At 06:23 13/09/01, James Dobbins, Ph.D. wrote:
>Why would anyone do this?
>The Islamic nations have been at war with Israel since before the time of
>Christ.
Ummm .... how is this so when Islam did not begin until the 7th century
AD? By that time Israel did not even exist. Modern Israel came into
existence through a democratic vote in the United Nations in 1948. *That*
is what makes Israel legitimate, not any ancient claim through antedeluvian
scriptures (in any case "Genesis" was written AFTER "Exodus" to
justify/legitimise Exodus).
Why do some not regard the establishment of Israel as legitimate? Because
they do not regard democratic decisions as legitimate. They base their
sense of legitimacy on other authority, much of it historically based.
If democracy were regarded universally as legitimate, then I believe the
world would be a much better place. (Any want to argue THIS premise?)
What then do we need to help make democracy accepted universally as legitimate?
I say annual general elections would go a long way. Besides the
practicalities (better responsiveness from legislatures, better long-term
planning, better accountability, stronger mandates for change where
needs-be, better participation in community policies & politics, etc
etc) .... there is also a very important deep psychological need being
addressed here.
One thing ALL religions have in common? Annual festivals that inculcate &
CELEBRATE their world view.
"The poorest he in England hath as much a life to live as the richest
he". So sayeth Colonel Rainboro during the Putney debates after the
turmoil of the English Civil War. That seems to me the authentic note of
democracy. However different men may be in wealth or ability or learning,
living their life is their concern and their responsibility. That is for
true democrats the real meaning of human equality. It is not a scientific
or a common-sense doctrine. It is a religious and moral principle. It
is the translation into non-theological language of the spiritual
priesthood of all believers. Men who could say things like that
(especially in 1647!) have gone deep into the heart of things.
When I imagine annual general elections, I see a land of stability &
accountability ..... inculcating the principles of democracy to our
youth. Just as ALL traditional "religions" celebrate and commemorate
their own "world view" via annual festivals (it must be something in the
human psyche Horatio, because they ALL do it), so I also would like to see
the "religion" of democracy similarly celebrated and commemorated.
Did you know that the Greek derivative for the word "heretic" means "able
to choose".
>The USA is a major supporter of Israel. President Bush said so in no
>uncertain terms. Those who support Israel become targets as much as
>Israel. The USA defeated Saddam Huessein in the Gulf War, and other
>Arab nations who support international terrorism side with Saddam and
>assist these insane people in whatever they do. Osamma Bin Laden declared
>a holy war against the USA. Anyone who dies as a "martyr" in the holy
>war, or so they believe, goes straight to heaven and gets seven virgins to
>satisfy his every desire. They do not care about innocent life or their
>own life. Just the seven virgins. They become national heroes in the process.
>
>That's why.
>
>Jim Dobbins
Sorry Jim, but that's a little too simplistic for me. No matter how
brainwashed anyone is about seven virgins, they still need a good reason to
martyr themselves. Especially when you consider it was a lot more than
one lone crazy doing this. We are talking about a co-ordinated concerted
effort of martyrdom by a number of people, many of them at least
intelligent enough to fly planes.
In the not too distant past, we handed down to our children our own various
creeds and dogmas. This saved us from having to think critically - all
we had to do was fight should someone challenge them.
Westminster has two red lines separating the two sides of the
parliament. The distance apart??? .......
Two broad-swords.
The symbolism here of course is that ideas (and creeds, and dogmas, and
philosophies etc) CAN clash, but nobody may be physically injured or
restrained for holding and/or expressing them - at least should they be
expressed in the parliament through a representative.
Outside parliament however the government has the power to use force
wherever it deems necessary. The check & balance to that however is that
if they misuse that force they can be turfed out of office.
In a "Critical-Management" discussion group, I would have thought that how
politics is played out is vitally important. If we are not clear about
how government and the rule-of-law works, how can we be clear about how
management works? Surely the former MUST be before the latter?
Regards,
David Tehr
Perth, Western Australia
|