bare and obscure underlying truths about the administration. Regarding the former, Bush's linkage of freedom and liberty with divine wishes is indicative of how central a Christian fundamentalist worldview is to his conception of the struggle against Islamic terrorists. At the same time, emphasis on these values masks the reality that the administration is determined to define what counts as freedom and liberty and who will have the privilege to experience it.

 

An omnipresent consideration for Christian fundamentalists is the "Great Commission" biblical mandate, in the book of Matthew, of "go therefore and make disciples of all the nations." The felt responsibility to live out this command, both locally and globally, has become intertwined in the eyes of the Religious Right with support for the principles of political freedom and liberty. In particular, the individualized religious liberty present in the United States (particularly available historically for European-American Protestants, of course) is something that fundamentalists long to extend to other cultures and nations. In the 1980s, fundamentalist preacher and leader Jerry Falwell argued that the dissemination of Christianity could not be carried out if other nations were communist-a perspective which provided a good reason to support a strong U.S. military, conservative foreign policy, and the spreading of individual freedoms. Falwell's perspective on the 2004 presidential matchup is unequivocal: In the July 1 issue of his email newsletter and on his website, Falwell declared, "For conservative people of faith, voting for principle this year means voting for the re-election of George W. Bush. The alternative, in my mind, is simply unthinkable." He added, "I believe it is the responsibility of every political conservative, every evangelical Christian, every pro-life Catholic, every traditional Jew, every Reagan Democrat, and everyone in between to get serious about re-electing President Bush."

 

The certitude present in Bush's rhetoric and in the support for Bush by Falwell (and by other Religious Right leaders such as Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer) is emblematic of fundamentalists' confidence that their understanding of the world provides what religion scholar Bruce Lawrence terms "mandated universalist norms" that cross cultural and historical context and therefore, as the biblical command makes clear, are to be shared with all peoples. Indeed, Harvard professor Harvey Cox argues that "Fundamentalists not only insist on preserving the fundamentals of the faith, but envision a world in which these fundamentals would be more widely accepted and practiced. They want not only to 'keep the faith,' but to change the world so the faith can be kept more easily" (emphasis added to Cox's words). The administration's unrelenting emphasis on freedom and liberty-which allows them to emphasize values with both religious and political heritages-has functioned as the centerpiece of what theologian R. Scott Appleby has termed the administration's offering of "a theological version of Manifest Destiny." This twenty-first century adaptation of manifest destiny differs little from earlier American versions: the goal remains to vanquish any who do not willingly adopt the norms and values of white, religiously conservative Protestants.

 

Ultimately, whether the president's public religiosity is a sham, serving merely as a rhetorical cover for the administration's neo-conservative or corporate agenda is a moot point. All that matters politically is that the public perceives Bush's religious discourse as genuine. A mid-June Time poll found that 54 percent of likely U.S. voters said they would describe Bush "as a man of strong religious faith" (only 7 percent said the same for John Kerry). To be clear, the perception of Bush is the one that Americans-including many who are not overly religious themselves-tend to interpret in favorable terms, particularly in challenging times. The administration has capitalized upon this public outlook. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, Bush has consistently claimed that the freedom and liberty that he seeks to spread is not partisan or nationalistic in nature but rather God's universal gospel-so do not challenge the administration. For example, in his address before Congress and a national television audience nine days after the terrorist attacks, Bush declared, "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them." Similarly, in the 2003 State of the Union address, with the conflict in Iraq imminent, he declared, "Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." Bush's words last week were nearly identical. These are not requests for divine favor; they are declarations of divine wishes.

 

From this position, only short theological and rhetorical steps are required to justify U.S. actions. For instance, at a December 2003 press conference, Bush said, "I believe, firmly believe-and you've heard me say this a lot, and I say it a lot because I truly believe it-that freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every person, every man and woman who lives in this world. That's what I believe. And the arrest of Saddam Hussein changed the equation in Iraq. Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq." In essence, the administration has transformed Bush's "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" policy to "Either you are with us, or you are against God." The Bush administration, therefore, has offered a dangerous combination: the president claims to know God's wishes and presides over a global landscape in which the administration believes that it can act upon such beliefs without compunction. Indeed, the administration's decision for war in Iraq is wholly congruent with religious fundamentalists' willingness, in the words of scholar Harold Perkin, to impose "what they take to be God's will upon other people" because others are viewed as certain to benefit.

 

To the great misfortune of American democracy and the global public, such a view is indistinguishable from that of the terrorists it is fighting. One is hard pressed to see how the perspective of Osama bin Laden, that he and his followers are delivering God's wishes for the United States (and others who share western customs and policies), is much different from Bush's perspective that the United States is delivering God's wishes to the Taliban or Iraq. Clearly, flying airplanes into buildings in order to kill innocent people is an indefensible immoral activity. So too, some traditional allies told the Bush administration, is an unprovoked pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation. In both instances, the aggression manifested in a form that was available to the leaders. Fundamentalism in the White House is a difference in degree, not kind, from fundamentalism exercised in dark, damp caves. Democracy is always the loser. The will of the public, allies, or the United Nations is meaningless to an American president certain of the will of God

 

While Christian conservatives and hard-line neo-conservatives may see the developments after September 11 in a positive light (after all, one might say that God and the United States have been given a larger piece of the planet to play with), all Americans should be leery of any government that merges religiosity into political ends. Noble ideals such as freedom and liberty are clearly worth pursuing, but the administration has promoted these concepts with its left hand while using its right hand to treat others-including many U.S. citizens-in an authoritarian, dismissive manner. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is the latest entry in a historical record which shows that beliefs and claims about divine leading are no guarantee that one will exercise power in a consistently liberating, egalitarian manner.

 

David Domke is an Associate Professor at the University of Washington. This essay draws upon his arguments in God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the "War on Terror" and the Echoing Press, published August 2004 by Pluto Press and available in the United States through the University of Michigan Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

http://www.refuseandresist.org/culture/art.php?aid=1493

 

Boon, in regards to your query regarding what else besides stem cell research that religion dictates in policy, you can also look at gay rights and women's reproductive rights in addition to many of the points outlined in the article above.

[Justice 0]

Wow, just what we needed. An article from refuseandresist.org.

[cbacon 0]

Wow, just what we needed. An article from refuseandresist.org.

Does that matter? Like Common Dreams, the articles derive from other places.

 

David Domke is an Associate Professor at the University of Washington. This essay draws upon his arguments in God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the "War on Terror" and the Echoing Press, published August 2004 by Pluto Press and available in the United States through the University of Michigan Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Boon 0]

To the great misfortune of American democracy...

Fundamentalism in the White House is a difference in degree, not kind, from fundamentalism exercised in dark, damp caves. Democracy is always the loser. The will of the public, allies, or the United Nations is meaningless to an American president certain of the will of God

 

Yes, because we all know that Bush and Christians hate democracy.

 

 

Boon, in regards to your query regarding what else besides stem cell research that religion dictates in policy, you can also look at gay rights and women's reproductive rights in addition to many of the points outlined in the article above.

 

Right, b/c Bush was the one that went around to the states and voted to ban gay marriage...

And last I checked, Roe v. Wade wasn't overturned like everyone was saying it would be.

Finally- Iraq was about oil, about spreading democracy, and about toppling Hussein. It was billed as "promoting freedom" b/c that sounded better, but those were the real reasons. Bush knows how to talk to his supporters- this doesn't mean he agrees w/ everything they want him to do. He doesn't have to appease people like Falwell, Baurer or Robertson b/c they'll never vote otherwise, and he knows it. So feed them some meaningless lines about freedom being a gift from God to keep them quiet and go to Iraq for the reasons above.

[cbacon 0]

No offense, but Darwin had a theory. It's never been actually proven or anything. Just because it's the main belief of SCIENCE~! doesn't mean much. Science can and sometimes is wrong. Look at Hawking on Black Holes. Theories = written truth.

 

Secondly, I've always sort of subscribe that if I were ever to really believe the bible, that much of 'creation' could easily concide with Big Bang and evolution, with 'days' being the simplest way to represent the gross amount of time that it all took. Of course, being agnostic, I'm not really a firm believer in anything.

 

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right?