Mutual Respect Possible, But Takes Two Sides

Timmy2,

Page 3

This bit with you responding to my examples of a maoist, islamist, and monarchist sounds so much like a religionist defending his or her absolutist belief system by discounting the validity of the other as delusion. How entertaining! You did not include the Innuit. Of course not. The innuit represented of those examples a self contained monarchist. Essentially moot these days of history as we are too populated to have the space that each man can be an island and so his/her own sovereign. But the innuit was a monarchist.

This spells the curious case of governmental forms, I believe. Everyone wants to be king and queen. Indeed, everyone wants to be king as in charge of their own world, superseeded by none. Yet we live in societies where we must interact closely, all these would be kings.

Causes trouble, don't you think?

Timmy2,

Page 2

YOU: "You mostly mean Abrahamic monotheists, I believe, especially those that say they have the only true way. To suggest that democracy is the only true governmental form could be argued to verge on that same type of absolutism that you find so distasteful with the monotheists"

"I base my absolutism on democracy on evidence and experimentation, and basic human rights. I am also an absolutist with regards to my opinions about slavery and racism. Aren't you?"

Slavery and racism are not forms of government or spiritual belief systems but perversions in human interactions. One could add murder and child prostitution here.

Democracy is very young as a governmental form, and though it has great advantages, (again, I am a supporter of it!), it has clear disadvantages too. And regardless 'evil minded' opportunists and the ignorant work in concert to draw down democracies benefits. There is yet small record, in time, to beknight it ultimate.

My point is that WHENEVER we become absolutists with anything, like 'religionists', we see it through that lens and prejudge or judge with bias everything that contrasts our model.

"Wrong. We all require basic human rights."

You are wrong, as you deflected my statement with some fanciful utopian concept of 'human rights for all'. That is an assumption, one, that "basic human rights" are innate or "godgiven", (to use an expletive :-) ). Show me where those rights are guaranteed. But more basically my statement was "We do not know what another peoples need." And we do not. What an individual is living through in life, what it has brought to itself to experience, is beyond our understanding or comprehension. That does not mean that we should never interceed, in my opinion. But we are not saviors, timmy, of what we believe are victims. That sounds all beautiful and metaphysical and furry, but it is really rather presumptive and arrogant, don't you think, for us to take on the mantle of salvation for the downtrodden?

Timmy2,

"Then why your concern about Bush pushing for a monarchy."

This same argument could be made for democracy. Indeed half of America, (and more as time rolled by if you believe approval ratings), did not like the direction that this president was leading this democracy. It is always true that some of the people disagree and are unhappy with leadership. Democracy is no more inoculated against this truth than any other form of government. No?

"I live in Canada so I am well versed in the benefits of socialism IN A DEMOCRACY."

Your suggestion in this paragraph is that socialism and communism can work only in a democratic system. I cannot refute the idea in the moment, as the general consensus is that socialism and communism have failed. I do not agree fully, but do believe in democracy and the concept that everyone should be vested in freedom and the ability to choose, vote, powershare.

"No I rail against religion. I pity religionists as deluded victims of brainwashing."

Now now timmy. Do away with your foolish illusions and justifications. You rail against religionists. Seen you do it over and over. This supposed pity turns to prejudice when you are talking to 'em.

Justilthen,

Got to go to work. I'll get to your other two posts later.

Justilthen,

Monarchy is not innately bad, if the 'ruler' is committed to it's subjects.

Then why your concern about Bush pushing for a monarchy. Was Bush not committed to his subjects? I think he clearly thought he was. But you would differ. This is why monarchy is indeed innately bad.

YOU: Socialism can work, if it stays true to it's tenets, as can communism.

I live in Canada so I am well versed in the benefits of socialism IN A DEMOCRACY.
Communism can also work, IN A DEMOCRACY. It must be the will of the people to be communistic. But alas it is not the will of most people which is why it has never worked and can only be applied by force.

YOU: "You rail against "religionists".

No I rail against religion. I pity religionists as deluded victims of brainwashing.

YOU: "You mostly mean Abrahamic monotheists, I believe, especially those that say they have the only true way. To suggest that democracy is the only true governmental form could be argued to verge on that same type of absolutism that you find so distasteful with the monotheists"

No, monotheists base their claims of the one true way on superstition and 3000 year old hearsay by ignorant goat herders. I base my absolutism on democracy on evidence and experimentation, and basic human rights. I am also an absolutist with regards to my opinions about slavery and racism. Aren't you?

YOU: We do not know what another peoples need. We often do not know what we need, if truthful.

Wrong. We all require basic human rights.

YOU: A Maoist may deeply believe in the moral purity of the communist path.

That's fine. People can believe what they want. But they can not force their belief on others through a dictatorship. As I said, nothing wrong with communism come about via democracy. You seem to think that communism excludes democracy. It does not. It's just that the only communist states that have ever existed were totalitarian because people don't want communism.

YOU: A radical Islamist may believe sincerely in devotion to Allah through violent jihad, and so participate in a global transformation to Paradise.

Delusion not based on evidence or democratic will.

YOU: Some loyalist Brits want the return of the King. Are they wrong?

Not for them. But if they try and force that on others, yes.

YOU: Would they all be better served by living in a democratic world?

Yes.

timmy2:

Back to Bush and Kingship...

You are too literal here. I am more symbolic. I did not mean a literal King Bush, titled, blueblood, inherited throne... King however in titular power was the direction of the intention.

I believe that America ADOPTED a triune form of government for many reasons. One part was that american citizens, all from monarchies, did not know how NOT to look to a king. It was inbred in the psyche. Presidents served the purpose to focus not only the populace on the head of state but the state to be focused on a more singlular vision of direction. Power sharing with an elective congress was essential to the viability of a free people, as most had seen what too much power in the hands of one king could do.

Bush/Cheney pushed the envelope in the direction of a singular head of government and fought the idea that he needed to share decisionmaking with an elected congress.

Kingmaking.

"Not in a dictatorship zombified by Islam. (Islam, by the way, means: surrender)"

There you go again on the religion bad rant. :-) BTW, I believe that the more accurate translation of Islam is submission. Submission is not an inherently bad or weak word, either. It is judged in it's application by many.

YOU: "My belief and hope is that arabian muslim countries will embrace some forms of elective governance and reject tribalism"

" You honestly think that freedom and democracy can grow organically in a totalitarian dictatorship zombified by Islam, like it did in America? It's just not possible."

Of course it is possible, Timmy, and it is going on as we speak. You said that everyone wants a say in their government. I would go further to say that it is an innate desire in everyone to have freedom, security, peace, liberty.

The ruling Saudi wahabi princes will not keep power forever! They have had it for less than 100 years and it is slipping. Saddam would have fallen even without a preemptive war, given time. It is natural evolution of culture and society. Saddam was no doubt an improvement over conditions 100 years before.

There is no sacrosanct higher ground in minding your own business when your neighbor is beating his wife."

You go on a good rant here on the conditions of women in "islamic" countries, and I do not altogether disagree. A bit sensationalist, but true. Yet women are being beaten here in north america, home of the free, and children are starving and men are killing each other over drugs and turf. On a list of priorities is it not better to order ones' own house before intervening in the houses of others too dramatically?

Timmy,

Just now very disappointed having lost some great thoughts to the devil of the keyboard. Don't know if they will return or if I even have the time.

I was not hearing you say American democracy or a G W Bush democracy. You make another assumption here. I was only saying that you seem to assume that democracy in a general sense is the best. That is an unknown, and is really subject to its subjects. American and canadian democracy rose from persecuted 'religionists' and freedom seeking adventurists and other members of that disparate group of travellers went about ditching monarchies for, what...? Elective government. The people took it in their own hands. This was a great moment in time.

But democracies today are very varied. There is no "pure" form. Presidents sharing power with a congress, prime ministers leading an elected congress, prime ministers born into office appointing his cabinet with no legislative oversight, ruling coalitions that succeed or fail based on one common agenda and thirtysome agendas at odds... Socialist systems intertwined with democratic ones, or capitalist ones. Socialized medicine, social security, ...

"...I am only talking about a government by the people for the people. I realize that this does not work in a country where the populous has been brainwashed for 1300 years by an archaic zombie creating religion. But that does not mean that we just decide to leave that situation be because it is diffiCULT. People are being denied basic human rights, and the religion is mostly to blame. You don't just stand back and watch as people live under totalitarianism and brainwashing from birth. It is madness."

If you are speaking here of Iraq, I am not a proponent of total withdrawl. We are there, by intellegent design :-) or not. We NOW have a deep responsibility. But to assume that we must intervene whenever there is totalitarianism and brainwashing is both laudable and dangerous. One, it was only a couple hundred years ago that the whole planet was essentially living under "totalitarianism" or some form or oppressive governmental yoke. And brainwashing is a matter of course world wide today. I was brainwashed growing up in america, in american schools with american curricula, by american tv shows and media advertisements. We are all prejudiced and conditioned.

I am all for helping those that need a hand out of slavery, whatever form that may take. Certain rules need to apply to how and when that help is given, or we cross into territory that is very dangerous. People have there karmas, and they need to be their own motivation toward change or it will fail. Perhaps Obama has skill here as well. I believe so...

Beats the hell out of a McCain government, yes?

Hello Timmy,

Again, I do not make the sweeping absolute that you do that democracy is the best and ultimate choice. There is a time and place for everything, and democracy though great is not always the answer. For example, a child may need a monarchy, which is what most parenting is in the early phases of life. Monarchy is not innately bad, if the 'ruler' is committed to it's subjects. Indeed it can be a great system, with that prerequisite enacted as fundamental. Socialism can work, if it stays true to it's tenets, as can communism. Theoretically and in some ways in practice for periods. Democracy is fabulous, if it functions vibrantly and in health.

We can see in any democratic application that innate darkness and power hunger in some can corrupt the system. Further a good democracy requires a participating population. I remember in America voter turnout in the low end of 40%, some elections were in the 20%'s. People did not care much.

You rail against "religionists". You mostly mean Abrahamic monotheists, I believe, especially those that say they have the only true way. To suggest that democracy is the only true governmental form could be argued to verge on that same type of absolutism that you find so distasteful with the monotheists.

We do not know what another peoples need. We often do not know what we need, if truthful. Further complicating perception is that we assess the world from our social, cultural and philosophical conditioning. We are prejudiced, in that we judge based on what we were conditioned to believe.

A Maoist may deeply believe in the moral purity of the communist path. A radical Islamist may believe sincerely in devotion to Allah through violent jihad, and so participate in a global transformation to Paradise. A nomadic Innuit may want no overarching power to affect his own sovereignity. Some loyalist Brits want the return of the King. Are they wrong? They undoubtablly are conditioned in their views. Would they all be better served by living in a democratic world? I think not, least wise not until they come to it organically.

Justilthen,

Continued,

YOU: And referring to Bush and Kingship...His power grab was unmistakeably in the direction of monarchy,

Again, I was against it, but in a monarchy, the head of state is not elected by the people every 4 years. His power grab was weasely, but unmistakably NOT in the direction of monarchy. Give up on that word. It does not apply and discredits your position and mine. It is demagoguery, and unnecessary. "Power grab" is legitimate. "Push towards monarchy" is ridiculous.

YOU: It is my thought that versions of democracy will become common over the next 100 years or so, and then undoubtabally will evolve from there.

Not in a dictatorship zombified by Islam. (Islam, by the way, means: surrender)

YOU: "My belief and hope is that arabian muslim countries will embrace some forms of elective governance and reject tribalism"

Uh, they tried that in Iraq, remember? Samdam kinda gassed thousands of shia and kurdish people, women and babies and all. You honestly think that freedom and democracy can grow organically in a totalitarian dictatorship zombified by Islam, like it did in America? It's just not possible.

YOU: "I agree with you that, in my words, free peoples should help and support those under tyrannies to find freedom. How we do that is a very important question. If we want to maintain some sort of so called sacrosanct higher ground, of course... :-)"

There is no sacrosanct higher ground in minding your own business when your neighbor is beating his wife. You don't wait and hope that sometime in the next few decades she will decide to "embrace" non beatings and "reject" the fists thrown at her by her husband. Naturally. On her own accord, as opposed to by force. Perhaps she is not ready yet. maybe some women prefer to be beaten, who are we to butt in and say what's right for her?

That's how I see it. And it's not entirely metaphor. 800 million muslim women are slaves. Many suffer genitle mutilation, and honor killings for being raped by their uncle, who does not get killed, and are deprived of any education, and brainwashed from birth to submit entirely to and obey their fathers and then husbands. We should just hope that these women wake up one day and decide to "embrace" freedom, and "reject" this way of life?

Justilthen,

YOU: "I do not think that democracy is best for all societies, as I have stated. Perhaps the society will evolve to the point that democracy is correct, perhaps not.

What makes a society not right for democracy?

YOU: "One of the assumptions you are making is that democracy is the best governmental form.

Indeed. But for some reason I say democracy and you hear AMERICAN democracy, and it seems even George Bush style American democracy. I just don't know why you hear that from me. I am from, and live in Canada by the way. I cringe at the chant, USA USA USA. Gives me the heebee geebees. I would equally cringe if us Canucks had an equivalent chant. (thank god we don't) I am not a nationalist, so when I say democracy, I am only talking about a government by the people for the people. I realize that this does not work in a country where the populous has been brainwashed for 1300 years by an archaic zombie creating religion. But that does not mean that we just decide to leave that situation be because it is diffiCULT. People are being denied basic human rights, and the religion is mostly to blame. You don't just stand back and watch as people live under totalitarianism and brainwashing from birth. It is madness.

YOU: And there are hybrid forms of government that do work for different peoples.

I don't know what you are referring to here. Can you give an example?

YOU WROTE: (democracy) will go through evolution and will undoubtably be ditched for something else in time.

Good grief, what?
Evolve yes. Get ditched? What on earth for?

YOU: This is clearly an allusion to Iraq

Heavens no. I was speaking in general. There is no such thing as a person who does not want to have a say in the governance of their life. If there is, they are a victim of brainwashing.

YOU: Not everyone wants a say in their governance, as you suggest. Some prefer to be controlled.

I just don't understand this statement. It's like saying that all women born in Afghanistan just happen to want to be entirely submissive to their husband's will. They have been brainwashed and they need our help desperately. Not george Bush's brand of help. But something. I have great confidence in Obama.

Timmy,

"There is actually no such thing as forced democracy. There is no such thing as a person who does not desire a say in the governance of their lives. It is non-democracy that is forced. What we need to do is find the best way to dismantle the force that keeps people from having the democracy. This is about humans rights. Democracy is a human right."

This is clearly an allusion to Iraq, though america has been in the business of regime change for some time where we install puppet governments that play a game of quasi-democracy while serving the interests of America. But Iraq was overthrown and democracy is the governmental form forced on Iraqis. They appear to be still too immature culturally and inter-tribally to embrace the greater goods of democracy. Seems it brings up the beast in them, as opposed to the best in them...

Not everyone wants a say in their governance, as you suggest. Some prefer to be controlled. Though I believe it is a natural state to want freedom eventually, and in the absence of fear freedom is sought.

As per my statement on Pakistan I was wrong. Sorry. I believe that I meant to refer to the elections in Palestine. A bit different...

And referring to Bush and Kingship... Clearly he was not actively looking to dissolve the democracy that he so loved and advertised, but did actively go about altering the balance of power. His power grab was unmistakeably in the direction of monarchy, where the titular head of government held by far the greatest power. He and Cheney literally shifted to Balance of Powers in America to an Imbalance of Powers, aiming for the Executive to be the de facto last word.
This should have been clear in my message.

It is my thought that versions of democracy will become common over the next 100 years or so, and then undoubtabally will evolve from there. My belief and hope is that arabian muslim countries will embrace some forms of elective governance and reject tribalism, monarchies and ogliarchies in the next decades. I agree with you that, in my words, free peoples should help and support those under tyrannies to find freedom.

How we do that is a very important question.

If we want to maintain some sort of so called sacrosanct higher ground, of course... :-)

Hello Timmy.

First to the fore. "Ad hominem" attacks. That was not me attacking you, much less out of measure or experience. It was a sarcastic dig, to be sure, as dialoguing and debating with you has been often distasteful for me for numbers of reasons that I have been plain about. I ended my last post with you disinterested in any continuation. In no small part for exactly the reasons that I stated in my opening to you.

"Civil" posting is all quite nice and lovely, as are the other social graces. I agree with them. But not to the crippling of truth and honesty. Some cloak their daggers in graces, and that is more treacherous and cowardly than a candid and frontal address of grievances. I do not mind saying directly what I observe, although I do cloak mine in sarcasm too often. I meant no disrespect but was just being plain, in the way that I am. I do not consider it a negative.

"Permanently or temporarily?
If you mean temporarily, until they are "prepared" for democracy, then you are in agreement that democracy is best for all societies, ..."

I can not say. I do not think that democracy is best for all societies, as I have stated. Perhaps the society will evolve to the point that democracy is correct, perhaps not. One of the assumptions you are making is that democracy is the best governmental form. The other assumption is that it is the ultimate one. I do not know that either assumption is true. As I said, my conditioning tells me that democracy is the best form. But I am biased. And the American model is full of holes. And there are hybrid forms of government that do work for different peoples. The american version of democracy, (lifted from the Iriquois Confederacy), is the first real good go at democratic elective government, decentralizing power and giving it into the hands of the populace. A form of freedom and powersharing not experienced before. It will go through evolution and will undoubtably be ditched for something else in time.
When you say that "in these cases dictatorship may be better for maintaining an ordered and functional society", I would argue that a UN type of mandate would be better than a dictatorship for preparing a society for democracy.

Justilthen,

Continued,

YOU: "America touted democracy in Pakistan, supporting elections, till Hamas was the victor, and then denounced it. Sacrosanct expression of a purebred, better than you governmental form?"

It's news to me that Hamas is in power in Pakistan. I have to read more newspapers I guess. ;) I'm pretty sure I know what you meant. But this just goes to what we both agree on, that some societies are not ready for the vote just yet. But it is not because some people are not right for democracy. It's because they are brainwashed so hopelessly by an archaic religion coupled with decades of totalitarian rule that it will take a few generations before they are ready for the full vote. But Palestine is a different story altogether. There are other issues there that are exceptionally special and woefully difficult.

YOU: No doubt that Bush aimed for greater power in the hands on one man, and the sidelining of the elected officials of Congress. Kingship.

Kingship? Not even close. You are forgetting that the president is also elected and a new election is held every four years. While I did not agree with the Bush power grab, to say that it was a press towards Kingship is ridiculous demagoguery and you know it. Show me where bush pressed to end elections of the president. This kind of hyperbole is not necessary. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Bush. We don't need to pretend that he was trying to become king. Such hyperbolic statements actually go to discredit any legitimate criticisms of Bush, which are plentiful.

YOU WRITE: "This comment was per the last eight years, inferring again that Mr. Colsons assumption of a sacrosanct higher ground regarding America may not be on such firm ground"

This was possibly true before Obama, (although democracy and secularism still far better than any muslim country's governance) But It is no longer true with the election of Obama. You should have been using past tense at the very least in that statement IMHO.

YOU WRITE: What will continue to make me proud is that this more morally pure vision continue into manifestation.

Morally pure? Sounds almost Sacrosanct. ;)

Hello Justilthen,

YOU WRITE: Ah, Timmy. Come back to pester and harass in search of validation of your illusions of personal correctness, or is it just as an exercise in your belief of the superiority of logic over emotion, mind over heart?

Wow, nice. I don't see why you feel the need to begin your posts with this sort of ad hominem attack. I will mail you a check for $1000.00 if you can find one instance of me calling you or any other poster such names and slurs. That should make the scrolling worth your time. I am a much more civil poster than are you. But I'll not return fire with any name calling. I'll not let you draw me into that tit for tat. I'll just stay on the points of the subject at hand as I always do.

YOU WRITE: Unprepared for freedom societies have gone into chaotic and murderous anarchy. In these cases dictatorship may be better for maintaining an ordered and functional society.

Permanently or temporarily?
If you mean temporarily, until they are "prepared" for democracy, then you are in agreement that democracy is best for all societies, it's just that societies that have been plagued by totalitarianism and theocracy can not have democracy forced upon them overnight and be expected to thrive from the get go. We are in agreement here. But eventually, it should be the goal of the free democracies of the world, to aid in the bringing about of freedom for all human beings. Not George Bush style to be sure. Far from it.

When you say that "in these cases dictatorship may be better for maintaining an ordered and functional society", I would argue that a UN type of mandate would be better than a dictatorship for preparing a society for democracy.

YOU WRITE: Some democracies are so inharmonious and disorganized that they change hands and power regularly, never dealing with essential issues at hand for lack of cohesion, and so the society suffers.

Suffers more than a non democratized country? Can you give an example of a current democracy that is so dysfunctional that it should be changed to another for of governance? (Iraq being an exception due to both of our reasoning)

YOU WRITE: How long do we wait to see if forced democracy is better than natural evolution of a culture?

There is actually no such thing as forced democracy. There is no such thing as a person who does not desire a say in the governance of their lives. It is non-democracy that is forced. What we need to do is find the best way to dismantle the force that keeps people from having the democracy. This is about humans rights. Democracy is a human right.

Timmy,

"You just lumped "the muslim world" all together. Colson did it with bad attributes and you tried to counter by doing the very same thing with positive attributes."

This is what you want to argue on? If it was not clear to you I appologize. I am sure that I was not generalizing for the whole muslim world, but was sarcastically using Mr. Colsons same generalization. I do not hold the position that any group can so easily be pigeonholed and was saying so in that post. It should have been clear, certainly to you. I think you want to be argumentative, which is something I have learned of you. No insult intended.
My bit on "these past eight years" edging America toward monarchy is true, I believe. No doubt that Bush aimed for greater power in the hands on one man, and the sidelining of the elected officials of Congress. Kingship. This comment was per the last eight years, inferring again that Mr. Colsons assumption of a sacrosanct higher ground regarding America may not be on such firm ground, especially as viewed by the "muslim world" that he was critical of.

Again, I think you are argumentative.

The fact that Obama won shows that democracy still rules. I am grateful. You said that America is something to be proud of again, and I agree at least as far as the miracle of Obamas win and the apparent 180 degree change of footing suggests that we have righted the ship and are on a better heading. What will continue to make me proud is that this more morally pure vision continue into manifestation.

Best.

Ah, Timmy. Come back to pester and harass in search of validation of your illusions of personal correctness, or is it just as an exercise in your belief of the superiority of logic over emotion, mind over heart?

Just a question.

Another might be: do you spend all your time in here?

Regarding your comments on my post.

Sacrosanct means something that is beyond reproach or criticism. Sacred, to use a foul word to you as it suggests 'godlike stuff'. Religion and such puke. Yet...I do not want to wander.

"...but we certainly do hold some sacrosanct higher ground. Democracy over dictatorship and secularism over theocracy. These are sacrosanct higher ground IMHO."

In the evolution of any thing there is a time and a place, and a process of growth. Each entity goes about it in its own way, and that would include governments and societies. My conditioning tells me that democracy is better, but that may not always be true. Unprepared for freedom societies have gone into chaotic and murderous anarchy. In these cases dictatorship may be better for maintaining an ordered and functional society. Some democracies are so inharmonious and disorganized that they change hands and power regularly, never dealing with essential issues at hand for lack of cohesion, and so the society suffers.

Further, America in it's high wisdom has recently gone about forcing democracy on a dictatorial society, the result of which is still unsettled and chaotic and in or on the verge of civil warfare. Is that better? How long do we wait to see if forced democracy is better than natural evolution of a culture?

America touted democracy in Pakistan, supporting elections, till Hamas was the victor, and then denounced it. Sacrosanct expression of a purebred, better than you governmental form?

infantry11b4faus,

It may serve to read this essay here in OnFaith.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/01/there_is_no_muslim_world.html

infantry11b4faus,

You must be of the same tribe as Mr. Colson. The GeneralizeForSelfValidationers. Lumpers, as they lump a foreign idea or people into a single definition, and so can Label them as Good or Evil.

Muslims, like any other religious affiliation, are extremely diverse. Try to wrap your mind around the idea.

Here, let me help. Christians are believers in Christ. There are innumerable factions and sects and cults of Christianity, not to mention the big ones that claim decendency from the teachings of Jesus. They have hugely diverse beliefs and practices, interpretations of Scripture and priorities in living a devoted life. None are the same, ( or they would be the same). Some are gung ho on conversion of nonbelievers, some are excited about exercising military might as an extension of spreading the religion. Some believe all war is wrong, and Peace and Forgiveness are the Pillars of a christian life.

HYJANKS, in this string, shows some fine quotations of Old Testament provocations toward violence.

Do all christians perform these spiritual suggestions? No, they do not.

Do all muslims believe what you have accused them of in your post? No, they do not.

Please get less prejudiced and more inquisitive to the truth of what you do not understand. Or you become the voice of ignorance calling from the walls for the embracing of Ignorance.

"the Islamic world continues to train and house terrorists."
You make many mistakes:
1-If you define terrorism as killing innocent people then some misguided muslims killings is much less than the killings of some Christians and some Jews.The documented history confirms that.
2-There is no logic in your writings because of generizations. I never say Islamic Terror, Christian Terror or Jewish terror if some Muslims, some Christians or some Jews committ the crime
3- What you said is hate speach which is not compatible with a priest.
4- I am not Christian but I beleave in the message of Jesus which is Love and Peace. From your writing I am sure you do not believe in the message.
5-America and western powers and their clients are killing people in some muslim and muslim-Christian countries( Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Afganistan, Pakistan..) and supporting dictators who kill and torture people in many muslim countries.. I hope Obama will change that and start a policy of mutual respect and human rights. I hope he does not listen to the warmongers and the socalled Priests who do not understand the message of Jesus.

how can you have mutual respect for islam when they have nothing but contempt for the non islamic world? the answer is you can't.
and don't give me that "guilt by association" garbage, it does not apply.
if someone says they are a christian they must believe in Christ.
if someone says they are islamic then there are certain things that must be done by them. the most important is that they must follow the koran as it is written and they must believe that the hadith, which is the life of moho, is a model to be followed by all islamics.
the koran says to hate jews, christians, hindu's, which they call idolitors. that anyone that says a human man is the son of god is a blasphmer and the punish is death. oups - all you christians are marked. it says never to make friends with, or associate with, or do business with, a jew or christian. it says to force conversion to islam or kill them if they do not convert. its not a "maybe" or "you can" its an order under islam.
if moho did it then an islamic can do it too. so when moho ordered the murder of a woman poet because she opposed islam, well any islamic can do that. when moho said it was ok to lie to help in the spread of islam, well islamics can do that too, and they do.
when the koran forbids killing of innocents but then says non islamics cant be innocent - that means they can kill your women and children because if they are not islamic then they are not innocent.
for that reason islamics can and do engage in kidnapping, torture, holding for ransom, as well as murder, to mention only a few horrible things the koran commands.
and its a little nuts for moho to call his god allah when his father's name was bin allah. looks like moho had a little wierd thing going on there.
so exactly how do you deal with people that say they are islamic, and want you converted or dead?

"Yet the Islamic world continues to train and house terrorists."

This is guilt by association. If Colson is correct, let's see where his presumably Christian reasoning takes us:

All Jews are guilty of Israel's crimes against the Palestinians. All Americans are guilty of our crimes against Native Americans. All Germans are guilty of the Nazi genocide of the Jews. All Turks are guilty of the Armenian Holocaust. All Catholics are guilty of child molestation. All Indians are guilty of the Gujarat massacres of Muslims. All Americans are guilty of slavery. All Russians are guilty of the crimes of the USSR. The 200,000 dead Algerians are guilty of the crimes of their killers.

What a fascinating proposition! Dead wrong, from both a logical and moral perspective.

And BTW, Charlie, more Muslims are victims of "Muslim" terrorism than are non-Muslims.

Ummmm.... This isn't really about Israel. But since everyone is talking about it I will say something.

Israel has every right to protect itself from terrorists that have been launching rockets at them for years. If you want to condemn Israel you at least need to condomn Hammas for the rockets and for hiding behind women and children when Israel engages the militants. Perhaps Israel has done some things wrong but the premise of protecting themselves is not one of them.

We have actually been discussing Islam at church with a conterterrorism expert and he had some really interesting things to say on this.

First, even though most Muslims hate terrorism and the reasons behind it, they do not condemn it or work against it. As a whole very few speak out about it and they are largely ignored.

Second, He believes that Muslim terrorism will only stop when Muslims themselves stop. Right now that isn't happening.

In the US we always condemn terrorism and call it what it is. We do use force when necessary but we have also made it clear we aren't fighting Islam itself. We actually have good success among moderate muslims, just look to Iraq. Radical Muslim leaders are another story but we can't befriend those who oppose our values. We are ready to have peace with all Muslims if they are ready for peace with us.

kengelhart accuses Colson of "cultural libel." But for something to be libel, it has to be false. Colson's statement that "the Islamic world continues to train and house terrorists" is, quite simply, true. Therefore, it cannot be libel.

Question: why call it names like "libel" at all? What is wrong with writing what Colson wrote? What's the problem here?

"the Islamic world continues to train and house terrorists"

This is cultural libel.

hyjanks :
"Separating violence from Islam is impossible because it is in the Koran. Not other religious text has clear direction to kill nonbelievers."

################################################

In historical practice, the Muslim Mughal empire in India did not require the conversion or murder of its majority Hindu subjects. The Muslim Ottoman empire used Christians as its soldiers and employed Jews within its government.

hyjanks :
"Separating violence from Islam is impossible because it is in the Koran. Not other religious text has clear direction to kill nonbelievers."

********************************************

Then why did God direct the Israelites to commit genocide on their non-believer neighbors: the Philistines, Edomites, Hittites, Troglodytes, etc. (OK, I know the last one is wrong, but I couldn't resist)

The Old Testament also includes numerous references to God destroying idol worshippers and their entire communities.

What stupid generalizations. If a extremist Christian group trains terrorists to attack abortion clinics, should I blame all Christians and all evangelicals for their misdeeds? That's the same as blaming millions of peaceful Muslims around the world for the violent actions of extremist Islamic terrorists.

It was twisted logic such as this that propelled neocons to push for the Iraq invasion.

Why do you, the Washington Post allow pure personal attacks on your writers, in this case Mr. Colson, to be published. Why can't you edit those out as hate mail and keep the rest? It reflects poorly on the WP that you allow those posts.

hyjanks none of that says to kill NONBELIEVERS!!! It says to kill those who have committed those particular acts but it doesn't say to kill nonbelievers just for being nonbelivers.

There are, obviously, many flavors to the Muslim religion much as there are to that called Christianity. This latter facilitated slavery, Jim Crow and many other odious aspects of life in America. Many of them have disavowed some of these practices and seek to follow life as advised and exampled by Christ. The followers of Mohammed are made up of many sects, some of whom use their interpretation of Koranic teaching as a reason for violence. President Obama has extended a hand of friendship as he tries to turn swords into ploughshares. Aint nuttin' wrong with that.

"Separating violence from Islam is impossible because it is in the Koran. Not other religious text has clear direction to kill nonbelievers."

From Leviticus:

7: And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8: And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12: And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
20: Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
33: And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.
29: None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Read it and weep, clearthinking . . .

"Mutual interest is peace. Yet the Islamic world continues to train and house terrorists. Mutual respect requires the renunciation of violence on both sides. Yet the Islamic world has never done this, even as Islamic terrorists deliberately target innocent civilians."

And you have??

You've renounced the slaughter in Gaza? I can't hear you, Chuckie...

You've renounced George Bush's slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Huh? Chuckie, are you there?

You are the worst kind of hypocrite: you're not only self-righteous, you're not only blinded by the very same affliction you project on others, you are a bigot and you actively fan the flames of ignorant xenophobia, as evidenced by some of the posts here.

It'd be best for everybody if you just took your felonious self and faded into the background instead of putting your foot in your mouth every time you offer something here. As Will Durst suggested to a different woeful ideologue, you should invest in mint-flavored shoe laces.

Some sad facts:

1. Islam and violence go together - today and in the past.

2. Separating violence from Islam is impossible because it is in the Koran. Not other religious text has clear direction to kill nonbelievers.

3. For example, Koran chaper 9 verse 5:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and kill the nonbelievers wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem."

4. There are many other writings in Islam with similar views. The history of Islam is of intolerance (i.e. killing of) of nonbelievers. It continues today.

5. A minority of self-described muslims deny that violence is inherent, but this takes some mental gymnastics. Enough muslims will never be able to perform these mental gymnastics 5 times a day.

6. How can mutual respect exist in Islam? Is it better to live in denial or better to try to seriously change the underlying philosophy of superiority and acceptance of violence in Islam?

Fine indignation from a criminal, neocon intolerant evangelical...little surprise the Muslims have such deep suspicions of the US government. How many Cambodians were you seeking to "save" and engage in "mutual respect" when you illegally bombed them, hey Chucky Baby?

Why the WaPo gives any webspace to this troll is as big a mystery as the disappearance of a single sock every time you do the laundry.

A intolerant, pasty, neocon evangelical giving us a sermon on mutual respect. Thanks for my morning laugh.

I agree. Problem is Muslims think Islam has to be the dominant religion: that is why 57 Islamic nations- a great insult to non-Muslims.

It is Muslims who start mindless terrorist violence aimed at civilians and not the Western world. It is Muslims who want to migrate to Western countries and not the Christians trying to migrate into intolerant Islamic lands to settle their families.

As long as so called international community did not change their double standards and specially regarding muslim world there can be not mutual respect between both worlds.. mutual respect comes in when both parties have trust on each other both have understanding of each other views and sorry to say there is nothing like this between West and Islamic world..

Second thing i observed that mostly friends over here did not show respects when they talk about religions .. as member of civilzed world one should show it even his / her words when he give his / her arguments about any religion .. if we the common people who have no rule in international politics and decision making .. will not respect each other religions then how we can expect the mutual understanding in all religions so we respect christianity , jews . hindus muslims and all the religions of world and we should not link the personal actions or characters to whole nation or world.. suppose if i shall say that Mr. Bush was stupid .. so will it be fair that i stretch or assume that whole Americans are stupid and have thinking like Bush about the rest of world.. so respect each other and try to understand the differences and we should have an agreement on non agreements..

Regards

You hideous little catamite. What do you know about respect.

You must wait until they need a comment about the mechanics of sodomy before your comments will be relevant.

I think everyone has acknowledged that the Pope's address in Regsenburg wasn't one of his finest hours. So I am saddened to see you drag that again. So much for "great step forward" when you can't stop looking back, Mr. Colson.Also, it may not hurt to read history a little bit. Our great country sent CIA agents to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. We have only told our children "they hate us" without telling them how we have been meddling in other people's business. I think President Obama hsa started on the right foot. And you are right to say it takes two to tango, but we are not as blameless as you then proceed to preach. Both sides have work to do. It may be a thousand mile journey but we have to take the first step.

The NY Times just got rid of Kristol, who was about as silly as Colson, and in the process, like Colson, draws some of the best liberal thinking and writing, though liberal is probably the wrong word: American vis a vis the Constitution, that is the mind set.
However, you could lose Colson. When we need to hear narrow combative and poorly thought views, we can get to Fox any time.
Wow. Bush is out, Obama is in, what, a week, and they are still training terrorists? Well, they had their chance, eh Colson?

Chuck Colson, whose record as a born again felon, is mixed talks about mutual respect, but his implication that Muslims are at fault for not having renounced gratuitous violence is offensive. The war in Iraq, predicated on mendacious charges of possession of weapons of mass destruction, was fomented by the most famous born-again Christian in the United States and his duplicitous gang of hypocritical henchmen. Pope Benedict, whom Colson cites as an example of "respect" for others, is most famous for reminding his followers that Catholics should not allow "ecumenism" to confuse them into believing that Protestant Christianity is also a road to salvation, and for restoring to the bishopric a man who respects the memory of six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and political dissidents, including Catholic clergy, by denying that the Holocaust occurred. Mutual respect is a two-way street, and Muslims are neither more nor less prone than anybody else to err in that regard. Colson may believe his mother his in Heaven while mine is in Hell because she was not a Christian, but that is not mutual respect, and he has no business pontificating, like the Pontiff, about it.

Pat,
Jews think Christians and Muslims follow a false God? Where are you getting that from?

Christians have missionaries who go out to convert non-believers.
Muslims are commanded to wage Jihad and purify 'Muslim lands' of non-believers.
Jews believe that God made Christians to be Christians, Muslims to be Muslims, etc.

Any strong words for the other side in the conflict? Or is 'stopping the tit-for-tat violence' purely Israel's responsibility?

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Ba'hai, and plenty others live inside Israel & enjoy full protection under the law. Is that the case in the Palestinian territories? In most Arab countries? I'm sorry... who doesn't respect whom again?

heathroe2 mentions the "moderate" Islamic world. That's a contradiction in terms. The ferocity with which they believe the Koran is mind-boggling. They are all brain-washed from a young age. And those who don't follow what is written in the Koran are called "bad" Muslims (as opposed to "good" Muslims). "Bad" Muslims live their lives feeling terribly guilty. That's awfully hard to do. So good luck finding "moderate" Muslims. Such a population provide easy fodder for the preachings of Mullahs who are able to radicalize the masses further. Most Muslims do not have a capacity for questioning their beliefs, for questioning the Koran, for questioning their Prophet. Until that day when Muslims are able to exercise independent judgment and question their most cherished beliefs, there is no hope for them to be open, liberal, accepting of diversity, and be secular. No hope! No wonder there is not a single truly secular and democratic Muslim nation on this earth. Not one.

‘Great step forward by moderate Muslim leaders denouncing the extremists’ will NOT lead to peace as Charles Colson must know. Afterall ‘denouncing the extremists’ does NOT eradicate the most fundamental message of Quran urging Muslims to ‘wage a jihad to kill or convert kafirs’ that is propagated by most of the main stream official mosques and madrasas all over the world including Indonesia and Egypt, not just the lunatic fringe. Some dedicated Muslims take this Quran preaching literally and act accordingly and ‘denouncement of extremists’ will not stop them.

This man is a felon from the Nixon era. Why is he hired by the Washington Post?

If there is to be a peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle East, we all know what it will look like, the deal that was passed on at Taba. The reason that deal didn't move forward was the Arab belief that in time demographic reality will eliminate the Jewish state. All the proposals we hear are simply delaying tactics for that eventuality.

If we really want peace, the moderate Islamic world must not let the Jihadist hold the stage. As we can see from the problems in many places, a small minority generates violence and then when those who wish to live in peace respond, those who cause the violence hide behind non-combatants and show their victims to the blind world press.

Mr. Colson is dead on right.

Ah, Farnaz, the great race card player strikes again.
P.Mathews is racist towards which race? The race of Israel? The race of the Jewish religion? Get a grip you slimy demagogue.

And the jewish settlers in the west bank who killed Rabin and will kill again, anyone who dares try and take the land God gave them away? Who moved into the west bank with the sole purpose of disrupting any possibility of a palestinian state? They are not a race Farnaz, they are Jewish religious nut-jobs, who have a such a stranglehold on Israel they have caused the potential two state solution to be a practical impossibility.

Criticizing Israel and religious Jews is not racism. Not even close. To call it that is the very slimiest of demagoguery and race card playing. But that is your main agenda here isn't it. Everyone is an antisemite aren't they?

patmatthews:

You are that remarkable racist, whom all nonracists hope for, the one who blatantly shoves his appalling stupidity in everyone's face, the better to show the fiction of his reifications.

Christianity, including Catholicism, holds that anyone who does not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ is dammed forever. It's right their in the Christians' NT (sic). Very nice.

Islam holds that Jesus Christ was not the son of God and that anyone who believes he was is dammed forever. (See Quoran)

Judaism holds that the Lord(Hashem) has a covenant with all peoples. It is not up to Jews to question it.
______________________

Like Judaism, Islam is radically monotheistic.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord, the Lord is one.

"I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."

No Sons, no Holy spirits.
_____________________

Whatever Muslims learned of antiJewish racism, the racism that has put three Middle Eastern Jews in exile, it learned from the Christians, including the Catholics, who exported it there.

Whatever Mulims know about terror, they learned from Christianity, MOther and Father of Terrorism. That would be the Christians, who, according to Knights' testimony walked knee-deep in the blood and bones of Jews and Muslims during the Crusades.

That would be the Christians who genocided them during the INquisition.

That would be the Christians, who, while genociding Muslims, were busy spreading antiJewish racism--Waste not, want not, the Christians always say. That would be the Christian nazis who made friends with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Christians who cut off the thumbs, and the hands of Muslims and tied them around their necks during colonialism.

You know, the Christians, who in the seventeenth century sewed cats into the bellies of Jewish women. Killed one hundred thousand of them. The Christians of the pogroms. The Christians of Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Russia, Croatia, Slovakia, France, Germany, who slaughered all those millions of Jews, Roma, et al.

YOU KNOW WHO I MEAN PATIRICK? NO? LOOK IN THE MIRROR, RACIST.

Hello Justilthen,

I agree with half of your post as well. The part about Israeli atrocities and the US support for them. But I do take exception to some of what you wrote.

YOU: "We train the best army in the world and send it around to harrass Islamic countries. We are holding no sacrosanct higher ground.

We certainly have our own problems to deal with to be sure, but we certainly do hold some sacrosanct higher ground. Democracy over dictatorship and secularism over theocracy. These are sacrosanct higher ground IMHO.

YOU TO COLSON: "You make the distasteful non-distinction of lumping all the Muslim world together. And you are flat out wrong in your accusation"

Now here is you doing exactly what you just accused Colson of:

"The "Muslim world" shows huge evidence of compassion, desire for regard and to be regarded, governance non violently, as well as clear signs of forward movement toward freedom of the people and away from monarchy and oligarchy"

You just lumped "the muslim world" all together. Colson did it with bad attributes and you tried to counter by doing the very same thing with positive attributes. There is no such thing as "the muslim world". Some muslims are bad, and some are good. Just like some Christians are bad and some are good.

YOU: If anything these past eight years have given strong argument that America has been edging back toward monarchy, if you watched Mr. Bush and Cheney grabbing for overreaching executive powers beyond their offices"

The election of Obama shows that America is not inching back towards monarchy, that was just one administration who we promptly gave the boot to. I'm quite proud of America these days. You should be too. The self loathing of the Bush years is over forever. Secular democracy is here to stay, and a beacon for the world. America is something to be proud of again.

I have faith that Obama will gradually pull back the US support for Israel. At the very least he will make them clear out all of the settlements from the West Bank and completely retreat to the 67 borders if they want continued protection. Personally I think it should be the 1948 borders, but I'll settle for the 67 borders for now.

Mr Colson is rather an idiot.
Most Muslim countries DONT train terrorists. Most Muslims countries aren't interested in engaging in violence against the USA or Israel. More to the point, when has the USA ever renounced violence?
Mr COlson, you are a useless tool

Mr. Colson,
I agree with you half way. That is because you are being half way truthful in your statement.

Yes that we need to mutually move forward toward mutual interests and respect, peace, renunciation of violence, targeting and killing of innocents, housing and training terrorists.

Both sides.

Israel fails in each of these. I include special forces and targeted assassinations as housing and training terrorists.

The argument that Israel has a right to self defense as a justification for these actions is morally bankrupt, if one aspired to higher ideals and particularly if one is devoted to the message of Christ as you are.

Further the american military is strategically and theocratically standing in accord with Israel and in opposition to this weaker but no less morally valid group of people, the muslims. We train the best army in the world and send it around to harrass Islamic countries. We are holding no sacrosanct higher ground.

You make the distasteful non-distinction of lumping all the Muslim world together. And you are flat out wrong in your accusation. The "Muslim world" shows huge evidence of compassion, desire for regard and to be regarded, governance non violently, as well as clear signs of forward movement toward freedom of the people and away from monarchy and oligarchy.

If anything these past eight years have given strong argument that America has been edging back toward monarchy, if you watched Mr. Bush and Cheney grabbing for overreaching executive powers beyond their offices.

But of course you supported their crusade.

More the reason for your dishonest post.

Perhaps Israel needs to learn how to respect others. In Buddhism there is a concept called Bodhisattva Never Disparaging. This person says, "I would never disparage you, for you all are seeking the way." in reference to ALL people.

perhaps Israel should try this for a moment and stop tit-for-tat killing, that is disrecpectful and not well respected by anyone.

I think mutual respect is capable if BOTH sides actually respect each otehr. Israel has shown to date they are unable to respect others, as they belive Christians and Muslims follow a false GOD, not the GOD with a son named Abraham and of Jewish origin.

Perhaps respecting others beliefs is a starting po9j nt israel as they currently do ot respect Muslims, Christians, or Buddhists.

Patrick

We conveniently disregard the thousands of Iraqis killed during this war by calling dead women and children collateral damage. We turn a blind eye to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. This mistreatment involves the deaths of 1300 men, women and CHILDREN, injuries to thousands more as well as the continued starvation and refusal of medical attention to the Palestinians because thirteen Israelis died.

The pictures of the horrifying damage done to the infrastructure of Palestine is debilitating to the soul. I pray that God judges us for what is in our hearts and not what our government does because if we are judge by the latter we all have a place in Sheol waiting for us.

Regardless of how the Muslim world looks at America, America will not be respected until it does an introspective of itself.

How many versions of Muslims are there? If they are as many as the Christian versions, we may have have a satisfied audience.