that both the United States and Israel are virtual theocratic states, profoundly influenced by religious parties whose leaders are arrogant, racist, and militaristic, and who have posed persistent threats to international peace and security.
2006-09-09 07:48:43 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Our internal perception as a nation is “NO.” But unfortunately, as unsavory as it sounds, there is some truth to the writer’s statements.
For starters, at the start of the last two Republican conventions, there was a separate religious convention that was closed to the general public and news media. Isn’t that scary to you? Why the secrets & what are they hiding?
Of more recent news, consider this: our own sitting President, GWB personally phoned a right wing televangelist before the start of one of his conventions. Quoting from a news article in the Observer: “the Rev John Hagee…..a Texan televangelist, …recently told a meeting of Christian Zionists that the attacks on Lebanon are 'a miracle of God'. Several senators attended his symposium, at which he received a personal message of praise from President Bush. "
(For those of you unfamiliar & in a very general way, the Christian Zionists are ultra-right wing Christians who as part of their agenda laud war in the Middle East as part of a biblically directed need for Armageddon).
I find this active blurring of the margins between the seperation of church & state frightning.
Now, if any of us don’t like what the writer says, then we citizens need compare (a) what we believe in about this country (b) what we want this country to be to (c) what is actually going on in this administration. Like it or not.
2006-09-09 08:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by knewknickname 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To an extent yes you are correct -- the US/Isreal are not racist countries though the individuals can be. However, the error is really in ommission: what country is not arrogant, militaristic and not posed a threat to international peace and security?
Notice each country you come up with is likely a poor country which, if it had the means, would be arrogant and militaristic. World domination began back in Roman times, or earlier, and has continued through both military and economic might.
Granted a few countries are arrogant but not militaristic, eg. France. But such a country is typically frought with issues itself -- unemployment among the young is over 20%, social structure is degrading, and the country fails to stand-up for what is normally a correct military action when one is needed.
What needs to change is peoples perception of cultures and removal of greed from decision making. However, even in business this way of thinking drives our economy and there for drives who is elected. You don't really think the best people for the job are elected? Hell, I would vote for Colon Powell in a second but he is not stupid enough to run even though our country desperately needs such leadership.
I did just notice some of the responses which further accent what I have said: Islamic states are about freedom, however, religion is fundamentally ingrained into the country puting some limits on freedom but not removing freedoms. Argue this as you may, but the fact is Islamic states are not evil in and of themself, but the people are evil whom are in power in many of these states due to fanaticsm. That said, with 9/11 around the corner, I do know about the WTC as I lived across the street from it so don't try and pull some crap about terrorism while sitting in the mid-west. I have friends that are muslim and realize that it is fanaticism that is wrong -- if you can't understand this, then sadly you are also one of the individuals whom is culturally ignorant.
In addition, Isreal is militant because it has to be. Right or wrong, it exists as a result of military power and has had to fight for its survival every day. They are attacking because they were attacked. Agrue as you might, it is a circular arguement which will not be won; however, the people of Isreal are not looking for war, but want peace. Again it is fanaticism that is results in war.
Now, lets also talk about how the US stands for international peace and security... ummm... Ok...We stopped Kuwait from being taken over, at the expense of US tax payers, to allow the oil companies to compete in Kuwait so that 10 plus years later Kuwait citizens could receive $646 per person, have complete social welfare state, and the best medicine, schools, etc. while we continue to pay the tax bill for it and higher oil prices. See...we were not greedy and we did what was right.
2006-09-09 15:08:49 · answer #2 · answered by Who me? 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well Israel was founded as a one religion country. In general church and state co-mingled is a bad combination, but they chose that and are living with the consequences.
Having a state religion is NOT supposed to be true in the USA as expressed in the Constitution, but since the 1-20-01 Tragedy, we are perhaps talking about the FORMER USA or Dumbyaland where the Constitution has continually diminishing meaning. As yet we have this part of the First Amend largely intact, but not for lack of Dumbya Coup efforts to encroach on it
2006-09-09 15:10:15 · answer #3 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
both the United States and Israel are bully boy states, profoundly influenced by Money and Oil whose leaders are arrogant, racist, and militaristic, and who have posed persistent threats to international peace and security.
2006-09-09 15:04:52 · answer #4 · answered by plutoniccatgirl 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Only partially.... That said, I can add that the founder of the Moral Minority would crucify you for making such statements about religion, if it wasn't against the law.
Thankfully, our founding fathers saw through the BS of people like this, and did not force our country into a "religious" nation. After all, that's why the pilgrims came here to begin with, to escape "Religious Persecution"
2006-09-09 14:59:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No.
Both the United States are Israel, allow other religions to vote, run for office, and rule.
If you statement was true, then Bush would not have attended an Islamic religious service shortly after the Sep 11 to appease terrorists.
2006-09-09 14:52:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I really do not agree...sorry
Please name one world leader who isn't arrogant? Name one African Middle Eastern or Asian country who's leader isn't militaristic. Name one world leader who is not "influenced" by religion.....
Fact is it is easier to criticize another than to fix your own problems
2006-09-09 14:57:49 · answer #7 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Right on! But not sure if it should have been left on. USA and IS are causing a lot of pain
2006-09-10 09:31:36 · answer #8 · answered by SouthOckendon 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. Have you heard of freedom? Is is worth it to you?
I do not want to see another Islamic state survive anywhere, since they are nothing about freedom.
Whoever said that is the enemy.
2006-09-09 14:58:56 · answer #9 · answered by randyrich 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
OK go back and ask the Mullah what to ask next.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-09 15:29:27 · answer #10 · answered by 43 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋