Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

The neo-con movement is not at all as it is being characterized here. Essentially, it is a movement that believes demcoracy brings peace. As such, it supports the classical idealism of the US, a nation born of a democratic revolution, a nation that saved european democracy in WW 11, saved the world from anti-democratic Communism, and now seeks to save the world from anti-Democratic fascist islamism.I recognize no posters here will agree with me, and I see no point getting into a futile debate about it. I'll leave my opinion on record, and leave it as that.A new poll in the Arab world shows that bin laden has lost substantial support. He was right that people are drawn to "the strong horse," especially in the Islamic world. And now, thanks to the US, he is preceived as the weak horse, and paying the price. There is another factor, too. Islamist bombings in iraq and elsewhere have driven a wedge between Islamists and other Muslims, the majority, like the iraqi majority that supports the rise of democracy in their nation and who, therefore, despise the islamists who are trying to sabotage it.In another thread last week, someone was discussing iranian democracy and its reformist katami. Here are two excellent articles by my favourite write on iran, Tehari, on the subjects.THE BEST OF A BAD CHOICE
by Amir Taheri
Arab News
July 4, 2005Imagine a Martian arriving in Tehran these days to observe the presidential election. The first thing he would remark is the low key in which the campaign is fought. With only a week to polling day, there is little sense of election fever. None of the candidates is holding mass rallies, ostensibly for security reasons, and few have bothered to visit the provinces to seek votes. The exercise looks more like a beauty parade with the candidates trying to catch the attention of the only person whose vote really counts: The "Supreme Guide", Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.Our Martian might notice other facts.There are eight candidates in the list approved by the "Supreme Guide". Almost 1000 other wannabes, including several former dignitaries of the regime, were told they didn't qualify. The candidates are all men, although women account for 52.1 percent of the population, according to the latest census. The average age of the candidates is 62 while two-thirds of the 45 million electors are under 30.All the eight candidates are government employees with civil service or military careers.Two are mullas who have branched into politics. Three others are sons of mullas, although the Shiite clergy consists of around 300,000 men in a population of 70 million.Five candidates have a military background as former or active members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, a parallel army created by the late Ayatollah Khomeini.Our Martian may be forgiven for forming the impression that the eight are siblings.With the exception of the two mullas, they all wear the same kind of "khaksari" style clothes, that is to say suits that, although of costly fabric, are made to look scruffy, almost proletarian.The candidates also use a vocabulary of around 80 to 100 words and phrases that sounds more like group-speak than political lexicon.The substance of what they say is also similar.They keep repeating that the system established in Iran by Khomeini is the best that mankind could imagine."Our system is the envy (of peoples) all over the world," says Mahdi Karrubi one of the two mullas in the race."Our Islamic Republic is a model for Islam, indeed for mankind," insists Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the other mulla standing for the presidency.Other candidates express similar sentiments.And, yet, they also say that the country has reached "an impasse", and that the regime is heading for "systemic crisis.""We must put the revolution behind us," says Rafsanjani."We cannot build the future on old foundations," says Mostafa Moin, a former education minister and candidate of the remnants of the coalition that backed Muhammad Khatami eight years ago.All the candidates pay tribute to Khomeini whom they describe as "the man who revived Islam" or "the leader who saved humanity from darkness."They call on the voters to go to the polls to "give joy to the soul" of the late ayatollah, not to back a political program.This is not surprising because none of the eight has presented a coherent platform. All that they offer is vague promises to curb corruption, to create jobs for the mass of unemployed youths, to house the homeless, and tame inflation.It is not only the domestic policies of the candidates that remain a mystery. Although commentators are looking for "moderates" and "hard-liners", statements made by the eight show that none has a clear vision of the kind of foreign policy that the nation needs.This is not surprising if only because the president has little power to set the agenda. That power belongs to the "Supreme Guide" who has the final word on all matters, with a small role allocated to the Islamic Consultative Assembly and the Council of the Custodians of the Constitution.Because none of the crucial issues could be openly debated in a system that does not tolerate serious debate, the candidates are forced to speak obliquely, dropping a hint here and a hint there, and depending on their persona rather than discourse to win support. A Persian proverb says: Look at what is said, not who is saying it! In this campaign, however, the advice is: Look at who is saying, not at what is said!On that basis the candidates could be divided into three groups.In the first we find Ali Larijani, the former head of the state-owned Radio and Television and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nezhad, the current mayor of Tehran. They believe that the source of the problems that the nation is facing is the weakening of the "revolutionary spirit." They wish to build cultural walls around Iran to save it from "invasion and ultimate conquest" by the global culture which they see as a concoction of the American "Great Satan."In the second group we find Muhammad-Baqer Qalibaf, a former police chief, Mohsen Rezai, a former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, Mohsen Mehralizadeh, a former Revolutionary Guardsman, and Rafsanjani. These are ambitious politicians with business interests who wish to be under the limelight. If our Martian is kind he would call them pragmatics rather than opportunists. Don't be surprised if one of them, Rezai, drops out in favor of another member of the quartet, after making a deal.The third group consists of Karrubi and Moin.Our Martian might label them "lost souls." These are disillusioned Khomeinists who have not mastered the courage to admit that they were wrong to worship the radical ayatollah. They dream of Khomeinism without its essential ingredients of tyranny and terror something like chicken curry without chicken and curry. They know that the system cannot be reformed but still hope to reform it without undermining its foundations.So, who is the best choice? Our Martian might ask.The answer is that, as far as the long-term interests of Iran are concerned, the best choice is not on the ballot. What is left is a pragmatic choice.Karrubi and Moin are out because they represent pale copies of Khatami whose failure is now acknowledged even by his younger brother Muhammad-Reza. Either Rafsanjani or Qalibaf could help the system weather its current crisis.Rafsanjani could reassure the business community, mobilize the bureaucracy for cosmetic reforms, and avoid heightening tension in Iran's foreign relations.Qalibaf, who is 44, might energize the estimated 3.5 million men who have so far served in the Revolutionary Guard, and speak to younger generations who feel alienated. The election either of Qalibaf or Larijani' would be a signal that Khamenei has decided to assume direct control.With the Majlis and other organs of the regime now controlled by Khamenei the conquest of the presidency by his camp could end establishment's internecine feuds. It would send a signal to the people of Iran, and the outside world, that they are dealing with a radical regime pursuing messianic dreams.And that, paradoxically, may be the best of a bad choice. It is almost always better to deal with a regime that is true to itself than one practicing taqiyah (dissimulation-----------------------------------------THE KHATAMI EXPERIENCE
by Amir Taheri
Arab News
July 4, 2005As Iran held its ninth presidential election yesterday, few might have spared a thought for the incumbent Muhammad Khatami.And yet who can forget the excitement that Khatami's first election in 1997 stirred around the world? Some Islamists saw his victory as a sign that politics and religion could mix without producing a deadly brew. At the other end of the spectrum some liberals tried to persuade themselves that even a despotic regime was not impervious to reform.During the current presidential campaign, however, Khatami's tenure has been used by all the eight officially approved candidates as a warning rather than a model. Radical Khomeinist candidates Ali Larijani and Muhammad-Baqer Qalibaf spoke of the Khatami presidency as "eight wasted years" while Mostafa Moin and Mahdi Karrubi, who were in the field as candidates of the pro-reform groups, described the outgoing president as a failure.Outside the establishment, many Iranians see Khatami as a cynical opportunist who was assigned a certain role by the so-called "tasmimgiran" (decision-makers) who pull the strings in Tehran."Khatami deceived us all," says dissident journalist Akbar Ganji."Khatami was a puppet activated by the ruling mullas," says one of his former ministers on condition of anonymity.Both views are inaccurate and unfair.No one is deceived without wanting to be deceived, at least not twice. And yet more than 20 million Iranians voted for Khatami both in 1997 and in 2001. Nor is there any evidence that Khatami was manipulated by the "tasmimgiran".The Khatami phenomenon is not unique to Iran. Other despotic systems have produced versions of it at different times.The Khatami phenomenon emerges when a revolutionary regime which has been transformed into a despotic system feels the need to change course in order to negotiate a dangerous bend on its course. One sees a version of it in the pre-terror phase of the French Revolution when Danton and company practiced politics through oratory.In the Bolshevik Revolution the Khatami phenomenon took the shape of the NEP concocted by Bukharin and marketed by Lenin. The version produced by the Chinese Revolution came with the slogan "Let One Hundred Flowers Blossom!" with Liu Shao-ji as front-man. In the 1960s Janos Kadar in Hungry and Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia represented versions of the Khatami phenomenon.In almost every case such phenomena ended in personal tragedy for the men involved, and greater terror and repression for society as a whole.To be sure this does not mean that Iran is heading for greater terror and repression or that Khatami may be in personal danger. It is likely that the Iranian system is not yet done with the Khatami phenomenon and that we may see it prolonged under a new president, whoever he turns out to be, for some time yet. In other words the possibility of a Khatami-bis presidency should not be discarded.All revolutions produce types like Khatami.These are individuals who believe that things happen simply by wanting them to happen. The technical term for their philosophy is voluntarism which regards societies as blank sheets on which idealistic elites can draw the image of their "perfect" society. Voluntarism cannot admit that the root cause of all problems a society faces may well be the very revolution that it idealizes."We wish to safeguard our revolution," Dubeck often insisted."The problem is not with socialism but its practice," Kadar liked to say.Because idealism and optimism are twins, all versions of the Khatami phenomenon ultimately appear as real-life incarnations of Dr. Pangloss, one of Voltaire's greatest characters.Pangloss is hired as schoolmaster for Candid, the son of a nobleman in Westphalia. Pangloss may criticize details of life in the Baron's castle. But, as a teacher of metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology, he takes delight in proving that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron's castle is the most magnificent of all castles, and the Baroness the prettiest of all possible ladies."It is demonstrable," Pangloss lectures, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged; and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."Khatami, who went on 63 foreign trips to 34 countries in eight years, never quoted Pangloss. Instead he tried to impress his audiences with quotations from Hobbes, Hegel, Locke, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Habermas, among others, and then proceeded to tell an incredulous world that the bizarre system crated by the late Ayatollah Khomeini was "the perfect model of government" for the whole of mankind.Khatami first won election with a list of 10 promises the first of which was to "restore the rule of law."That did not happen.His presidency witnessed the notorious chain-killings that saw the brutal murder of two dozen dissidents and intellectuals, including Dariush Foruhar, a former minister in Khomeini's first government, and his wife Parvaneh who had their heads chopped off and displayed on the mantelpiece of the reception room in their house.Khatami promised to bring the perpetrators to justice and failed. He also failed to find and punish those who murdered Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photo-journalist, in the notorious Evin Prison in Tehran. Nor did Khatami lift a finger to prevent the closing of more than 100 newspaper and magazines, many of which had fought for his election, and to prevent the illegal arrests of dozens of journalists.Finally, Khatami looked the other way while the student movement, which had initially formed to back his promised reforms, was crushed and thousands of activists jailed.Khatami's second promise was to "revive the national economy".That, too, has not happened. Iran is more dependent on oil revenues today than eight years ago. And, setting aside the recent rise in oil prices, the average income per head per annum is four percent lower than 1997 in real terms.None of all that, however, could be blamed on Khatami because under the existing constitution the president is little more than a kind of prime minister with largely ceremonial functions in an absolute monarchy.I know I might incur the wrath of many Iranians by saying this. But I believe that the Khatami experience was useful for Iran. It showed that Khomeinism is incompatible with democracy and that the Islamic Republic cannot become what it was not intended to be.Since Khatami likes to quote Nietzsche rather than any Muslim philosopher, let us also enlist the support of the author of " Thus Spoke Zarathustra".Nietzsche says : What does not kill me, makes me stronger!This is true of Iran at the end of the Khatami experience.Printer-friendly version Email this item to a friendEmail Benador Associates: eb@benadorassociates.com

OSAMA FADES AS DEMOCRACY GAINSAn opinion poll in six Muslim countries (http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../07/14/AR2005071401030.html)
shows surprising results for attitudes about Islamists and Western-style democracy. Support for Osama bin Laden has fallen to half of what it had been in previous surveys, while support for democratization and freedom has grown enormously:Osama bin Laden's standing has dropped significantly in some key Muslim countries, while support for suicide bombings and other acts of violence has "declined dramatically," according to a new survey released today.In a striking finding, predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle East and Asian countries are also as alarmed as Western nations about Islamic extremism, which is now seen as a threat in their own nations too, the poll found. ...Compared with previous surveys, the new poll also found growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims surveyed now say democracy can work in their countries and is not just a political system for the West. Support for democracy was in the 80 percent range in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco and the highest score at 43 percent in Pakistan and 48 percent in Turkey, where significant numbers were unsure."They are not just paying lip service. They are saying they specifically want a fair judiciary, freedom of expression and more than one party to participate in elections. It wasn't just a vague concept," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and director of the project. "U.S. and Western ideas about democracy have been globalized and are in the Muslim world."This demonstrates that Bush's policies of attacking terrorists where they have hidden themselves and demanding the liberalization of the Arabic world has had a huge, positive impact. Despite the carping of how Iraq has created terrorists in Muslim nations, the unmasking of Islamofascism as a bloodthirsty movement perfectly happy with killing fellow Muslims by the hundreds to make its point has destroyed its credibility. In contrast, the success of the Iraqi elections, followed by the popular democratic uprising against Syria in Lebanon and the demand for free election in Egypt, has shown Arabs and Muslims that democracy and pluralism works.Democratization brings hope and a measure of control over one's life, two qualities that have long been absent from the tyrannies and kleptocracies of the Middle East. Until Iraq and Afghanistan showed it could work for Arabs as well as Europeans, the subjects of these autocracies had neither nor any glimmer of possibility of achieving them. Now that they see their cousins able to govern themselves through free elections and hold their leaders accountable for their actions, they understand the futility of suicide attacks and terrorism. Just like anyone else, they will choose freedom and hope over oppression and death.This is how we will win the war on Islamofascist terror -- not by winning big battles, although that necessarily has to happen to set the stage for these successes. We will win the war by discrediting the enemy among their own people, who will one day utterly reject their nihilistic ideologies. That day, apparently, is almost here.
SUNNIS CAMPAIGN FOR DEMOCRACY, PARTICIPATIONAfter seeing themselves politically marginalized for boycotting what turned out to be hugely popular elections, Iraq's Sunni leaders have now begun to urge their communities to take part in the electoral process:In mosques, conferences and on the street, some Sunni Arab leaders are rallying members of their once dominant community to join forces and participate in upcoming elections in a bid to find their place in the new Iraq. ..."Boycotting the last elections ... deprived the people of opportunities," said Sheik Adul Jabbar Qadri, preacher at the Fattah mosque in the largely Sunni town of Beiji. "Now everyone feels this was a mistake and that all Iraqis should participate."Qadri has been using his weekly Friday sermons to encourage Sunnis to cast ballots. "We also urged them to put their differences aside and to keep away from violence," he said.Qadri said a recent meeting in Beiji brought together tribal sheiks, clerics and local dignitaries to support calls for contesting the votes.Laith al-Sumaidei, who owns a media production company in Beiji, said his firm was designing posters to encourage a Sunni turnout. One of them shows Iraqis from different ethnic and religious groups, holding ballots that read: "Yes to freedom" and "Yes to democracy."The Sunnis continue to discover that their Kurdish and Shi'ite countrymen have almost fully embraced democracy as the shared future of Iraq, and that the so-called insurgency has not dented their enthusiasm for self-rule. Their ability to carve out even a representative role for the minority Sunnis, who once dominated Iraq under Saddam, was severely hampered by their ill-chosen strategy of intransigence in January. Not only did they wind up with an abnormally small contingent in the Assembly to look after their interests, but they made themselves into an easy scapegoat for all that remains wrong in Iraqi life, including what many saw as a tacit (and not-so-tacit) endorsement of terrorist attacks that mostly kill Iraqis these days.They managed to get better representation for themselves than they deserved at the constitutional convention, mostly because Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has enough political skills to understand that the Sunnis have to take some ownership of its final outcome. That requires the Sunnis to start supporting democracy as the future for Iraqi political expression. This shows them taking the first steps towards a broad-based endorsement of freedom and self-government.This will severely undermine the terrorists who have kept the Sunnis believing that they could once again achieve supremacy through bombs and bullets in Iraq. Most of Iraq has turned against the foreigners of the Zarqawi/al-Qaeda network. If the Sunnis pack it in, the country will demand an end to the insurgency, and Zarqawi's lunatics will shortly run out of places to hide.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

Yes, Monk, i should have remembered that I am not entirely alone here. I enjoy your always intelligent and well-informed posts.There is no other way to put it, other than a travesty of responsible journalism...that our mainstream press has entirely ignored the fact, THE FACT, that the majority of iraqis are pleased that the US threw out a tyrant and is substituting democracy in his place. Similarly, the press ignores the fact that Iraq is igniting a democratic revolution in the Islamic world, just as intended...by the neocons. This is one of the most incredible stories in all of history - the age-old battle between Islam and the Judeo-Christian west may come to a peaceful, democratic, conclusion. If so, Bush will go down as one of the greatest of all world leaders, another Churchill (if without the eloquence). And the incredibly small-minded, petty left is missing it. History will judge them very, very badly.

as always, Holmes, there is no way we can agree.I didn't mean to say that it is not a given that the majority of Iraqis are pleased hussein is gone. What i was saying is that press gives the impression that the US is an imperialist, aggressive invader whom Iraqis despise and never wanted there. That, in turn, suggests that they'd rather have had hussein in place, than have the US come in and free them of him. It also implies that the insurgency is an Iraqi-based movement meant to free iraqis from American occupation. I've listened to liberal talk shows in both the US and Canada, and that is the overwhelming understanding of events there that callers have. And that they got from the mainstream press. The poll i cited should be headline news everywhere. Bet it won't be, because that would demonstrate US success, G-d forbid.Iraq was never a democracy. The Sunnis took power at its modern day birth after WW 1, and never relinquished power. (Perhaps you're thinking of Iran, which did have a nascent democracy in the early 50's.) what democratic revolution? Well, aside from iraq itself, Lebanon just had elctions, there's all sorts of talk about democracy that didn't happen bfore, there is some liberaliztion in Egypy and elsewhere. As i said, it is a spark, the flames have not yet broken out.The US is for democracy everywhere. At the same time, there is realism that instant democracy everywhere may mean the islamists coming to power - which would be okay, except that they'll immediately terminate democracy, as they were about to do in Algeria. However, as the poll also shows, most Islamic peoples are becoming cynical about islamism and more pro-demcoracy. soon enough, any Islamic democracy will not vote Islamists into power. Again, iraq is a big part of that shift.And, again, history will judge leftists very, very badly - and it has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, many of the key neo-cons are affirmed atheists.

If you believe that, then you are very seriously misinformed. In fact, the majority of the founding neocons are Jews (which is why anti-Semities now use "neo-con" as code for dirty jew), although the movement has grown rapidly and gained the support of many, if not most, conservatives and a few true liberals (JFK residuals).

Well, we'll kind of agree.As for the second coming, I'm not a Christian and it is, therefore, entirely an irrelevant concept to me, and one in which I have no belief.

Well, we'll kind of agree...and disagree (it is obvious to me that there'd have been no elections in lebanon were it not for Iraq, Egypt would continue to be as entirely undemocratic as ever, and there'd be no talk of a democratic revolution amongst Arab intellectuals - except from their jail cells).As for the second coming, I'm not a Christian and it is, therefore, entirely an irrelevant concept to me, and one in which I have no belief.

You're quite wrong again. The actual neo-cons are divided between liberalism and conservatism on social issues. Their agreement, and the basis on which they are all neo-cons, is the need for the US to promote democracy in order for there to be world peace. They also agree that until the world is safely democratic, and therefore safely peaceful, the US must remian the overwhelming power.

You're conflating neo-cons with evangelicals - whom you smear as a group unfairly. Pat Robertson, BTW, has been, infact, severely critical of the neo-cons.The neo-con movement has been around since the late 70's, I believe. It was not until 9/11 that its views were adopted by the republican party. As you may recall, Bush ran on an isolationist foreign policy in 2000, the opposite of neo-conservatism. But he, Rice, Cheney and Rumsfeld realized in short order the truth of its vision at that precipitous moment.As for "put down the fags," that was not what happened. Rather, it was opposition to gay marriage, and that alone. But, assuredly, we will not agree on that anyhow.

The NYT's middle east columnist, thomas friedman, supported the war in iraq for the reasons neo-cons do, even though he's a liberal. He's one of several leftists who supported the war, hirchens being another, because they realized that it was necessary in light of 9/11 and in light of the need for democracy to battle islamism in the Islamic homeland. Here's a column of his on the worry about Islamism taking root in Islamic communities in the west.Op-Ed Columnist
A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 15, 2005A few years ago I was visiting Bahrain and sitting with friends in a fish restaurant when news appeared on an overhead TV about Muslim terrorists, men and women, who had taken hostages in Russia. What struck me, though, was the instinctive reaction of the Bahraini businessman sitting next to me, who muttered under his breath, "Why are we in every story?" The "we" in question was Muslims.The answer to that question is one of the most important issues in geopolitics today: Why are young Sunni Muslim males, from London to Riyadh and Bali to Baghdad, so willing to blow up themselves and others in the name of their religion? Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers; it would be ludicrous to suggest that.But virtually all suicide bombers, of late, have been Sunni Muslims. There are a lot of angry people in the world. Angry Mexicans. Angry Africans. Angry Norwegians. But the only ones who seem to feel entitled and motivated to kill themselves and totally innocent people, including other Muslims, over their anger are young Sunni radicals. What is going on?Neither we nor the Muslim world can run away from this question any longer. This is especially true when it comes to people like Muhammad Bouyeri - a Dutch citizen of Moroccan origin who last year tracked down the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, a critic of Islamic intolerance, on an Amsterdam street, shot him 15 times and slit his throat with a butcher knife. He told a Dutch court on the final day of his trial on Tuesday: "I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion."Clearly, several things are at work. One is that Europe is not a melting pot and has never adequately integrated its Muslim minorities, who, as The Financial Times put it, often find themselves "cut off from their country, language and culture of origin" without being assimilated into Europe, making them easy prey for peddlers of a new jihadist identity.Also at work is Sunni Islam's struggle with modernity. Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam. Islam's self-identity is that it is the authentic and ideal expression of monotheism. Muslims are raised with the view that Islam is God 3.0, Christianity is God 2.0, Judaism is God 1.0, and Hinduism is God 0.0.Part of what seems to be going on with these young Muslim males is that they are, on the one hand, tempted by Western society, and ashamed of being tempted. On the other hand, they are humiliated by Western society because while Sunni Islamic civilization is supposed to be superior, its decision to ban the reform and reinterpretation of Islam since the 12th century has choked the spirit of innovation out of Muslim lands, and left the Islamic world less powerful, less economically developed, less technically advanced than God 2.0, 1.0 and 0.0."Some of these young Muslim men are tempted by a civilization they consider morally inferior, and they are humiliated by the fact that, while having been taught their faith is supreme, other civilizations seem to be doing much better," said Raymond Stock, the Cairo-based biographer and translator of Naguib Mahfouz. "When the inner conflict becomes too great, some are turned by recruiters to seek the sick prestige of 'martyrdom' by fighting the allegedly unjust occupation of Muslim lands and the 'decadence' in our own."This is not about the poverty of money. This is about the poverty of dignity and the rage it can trigger.One of the London bombers was married, with a young child and another on the way. I can understand, but never accept, suicide bombing in Iraq or Israel as part of a nationalist struggle. But when a British Muslim citizen, nurtured by that society, just indiscriminately blows up his neighbors and leaves behind a baby and pregnant wife, to me he has to be in the grip of a dangerous cult or preacher - dangerous to his faith community and to the world.How does that happen? Britain's Independent newspaper described one of the bombers, Hasib Hussain, as having recently undergone a sudden conversion "from a British Asian who dressed in Western clothes to a religious teenager who wore Islamic garb and only stopped to say salaam to fellow Muslims."The secret of this story is in that conversion - and so is the crisis in Islam. The people and ideas that brought about that sudden conversion of Hasib Hussain and his pals - if not stopped by other Muslims - will end up converting every Muslim into a suspect and one of the world's great religions into a cult of death.

I've been referring to the Christian world, not the faith, which we in the west are. I fully identify with being part of that world, and appreciate its heritage, from its inherently peaceful faith, to classical music, to, especially, liberal democracy. That is in huge contrast to the islamic world, despite its periods of moderation and civility compared to corresponding periods of barbarity in the west. The Islamic world has contributed nothing of significance in the last 1,000 years or so, not in the arts, music, science, philosophy, or political forms. That, I believe, is due to major thematic flaws in the faith, in particular the Koran's War Verses and Sharia Law. So backward and vile are they, they have held back the entire civilization. And yet, I believe a democratic revolution is brewing there, and when it explodes, so will the latent creativity and ability of islamic peoples. We should not forget that the base of islamic civilization, Arabia, is peopled by descendants of some of the greatest of all early civilizations.

It is true, whether you like or not, whether it was because of Christianity, the faith, or not, that the western world, Christendom, produced the greatest and fairest civilization, by far and bar none, ever.It is also true that attributions of great accomplishments to the wrold of islam past are hugely exaggerated, and that much of that was, in fact, the accomplishments of lands they conquered, rather than what they discovered themselves. A good example is the math of India, appropriated by the islamic world after conquering India. Regardless, while the islamic world crashed into utter barbarity, the Christian world elevated to something incredible. That is not pure chance.As for my thoughts on Islam, you are so, so wrong to believe that only a fundamentalist could have those beliefs. There is a huge group of non Christian, often atheist scholars, who take that view, and take it despite much respect for the better side of the faith and civilization. There are even muslims who take that view. All one has to do is read the Koran. Yes, you can buy the utterly disingenuous arguments about Jihad being "spiritual," and so on, if you wish, but every true scholar knows otherwise - as was well demonstrated on threads last week. If you deny the truth of that, then you are indicating yourself to be thoroughly a part of the very late relativist movement that refuses to believe - for some kind of false idealism - that any culture or faith or civilization can be superior to any other. Western liberal democracy is superior, and the civilzation that spawned it and has propagated it is superior. But as others adopt liberal democracy, they then take a guiant step toward equality with ourselves. Japan is an excellent example.To address whether Christianity, the faith, itself produced liberal democracy, or whether it resulted despite Christianity...there's a good argument either way. My view is that the faith is not, innately, in any way inimical to it, unlike Islam. In a sense, then, the faith is neutral, although its peaceful message, and its message that the poor and oppressed are every bit the equal of all others, is noteworthy. That jesus was such a man (or G-d, take your pick) and led such an examplary life, cannot be overlooked (especially in contrast to mohammed's life as a polygamist, warrior who killed personally, slave owner, pedaphile). Yes, many Christians fought liberal democracy for various reasons when it largely arose in the 1800's. But the majority favoured it. Otherwise, it could not have been established, at a time when the majority were, as you'd describe them today, fundamentalists. And, yes, today there are a number (a small minority) of fundamentalists who are so angry and hostile by the secularization that resulted, they feel disdain for democracy. They feel disdain for non Christian immigration to whom they wrongly attribute "social marxism" and the decline of Christian values as they see it. They actually favour some kind of democratic Christian theocracy - although they'd never quite say that. They are the minority, the distict minority.The real threat today comes from the very liberal Christians - a larger group than the extreme fundamentalists who desire a Christian theocracy, as opposed to the majority of moderate evangelicals, like Bush and Rice. These ultra liberal Christians, religous and secular, have lost sight of and touch with the essence of the civilization that produced liberal democracy. The dire consequence is their unwittingly undermining of that civilization. Relativism is a key means. If everything is equal and just a matter of subjective opinion, and there are no absolute values, then even key moral values based on pschological truths are no longer necessary true, let alone worth defending. If collective rights trump individual rights, then the founding liberal democratic principle of the equality of the individual - not the class of people - is challenged and eroded. They support, unwittingly values so far left that the family - the root of human psychology and emotional health (I'm a child counsellor by training) - is undermined. The courts, more and more rather than the people, make law, undermining peoples' feeling that government is of the people, by the people, for the people. Rather, government of, for and by the people is subject to non electable, non accountable courts. That means the will of the people is secondary to the will of teh courts. (Yes, the courts are necessary to protect rights government would trample. But the founding constitution protects those rights just fine, as long as the courts respect them as written. There is no need to alter them to include a judge's temporal sensibilities, based on today's, rather than universal, sensibilities.)There is much more that can be said, but this should suffice.In summary: It was in the Christian world and no other that liberal democracy arose, at a time when the vast majority was what you would call fundamentalist. It is dubious that that is coincidental, whether the faith itself was responsible, or whether it was amenable to the nature of thinking it allowed to arise over time.

Given how impolite you are, e.g., "You are a fraud," I have to decide whether I wish to answer. My points stand regardless, with my response being predictable to anyone who understands them.

Faith, I'm very pleased to see you back. Don't get yourself banned anymore!!!!

Please find the post where i denied being Jewish.These questions I'll answer:1) If Xianity is the source of liberal democracy, how do you account for it having risen before Xianity, that after Xians rose to power they intentionally crushed those democracies, and that form of institution only reemerged as societies rebelled against Xian dominated govts to institute secular ones in the style of ancient pagan govts?I never said Christianity is the source of democracy. It is not, at least not per se. What i did say was that (modern day, "liberal") democracy arose in the christian world, and no other, and when the majority of that world was what is today called fundamentalist. And i said it is not coincidental that democracy arose in that world and no other. Christainity, the faith, does not promote democracy, obviously, but its messages are in no way inimical to democracy, whereas other faiths perhaps, and islam for sure, have messages that are. Thus, the christian world could give rise to thinkers who resurrected greek and Roman democracy, but to also in short order broaden the concept to what we call liberal, all-inclusive, democracy. Maybe the greeks and Romans would have done that too, given a chance. In fact, i'd wager they probably would have. But the point remains that in the modern world democracy arose in a major subset of one civilization only, protestant Christendom, and no others. (Not all that long ago Christians thought of the world as Christendom and other religious civilizations, as muslims today still tend to think in temrms of Islamdom and Christendom, too, for that matter.) Moreover, all other civilizations resisted democracy, except the one so closely related as to be almost one and the same, Jewish Israel, which is the only nation to have been born a democracy.2) If Xianity is the source of scientific progress, how come the only two great periods of scientific and cultural advancement fell outside the time period where Xianity hald greatest dominance, that the greatest period of ignorance in Western Civilization is without question during that same period of Xian domination, and the greatest advancements we have ever seen came in response to the enlightenment which saw scientific investigation reject religious control of human knowledge?Again, I never said Christianity is the source of scientific achievement, at least not per se. But it is likely, again, not coincidental that the Enlightenment arose in the Christian world and no other. It may also not be coincidental that Christianity's immediate ancestors were the greeks and Romans. this is not to deny that after Christianity formed the advancements of the greeks and Romans were lost - a point i have made myself in past discussions with others. For sure, the new Christian world quickly lost touch with the prime message of jesus, in effect largely abandoning the faith in essence, and suffered for it. For that matter, so did my people, the Jews, suffer hugely as a result of Christians losing sight of this, and becoming unforgiveably anti-Semitic and wicked in their treatment of the Jews...leading straight to the holocaust itself.The irony is that The Enlightenment created the intellectual conditions for Christianity to actually come to recognize itself, a recognition i would argue was not fully achieved until liberal democracy took firm root. The further irony, however, is that the same liberal democracy has led to our present age where relativism, and the simple desire to be so fair to and tolerant of all others, has in less than a generation caused us to lose sight of who we are, and what our liberal democracy truly is. In so doing, we are endangering both ourselves and liberal democracy itself. Perhaps also true, is that this same process is causing a resurgent anti-Semitism.3) If all Islam is inherently against both science and freedom, why did some of the key building blocks of both to our modern western science and govt come from Islamic nations, and in contradiction to Xian precepts?I never said "all" Islam is contrary to science and freedom. But major portions are. people, however, have tendencies to deny what they will, depending on circumstances and chance. So, for various periods, islamic civilization has done reasonably well, and, often enough in times well past, been much more civilized than the christian world. But it is not coincidental that the christian world shows a fairly linear line of improvement, right up until liberal democracy, whereas islam shows major ups and downs. The seeds of its periodic declines, and the harness that has restrained it from a linear improvement, is in the faith itself. Thus, when the War verses and sharia law have been denied, Isalmic civilization has done well; when they have been taken as written and meant, it has declined. In contrast, the more Christianity is taken as written adn meant, the greater the achivements of Christian civilization. (And, as Christians lose sight of their faith these days - and i'm thinking of the liberal churches - the more Christian civilization shows withering.)