church and state

rewch

Well-known member
well hamas is meant to be the haraka al-muqawama al-islamiya (h m s)...so probbly...i'll have a look because my french is parfait...n'est-ce pas?
 

Pearsall

Prodigal Son
sufi said:
The leaders of the US have had the state hijacked for a long time, and is it too cheesy to mention that it doesn't really matter who wins the elections?... you always gonna get a monkey in a suit in friont and the same anonymous unelected dodgy geezas in background...
I used to believe that, that it didn't matter who was elected, and then Bush was. The last four years have been a real wake-up. It's fashionable to act like it doesn't matter, but it's not really true. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that Gore would have approached issues like the economy and national security in a way that he would be no difference from Bush.

the govt don't have a majority of citizens behind them already, (just more than what the other party got), they already behave with total impunity - they didn't need the support of either the US people, nor the UN to start up GW2. I wouldn't call US a healthily functioning democracy (or UK for that matter) if senate/parliament, whatever, cannot prevent the leaders from undertaking an illegal war whih the majority of the electorate don't support.
In Britain a majority of the population didn't support the Iraq War. Here, they did (I didn't). It's falsifying history to suggest that, initially at least, a pretty sizeable majority of Americans didn't support the Iraq War. Of course, they supported it through paranoia and lies, but they supported it nonetheless.

Is America a 'healthily functioning democracy'? How do you define what one is? There has always been corruption and backroom dealing in American democracy, from the inner-city machine politics of the 19th century to Eisenhower's military-industrial complex to today's K Street lobbying firms. That is the nature of the beast.

Bush may have won on fear, but he won.

America is a big place Pearsall - i don't think there is any need for the blackshirts, or orange jumpsuits to disturb tranquil Brooklyn
What you say about secession or civil war is just rubbish, given levels of complacency in 21stC america (or Yurp for that matter) - & the junta doesn't need to be so audacious as to openly declare 'martial law' or whatever (if you consider that hasn't already happened with the 'patriot act') = stealthy democratical coup de etat - bush quoted by zizek (sufi quotes zizek :eek: ) "the future will be better... tomorrow"
Rubbish? I don't know, feelings are running pretty strong here. If Bush were to decide at some point that he were to become permanent leader there would be armed conflict (after all we have a lot of guns in private hands). I find the argument that the population is 'complacent' a bit strange considering the election we just went through. What should Americans have done to prove they were less complacent about politics? Armed raids on each other's political rallies?

Having said that realistically I don't see it happening. For one thing the Patriot Act can be seen of a piece with other bits of authoritarian legislation from the past, from laws passed in WWI to the McCarthy era; in none of those times did it lead to juntas and such. Ultimately, people woke up, were embarrassed, and the laws were gutted. I personally doubt that this time is much different, because the Republican Party itself is a coalition that is weaker than it looks. The different factions showed amazing discipline this time around but now that the election is over they are already starting to attack each other (ie the social conservatives trying to block Arlen Specter's nomination to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee). Since Bush is out in four years and Cheney isn't going to run for president the Republicans will probably devolve into furious infighting, because there isn't really much to tie the Christian Right together with the corporate boosters and the isolationists.

you better hope they ain't paranoid and won't feel like a nuke or crash (or another terrrrist spectacular) is necessary for them to consolidate power, luckily though, they won't need to while apologists like persil constantly excuse their contempt for their electorate.
Apologist? No, I'm just a realist who knows the history of my country. I think Bush is a disastrous president, but this idea that they are going to seize all levers of power is just ridiculous. For one thing, it is ahistorical, if it hasn't happened before in darker periods then I see it unlikely to happen now. Plus you seem to be making assumptions about their competence in carrying out policy that I surely won't. These people are basically useless at everything except running for office.

And for another, Bush is less strong than you think, and in his second term he won't benefit from a Congress that is lock-step behind him because they wanted him to be re-elected. Now that he is, they are going to turn their attention to their own turf wars, their own interests. Already recently the intelligence reform bill failed because of the immigration restrictionists. Bush values loyalty above all else (otherwise why would Rumsfeld still be at defence?) but there are a lot of Republicans who were loyal to Bush purely out of a marriage of convenience. And the Democrats are slowly but surely rebuilding.

Apologist? No, I'm just not a paranoiac who thinks this is the end of American history. Maybe you should get your information about America from a wider variety of sources than Chomsky and The Guardian.
 

sufi

lala
cheers pearsill, good response to a bit of a rambunctious post ;)
  • mebbie as an outsider it's easier to see the USG as a longterm regime rather than personalising the issue with with parties or presidents, either as an era or as a celebrity (altho many uhmerkins i've met have felt disenfranchised from the machinations of USG)-
    i mean how would 'clinton' have reacted to 9/11 he'd be under even more pressure to act tuff, he was no stranger to pre-emptive anti-turrism activities ?
  • civil insurrection vs apathy in the US - aye, same as over here, only if they switched off TV.. :D it'd prolly do wonders for voting turnout if they cut TV for 1 day for elections.
  • guardian - i stopped reading it cos i got fed up with it's simplistic outlook and fixed repertoire & agenda,
    chomsky, nah not really... i don't read much
In Britain a majority of the population didn't support the Iraq War. Here, they did (I didn't). It's falsifying history to suggest that, initially at least, a pretty sizeable majority of Americans didn't support the Iraq War. Of course, they supported it through paranoia and lies, but they supported it nonetheless.

Is America a 'healthily functioning democracy'? How do you define what one is? There has always been corruption and backroom dealing in American democracy, from the inner-city machine politics of the 19th century to Eisenhower's military-industrial complex to today's K Street lobbying firms. That is the nature of the beast.
Bush may have won on fear, but he won.
ok this is like,the crux,innit?
yr looking at this situation in a positive way, i guess, like well it's not perfect but we're doing as best we can with what we got
but unfortunately that's making excuses for another debased ideology - justice & righteousness has been lost in the intricate web of realpolitikal loopholes, haggling & propaganda.

we have to face it - this is a shit situation, the world over, & is unacceptable

religion has played a part in all this coming to pass of course - but not a positive part, as we mentioned way pages back it's been a domestical issue - only appearing internationally in the broadest most huntingdonish* way...

so i guess how to unhijack ethical conduct from the fundies???

.......................................................................................................................
bibliography * huntingdon... grrrr
 

Pearsall

Prodigal Son
sufi said:
cheers pearsill, good response to a bit of a rambunctious post ;)
I stay calm. :D

mebbie as an outsider it's easier to see the USG as a longterm regime rather than personalising the issue with with parties or presidents, either as an era or as a celebrity (altho many uhmerkins i've met have felt disenfranchised from the machinations of USG)-
I think big changes happen, but they happen as an evolutionary process, not really through revolution. Really, I think the best way to view American political history is as a series of rise and falls of different interest groups. This is a society that has always been pluralistic, so much of American history revolves around the combat between organized groups, a process that is reinforced by the size and the complexity of the country as well as the machinations required by our own peculiar electoral system. Different groups wax while others wane, because American allegiances are pretty transferable. Example: over the last thirty years the power of labor unions has shrunk dramatically while the power of evangelical Protestantism has increased exponentially. Small groups, strategically placed, can receive much more attention that larger groups without the same advantages: see how politicians pander to the Cuban community, because they are heavily concentrated in the electorally crucial state of Florida while ignoring the much larger Puerto Rican community that is concentrated in northeastern states that are less competitive.

I think the disenfranchisement is a natural function of American history and ideology. This has always been an atomised country where politics has served as the brokering of the demands of different groups. The vast majority feel like they aren't getting their fair shake of things, or that government is neglecting their needs, but this wanting government to be oriented towards them conflicts with the other powerful strain of American thought which is 'leave me alone'. People want government to help them, or at least to be on their side, but then they want to be left alone as well.

My view of the USG has become a lot more nuanced and grey over the years as I read more and learn more, it's a complex thing that requires complex responses.

civil insurrection vs apathy in the US - aye, same as over here, only if they switched off TV.. :D it'd prolly do wonders for voting turnout if they cut TV for 1 day for elections.
Something like twenty million more people turned out this year than in 2000. Personally I think it would be better if, like Australia, we had mandatory turnout, but even so when the stakes are high people will show up in much greater numbers.

ok this is like,the crux,innit?
yr looking at this situation in a positive way, i guess, like well it's not perfect but we're doing as best we can with what we got
but unfortunately that's making excuses for another debased ideology - justice & righteousness has been lost in the intricate web of realpolitikal loopholes, haggling & propaganda.

we have to face it - this is a shit situation, the world over, & is unacceptable
I think the current situation is not optimal, but I am very leary of utopian/revolutionary ideas, because they tend to go monstrously wrong. Even at levels lower than outright Bolshevik/Khomeini revolutionary transformation sudden social change can lead to unanticipated side effects.

I'm a reformist at heart I suppose.
 

rewch

Well-known member
Pearsall said:
Something like twenty million more people turned out this year than in 2000. Personally I think it would be better if, like Australia, we had mandatory turnout, but even so when the stakes are high people will show up in much greater numbers.
but surely forcing people to vote is total anathema to any system of individual choice...there are fines if you don't vote, which makes it a perfect rebellion...democratic societies cannot have it both ways..if the politicians are too filthy to vote for i can't see that penalizing the voter can help...on the other hand minority elected govns give all critics a wonderful reason to have a go...
 
Last edited:

sufi

lala
how to unhijack ethical conduct from the fundies???
i posed that question coupla posts back...
now we dealt with a lot of the governmental issues lets get down towards the earth a little

what i'd like to see is more consciousness amongst people.
more ethics and less of this filthy selfish 'individualism'

i think that if we had a more supportive, community minded culture - globally - then politicians, and more importantly i think corporations should not be able to get away with the type of conduct that they do now
sexist, materialist, short-termist looters.... grrr

however, i'm loathe to associate this 'people's empowerment' with anything like 'ethical consumerism' which i think is bollocks - a futile sop to let people feel like anyone gives a fuck, when the problem is with the producers rather than the consumers... grrr

i guess that moves us a little way away from politrix towards thought, but hey-ho, here we go!
 

rewch

Well-known member
but let's face it...it is damn near impossible for one individual to be ethical...if you make that unit a family it is geometrically more difficult...by the time you step up to governments it's clearly asking the impossible...

so your question should be is it possible to be ethical?

or possibly what level of ethical-ness is acceptable?

but i'm not sure we need to unhijack ethical conduct from the fundies...more like how do we unhijack the fundies from ethical conduct...education is what we need to quote the good doctor
 

sufi

lala
i'm quite an ethical individual

i enjoy an actively anti-sectarian existence predicated on some sort of ethical righteousness, as far as i understand it...
i'd recommend it as a lifestyle choice... ignorance covers an astonishing variety of blisses :D
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Staff member
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United Arab Emirates announced on Saturday a major overhaul of the country’s Islamic personal laws, allowing unmarried couples to cohabitate, loosening alcohol restrictions and criminalizing so-called “honor killings.”
I guess any progress with this sort of thing is only to be welcomed, but imagine living in a country where it making it illegal to murder women constitutes radical social progress. 😬
 
Last edited:

version

Who loves ya, baby?
I think so. Apparently what they've done is tighten the laws so that judges can't show leniency in the case of an honour killing. It now gets treated like any other killing.
 
Top