Third Party & Independents: Archives

I have a brief response to your beliefs on how to achieve and maintain permanent peace in the Middle East. I couldn’t agree with you more and I am astonished that your type of direct thinking and approach has not been administered under the Bush Administration. After reading what you have written, I started to think that, yes, how frightening it really is that Osama bin Laden is still running around loose.

To conclude, do you have a website or an area that I could read more about your political thoughts.
Thanks,
CMB

Peace in the Middle East would be for the US to get out completely and stop funding Israel. It won’t do everything but if the US goes Anti-Israel; a whole lot of things would go smoother and it is a step in the right direction.

Are you insane? Do you know how many Palestinians are there? They outnumber the Israeli Jews and if they merge the Israeli Jews will lose power.

Aldous,

How many Protestants are there in the US? Just because the outnumber the Catholics, Jews, Moslems, etc., have they “lost power”?

If we’re going to export American democracy, how can we can’t say “good for the goose, bad for the gander”.

Chuck Hanrahan,

In the first paragraph of your article you are, by inference, comparing the President of the United States to Adolf Hitler.

I think this is shameful.

They work from the same play book, steve.

David,

Their agendas were yet quite a different matter.
Previous posts with similar inferences of the two individuals in question received criticisms from the Watchblog authorities.

What is the deal, when the reference better serves a purpose it is permitted? You guys need some consistency in your tolerance of what is acceptable.

steve,

“You guys need some consistency in your tolerance of what is acceptable.”

There’s a flaw in that logic — assuming that “we guys” all agree. Each of us has been pretty consistent individually.

Personally, I think that Chuck made some pretty good arguments (arguments which I’ve been trying to make, less eliquently, for years). Unfortunately, as soon as I read the Bush vs. Hitler line, I knew that this would blow up into a “how dare you” argument, and his point would be lost.

As for what I think is acceptable — I’m fine with, as my father would say, “calling a spade a spade”. Like it or not, there are similarities between Bush and Hitler. No, Bush hasn’t committed genocide against an entire race, but Hitler did a heck of a lot of things BESIDES exterminate Jews.

But, back to the point of Chuck’s argument. We really do need to pressure our “friends” in the region to reform, and not just Israel. Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds there is atrocious. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have serious women’s rights problems. Pakistan is basically a military goverment (which is milking the War on Terror for all it’s worth).

These are the low-hanging fruit. It won’t take hundreds of thousands of troops — just some good old fashioned diplomacy, and firm hand with the checkbook. Deal with Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc., and nations like Iran and Iraq will take care of themselves from the inside.

This is where the Bush administration has missed the boat. (For the record, I don’t necessarily think the Kerry administration would have done any better. The Clinton administration didn’t.)

Rob,

I am a Bush supporter knowing full well that there are things that he could have or, could be handling better. I understand the general bashing and when I don’t like it I respond accordingly.

By “you guys” I actually meant the people who do the sanctioning of text. Sorry for the confusion.

That said, I think there is enough anti-Bush ammunition without having to draw inflamatory comparisons to Adolf Hitler. It IMO is akin to subliminal advertising.

Rob Cotrell:

Deal with Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc., and nations like Iran and Iraq will take care of themselves from the inside.

WOW! That is a pretty bold statement. How do you figure Iran and Iraq will or even can “take care of themselves from the inside?” I assume you mean will convert from beligerent theocracies to something more paletable to the west. Though their lines were drawn in only the last 60 years or so, the region has been in conflict for thousands of years—some of which have been herendously bloody and brutal. How or when do you think this will change?

I don’t deny at least the possibility, but I also think the odds are definitely against it happening of its own accord as a result of some internal uprising that avoids being “put down” by the current powers.

PS: I guess I don’t see the “dominoe effect” taking place here anytime soon.

steve,

“That said, I think there is enough anti-Bush ammunition without having to draw inflamatory comparisons to Adolf Hitler. It IMO is akin to subliminal advertising.”

I agree. It detracts from the argument. (For the record, I could write a book on the similarities between Clinton and Stalin, but it would do nothing but spark another flame war.)

So, back to the issue at hand… other than the Hitlerizing, what do you think of Chuck’s article?

Steve,

If you will allow me a word of self-defense.

Please don’t confuse means and ends or methods and objectives.

Hitler’s objectives & Bush’s objectives have absolutely nothing to do with one another. In fact, I would say that they are polar opposites of one another. Hitler promulgated tyranny and conquest; Bush promulgates democracy and liberation.

That is why I am so disappointed he and his staff stoop to the tactics of Hitlerian demagoguery to engender popular support. I, for one, think that he would generate more public support for his policies if he tried to level with the American people instead of trying to manipulate us.

For example, his use of 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq Tuesday night was disingenuous at best or an outright fabrication at worst. Its inappropriate and unnecessary to use bin Laden like Crassus used Spartacus or like Stalin used Totsky or like Hitler used … Well, I hope you get my point.

Chi Chi,

WOW! That is a pretty bold statement. How do you figure Iran and Iraq will or even can “take care of themselves from the inside?” I assume you mean will convert from beligerent theocracies to something more paletable to the west. Though their lines were drawn in only the last 60 years or so, the region has been in conflict for thousands of years—some of which have been herendously bloody and brutal. How or when do you think this will change?

Allow me address this in two parts:

1) The idea that the region has been historically super-violent is unfounded. Sure, they’ve had their share of wars, but no more than Europe or Asia. England and France spent most of their history at war with each other, but have been at peace for over 100 years now. Writing off Middle Eastern conflicts as unsolveable doesn’t help.

2) Democratic governments around Iraq would encourage Iraqis to want the same. (Hasn’t this been Bush’s argument for putting a democracy in Iraq?) Once the people have a taste of freedom, they’ll demand more. As for uprisings being “put down”, I’m sure we could provide a little support there. But regime changes should be handled by REVOLUTION, not INVASION. If a revolution had started in Iraq, I would have fully supported sending US military in to assist it, even if we had to reinstate the draft to do it. But the driving force, the desire for change, must be theirs, not ours.

Chuck,

Please don’t mis-understand, I was not attacking you or Chuck. I just feel that the type of comparison drawn between Bush and Hitler was not needed to make an already solid point. In the end, I think when those types of references appear early in a piece, the reader tends to look for other things to object to or, be on the defensive in the remainder of the piece

I think the piece is fine although I may not be in complete agreement, it is a good piece.

Of course I meant Rob and Chuck in my previous post. Sorry Rob.

Steve,

Thank you for your critique. I guess Hitler is still a “third rail” to many Americans, and it probably did detract from the remainder of my post. My only defense was that I remembered that “big lie” piece from the OSS, and when Bush shamelessly used 9/11 again to justify our invassion of Iraq I guess I saw red.

Moving on, I’d be interested in your thoughts on the remainder of the post.

Rob,

Interesting distinction between revolution and invasion, but I don’t think that the means matter as much as the ends. I think that the larger point is that popular revolutions do not yield free societies necessarily (e.g. the French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions.

Like any human endeavor, regime change is best accomplished peacefully. This is why I admire Mandela, Tutu and espeically DeKlerk so much. I shudder when I think of how ugly the death knells of apartheid could have been. (In fact, if the Israelis and Palestinians ever do resolve their differences, I think that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be brilliant.) Nevertheless, the important thing is to oppose tyranny and promote liberty by any means necessary (with apolgies to Malcolm X).

The human and civil rights that we take for granted are based upon the premise that government’s role within society is as an impartial and limited referee, not as a direct participant. That is why democracy alone isn’t he answer. It must be combined with individual rights - the freedom of expression (including religious neutrality), the rule of law, fair markets and egalitarianism - for a society to avoid a tyranny of the majority and achieve its just purpose of promoting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I hate to the bearer of bad news, but this isn’t Vietnam militarily, and if you think it is, you’ll have to put together a very strong case for it. My Grandfather served in WW2, my other grandfather in the Korean War and Vietnam, my Great-grandfather in WWI, and my father in Operation Desert Storm. If a draft is ever instituted, and possibly even if it isn’t, I will serving in post-Iraqi Freedom operations. So I can tell you without a doubt that the ONLY parallel between Vietnam and Iraq militarily is the use of Guerilla tactics to combat a superior military presence.

It is however politically similar, with the U.S. public mostly outside the direct effects of the war complaining a lot. One major reason for the mistaken similarities between the two is “shock value” perspective the media chooses to take when reporting. Death counts and “torture” scandals sell more than peace prospects, opening of schools, and the increased freedom the Iraqi people are using on a daily basis.

“And we always bring our troops home when the war is over (except for Germany, Japan, Cuba, South Kor - damn, 0 for 2). “

You and I both know there were legitimate reasons for the continued occupation of Germany, Japan, and South Korea. The decision to leave a military presence there was the correct one as should be noticed by Japan and Germany’s current economic strength. Just FYI, the troops did come home. Both of my Grandfathers came home, even if one did have to ship out fairly soon after for the jungle. Comments like the above is what causes me to lose credibility in your arguments - you argue pathos when you should be arguing logos.

As far as your Irael to Iraq argument, I find it reaching to say that the power hungry, terrorist organizers are suddenly going to end all violence if we bring peace between Irael and Palestine.

Furthermore, how exactly do you propose we do this? We have been trying for YEARS to do what I think you are suggesting to do:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/palstoc.html

And I hope that you are not seriously proposing that we use force to bring the two together. I’m sure a display of force like that will go over really well, both domestically and foreign. So you’ve established that we should reign in Israel and bring peace between them and Palestine. My question to you is how?

As far as your Irael to Iraq argument, I find it reaching to say that the power hungry, terrorist organizers are suddenly going to end all violence if we bring peace between Irael and Palestine.

Not as far reaching as saying that they will suddenly end all violence if we bring democracy to Iraq.

Besides, nobody said anything about “sudden”. These things take time.

And I hope that you are not seriously proposing that we use force to bring the two together. I’m sure a display of force like that will go over really well, both domestically and foreign. So you’ve established that we should reign in Israel and bring peace between them and Palestine. My question to you is how?

We don’t need a display of force in Israel. We need, as I said above, “some good old fashioned diplomacy, and a firm hand with the checkbook.” We send billions of dollars to Israel. They need our funding, as well as our support in the UN. Let’s start tying that funding to some actual results. That will put some teeth behind these “roadmaps” we keep hearing about.

(For the record, I have to give Bush credit here. He’s done more on this issue than any other president in the past 20 years. But more needs to be done.)

Rob Cotrell:

1) The idea that the region has been historically super-violent is unfounded. Sure, they’ve had their share of wars, but no more than Europe or Asia. England and France spent most of their history at war with each other, but have been at peace for over 100 years now. Writing off Middle Eastern conflicts as unsolveable doesn’t help.

2) Democratic governments around Iraq would encourage Iraqis to want the same. (Hasn’t this been Bush’s argument for putting a democracy in Iraq?) Once the people have a taste of freedom, they’ll demand more. As for uprisings being “put down”, I’m sure we could provide a little support there. But regime changes should be handled by REVOLUTION, not INVASION. If a revolution had started in Iraq, I would have fully supported sending US military in to assist it, even if we had to reinstate the draft to do it. But the driving force, the desire for change, must be theirs, not ours.

I did not say super violent. But, you must admit, the wars there are constant, and occasionally more brutal that the average conflict in Europe. The wars waged between France and Europe pale in comparison to the brutality displayed in the Middle East. Sometimes those conflicts included Europeans. Additionally, I have not written off the conflicts as unsolvable. My posts in this and many other threads have been critical of the Bush admininstrations handling, strategy and tactics. They are not unsolvable, but the strategy needs a complete overhaul, and US expectations of the result need to be adjusted to allow for the history of the region. To think virtually any of these countries can resolve to become more “democratic” by an uprising of its citizenry is unrealistic. Yes, I think they will need help. And I think NATO and the NATO model being used in Afghanistan are the most credible. I agree that we can not impose our will on these people. If we haven’t learned anything else in Iraq, we should have learned that. But if they ask for our guidance, support, etc., we should give it.

Having said all this, I think it a foolish endeavor to continue nation building “in our own image” until our image is one we can stand to see in the mirror. Let’s take care of our own problems before we resume preaching to the world how to solve theirs.

Chi Chi,

There have been no acts of violence in the Middle East that don’t compare to similar acts in Europe throughout history. Consider Vlad the Impaler, or Ivan the Terrible, or the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. Europe has had its dark days, too.

Brian,

“My question to you is how?”

My answer is a relatively simple one. We must stipulate to the Israelis and Palestinians that our continued finanical and military support of them is contingent upon the Israeli government honoring the provision in its Declaration of Establishment that guaranteed the adoption of a written constitution. In fact, I would go so far as to postulate that, since American diplomatic recognition of Israel was predicted upon the Declaration of Establishment and since the Israelis have not yet implimented this crucial provision, we would be entirely justified in rescinding our diplomatic recognition of their perpetually provisional government and nullifying any any all treaties and agreements between the US and Israel unilaterally.

But I would hope that it wouldn’t come to that. If we made our intentions clear, I would hope that Israelis and Palestinians would call for a unifying constituional convention within a reasonable period of time. I’m also optimistic that this convention would produce a binding document that would announce the creation of an inclusive secular democracy rather than an exclusive theocracy. Finally, my optimism extends to the ratification of this document by the indigenous population.

If these events do not occur - if there is no convention, if they cannot produce a constitution that creates a government that is religiously neutral or if the voters reject it - then I for one would have not have any qualms about washing our hands of the whole affair and letting these religious zealots go at each other hammer and tong.

(With one caveat - I would open our borders to those reasonable democrats from Palestine and Israel who might wish to flee incessent religious warfare and emmigrate to a country where the government respects all religious faiths equitiably by supporting none of them offically.)

Like our President, however, I’m hopeful. I don’t think that it will come to that. I’m optimistic that the Israelis will realize that they can create a new nation that provides for a Jewish homeland but not a Jewish state. And I’m convinced that the majority of Palestinians would rather live in a prosperous, united and secular democracy than in a indigent and bifurcated theocracy.

All I know is that this idiotic and vicious cycle of perpetual religious warfare has gone on long enough. If we’re compelling the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq to sit done and draft a written constitution, why can’t we demand that Israelis and Palestinians to do the same, especially considering the fact that the Israelis promised to do so more than 45 years ago?

If the South Africans could overcome racism to create a peaceful and unified country, I’m convinced that the Israelis and Palestinians can overcome religious tribalism to do the same.

steve smith, WB policy states Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. Neither Pres. Bush nor Adolph Hitler are participants on WB and therefore are not messengers here. The policy is aimed directly at how participants leaving comments or writing at WB respond to each other. Politicians and historical figures are fair game for criticism.

Brian said: “So I can tell you without a doubt that the ONLY parallel between Vietnam and Iraq militarily is the use of Guerilla tactics to combat a superior military presence.”

Brian, a bit more history is needed on your part. We entered Viet Nam to stop an oppressive regime - same in Iraq.

In fighting both in Iraq and V.N., we are engaged in what can be fairly called an internal civil conflict.

In both, we had superior forces and armaments. In both, we failed to place sufficient forces and armaments and policies at the right time to insure a swift and decisive victory and establish and maintain martial law control until the civilian government was capable of taking over.

In both, we are dealing with corrupt regimes. S. V.N. was horribly corrupt. Just this week, the Iraqi gov’t. announced corruption reaches to the highest levels and is hampering efforts there.

In both, our administrations were wrong and or lied about how swiftly and what costs would be required to win, and in both, the body counts and economic costs mounted well beyond what the American people were told to expect.

There are more parallels, but, that should do for starters. Americans are behind finishing the job, but, they are now insisting that the job be finished in a short period of time. They are saying 1750 dead Americans are enough. How many will be too many? Only time will tell. I hit my tolerance quota at 500 GI deaths. And have been opposed to staying ever since we accomplished our stated mission, to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Now we are nation building. Precisely what Bush criticized Clinton for and said he himself would not engage in if elected. Bush is a SOB of a liar and the record makes that clear as day.

I served 72-75. But there is no way in hell I would support a daughter or son of mine wanting to volunteer for this Iraqi quagmire which never should have been. Afghanistan was a whole other deal and I would have been proud of a daughter or son of mine serving over there UNTIL Bush decided to invade Iraq and NOT finish the job in Afghanistan. We are still losing troops in Afghanistan in a conflict that should have been over with in 2003 had we committed our resources and resolve to Afghanistan. But Bush failed history, obviously. He has learned NOTHING from the Viet Nam years.

You say Israel is a theocracy. This is ridiculous. It has elections, a parliament and freedom of speech. It is just as good a democracy as U.S. Israel is not a theocracy, but a democracy.

Israel has fanatically religious fundamentalists, just as America does. It has religious parties. It also has non-religious parties. Most Israelis are not very religious.

Like us, Israel has a secular democratic government in which both religious and non-religious people participate.

You say that there can be a Jewish homeland without a Jewish state. This makes no sense. Jews have lived in many states around the world, always hounded, harrassed and killed. In Israel they feel at home.

Palestinians do not like Israel. They want it entirely for themselves. This is why the terrorist groups Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and others are killing Israeli civilians. This is why there is so much trouble. So your solution is to combine Palestinians with Jews in one country. Then they would be able to kill each other at closer range.

You call this a solution for peace? By combining Jews and Palestinians you achieve democracy? What you will achieve is domination of the Jews by the Palestinians. The Palestinians are many times more prolific than Israelis. For this Jews needed to flee other countries to come to Israel?

We must keep the Palestinians and Israelis separate. Let them each be democratic in their own way. This is one thing I agree with Bush on. I’m sure that neither group wants to live together with the other group in close quarters.

The terrorists want something else: they want to make sure there are no Jews left in Israel so they could occupy the whole place all by themselves.

David Remer,,

It was my interpretation that “critique the message” meant the posted text and, that “not the messenger” meant the person delivering it or, the poster.

Now, I see that you have pointed out that neither Bush nor Hitler are contributers and therefore are not covered by the “critique rule”.

I have never in my entire life heard of anyone who is delivering the message not being referred to as “the messenger”.

I was not criticizing Bush or Hitler, I was suggesting to Chuck that his comparison of the two tended to detract from his piece.

Paul Siegel:

Palestinians use bombs. Israelis use Settlements.

If you ever bother to read Israeli Newspapers and TV, you will see a whole list of abuses committed by the Settlers on Palestinians. An entire museum was made to document the abuses. Its one of the reasons why so many Israelis favor withdrawal from both the West Bank and Gaza. The Settlers are an embarrassment to them.

Read Haaretz and every other paper. Its quite shocking.

As for the Suicide Bombings. If you ever bother to research, most of those target Settlements until recently. The reasons for this war are many and are very complicated.

Your statement that Paletinians do not like Jews is a testament of your myopia. Jews have been living among Palestinians peacefully for centuries before 1946. It was only after the British started to divide the Land that all the violence started. You also made no mention of Israeli Terrorists. One of whose members assasinated an Israeli Prime Minister.

Do more research.

Aldous wrote: ….The reasons for this war are many and are very complicated…

It’s highly questionable whether there can ever be peace in the Middle East. Especially, when many of the governments in the region are oppressive, non-democratic, control 99% of the wealth, and use and abuse religion to use and abuse their people, as they intertwine law and religion, until there is no separation of religion and law. Consider Saudi Arabia. It’s illegal to practice any religion but Islam. Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia is nonexistent for those who do not adhere to the Wahhabi interpretation of Sunni Islam. And, there’s no democracy. The king rules by decree in accordance with the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law) and with the consensus of senior princes and religious officials. There are no elections at any level and political parties are illegal. Women cannot get an identity card, obtain an exit visa, or be admitted to a hospital without the permission of their guardian. Women are segregated from men in public—barred from most workplaces, taught in separate schools, restricted to “family sections” of restaurants and female-only stores, prohibited from driving, unable to travel without a male relative, and required outside the home to wear the abaya, a black garment covering the body and most of the face. The religious police (mutawwa’in) harass women who violate these social codes. And, punishments are often draconian, and freedom of expression is severely restricted. In Saudi Arabia, it’s not uncommon to see signs that say “Muslims Only” and “Non-Muslims” (reminiscent of 50 years ago when there were “Whites Only” and “Blacks” signs in the United States).

Thus, the people are disaffected, poor, lacking education, and constantly fed propaganda to hate, and to blame the West and Jews for everything that is wrong in the world. The propaganda shifts blame from their own government, and distracts the people from the fact that their own governments are oppressive, corrupt, and often brutal. It ultimately breeds terrorism, and their targets will not be their own governments that oppress them. It will be the countries they’ve been brainwashed to hate.

Yes, the reasons are many and complex. Many generations have already been lost.
It’s hard (maybe impossible) for them to let go of their hate, when it’s everywhere around them, taught to them from a very young age. It will take many generations to change for the better (if ever).

In the mean time, these disaffected, unhappy, hate-filled populations are growing, and their problems will spill over to other nations, and we’ll all eventually pay the price of ignoring any government that breeds oppression, hate, and terrorism.

Not to pick on you, Paul, but how would you feel if the United States changed its immigration policy to permit Protestants from around the world to immigrate to America but barred people of other faiths from doing so? How would you feel if some of your tax dollars went to support the federal Department of Religion, 90% of which went to Protestant organizations? How would you feel if you wanted to work out a divorce settlement and were compelled go to a religious court where all the judges were ministers who applied ancient Christian laws? Finally, as a pie’ce de re’sistance, how would you feel if the United States changed its flag by removing the fifty white stars on a field of blue and replaced them with fifty white crosses?

I’m thinkin’ that this might upset you a bit, and that you might begin to believe that you were living in a theocracy.

The only reason Judaism is not the offical religion of Israel is because they don’t have an official organizing document (i.e. a written constitution). I simply contend that should they write one, as their founders promised they would, and either make it official (in which case we renounce them) or eliminate theocracy (in which case we support them).

Iran, for example, does have a constitution and an offical religion. But Iran also holds free and fair elections. Does that make it a democracy? No, it makes Iran an Islamic republic, which is just as oxymoronic as the phrase “Jewish and democratic state” found in Israel’s basic laws.

If blacks and whites can live and work together in South Africa peacefully; if Catholics and Protestants can live and work together in Northern Ireland peacefully; if people of various tribes, races and religions can live and work together in the US peacefully, why can’t they do it in Palestine/Israel? (I still like the name Canaan.) We live in a nation that proves that the melting pot works. If here, why not there? Is it based upon some kind of genetic pre-disposition to antipathy, some kind of tribal character flaw? Are either the Israelis or Palestinians or both inherently belligerent? Or is it because their leaders have not created the circumstances for permanent peace, i.e. mutual respect?

Although I think you overstate and oversimplify Jewish/Islamic hostility in the Canaan, I’ll grant you that it exists. Do you think that this hostility will be ameliorated or exacerbated by the creation of a well-armed, independent impoverished Islamic republic that is divided geographically by a “Jewish democracy”? What if Hamas wins an election and their co-religionists in Iran armed them with nuclear weapons some day? Face it, the “road map” may be well-intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

A strong, impartial and religiously neutral government that allows both groups of people to live in peace in their ancestral homeland is the only chance for a permanent peace. If both Arabs nor Jews can share governmental control, then they can both have their homelands

Every true democract knows in his heart that there is only one true solution that will engenders permanent peace, not just in the Middle East but throughout the world: secular democracy. Just like the nations of Europe, whose tribal and religious wars raged for a millenium, when secular democracy was achieved (by osmosis in England, revolution in France or impostion in Germany) a lasing peace was achieved.

Combining religion and government is like putting a match to a fuse: you know that something bad is going to happen, you just don’t know what or when.

Simply put, its time to cut this Gordian knot with secular democracy.

Chuck Hanrahan wrote: Every true democract knows in his heart that there is only one true solution that will engenders permanent peace, not just in the Middle East but throughout the world: secular democracy.

Hmmmm…. a true Democrat? Surely, that’s not to imply that only a Democrat understands the 1st Amendment? Some people that claim to be Republican and Independent recognize the wisdom of the 1st Amendment.

But, definitely ! …
combining religion and government is a recipe for oppression, which breeds hatred, ignorance, and terrorism. And, it’s not that any religion is bad. The problem is that religion is used and abused to use and abuse and control other people. And, the other obvious problem, is government can never promote or favor all religions equally. Therefore, the only solution is the 1st Amendment. Wise Americans, 214 years ago, understood that government must not make laws that respect or prohibit any religion, when they wrote the 1st Amendmant in 1791.

However, there are way too few people, even in the United States, that understand and respect the 1st Amendment. Do a search in your internet browser for “religion government”. It’s alarming and scary to see so many that reject the 1st Amendment. And what has history taught us about intertwining government and religion ? Must we relearn this difficult lesson every few hundred years ?

d.a.n.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there’s a difference between a democrat and a Democrat. The former advocates government by the people and equal rights; the latter belongs to the Democratic Party.

In short, all Democrats are democrats, but not all democrats are Democrats (they can be Republicans and Independents, too).

d.a.n,

It’s highly questionable whether there can ever be peace in the Middle East. Especially, when many of the governments in the region are oppressive, non-democratic, control 99% of the wealth, and use and abuse religion to use and abuse their people, as they intertwine law and religion, until there is no separation of religion and law.

If you remove the words “the Middle East”, and replace them with the words “Europe, Asia, or Africa”, you will have described the world of just a few hundred years ago. Go back far enough, and nearly every land on earth would fit your description.

Where the Middle East (and other ailing places, such as Africa) differ is that they have no strong middle class. Political power and wealth are inexorably linked — concentrate the wealth into the hands of a few, and you concentrate the power.

Separation of church and state would be nice, but religion is used too often as a scapegoat in the Middle East. Politics and economics are the reason for most of the problems there. Religion just determines their reaction to the problems.

Rob Cottrell,
I agree. Just 60 years ago, there were signs “Whites Only”, “Blacks Only” in the U.S.
Fortunately, we’re not that racist anymore.

Yes, religion is used and abused to use and abuse other people…to oppress, and distract.

Regarding government and religion…I strongly believe that any government that doesn’t try to adhere to the same principles of our 1st Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) is doomed to fail eventually, because it is a form of tyranny. Especially as the world grows smaller. Such governments will find themselves more and more isolated, and shunned for oppressing their own people, and forcing it upon any visitors (if any) to their country.

Chuck Hanrahan,
Sorry, I didn’t realize there was a difference between Democrat and democrat. Perhaps, the use of the words democratic or democracy, versus democrat would be more explicit. But, I get your point, and don’t want to belabor too much. Thanks.