OFFLINE

as the dominant force in shaping the current world order, we tend to view our western values and beliefs as the world norm. additionally, we tend to view history through a western prism. from greece and rome, to the dark ages, the renaissance, the discovery of the new world, the founding of america, the age of enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the world wars, and the UN. this is how we see history as having taken place, and through all that time, we've learned many, many hard lessons in the progression toward our modern perceptions of human rights, and freedom.

but most of the world still doesn't share our ideas of liberty and western democracy. the chinese historically haven't cared about human rights or liberty; neither have the russians, the muslims, large portions of africa, southeast asia, etc. see, most corners of the globe had their own mighty empires, and stem from an entirely different cultural progression. where we see hard lessons learned and now understand the consequences of our actions (as a people), many others see us as hypocrites and wonder who are we to tell them about such concepts of peace and justice. where we see hard lessons learned, they see oppression, occupation, and imperialism, and they resent us for our success on the world stage, because it's come at their expense.

for many of the peoples listed above, "the cause" takes precedent over the individuals. this is true under islam, communism, socialism, or any number of isms. so as these groups grow in influence and prestige, and the west diminishes its dominant presence on the world scene, i think it's important to caution against believing that the world will continue to progress more toward our western ideals and values. in fact, many want to take back what they view as stolen from them, during the course of our time on top, essentially wiping out centuries of history.

OFFLINE

I think there is a reason that Communism took so well in Asia, many of those cultures had a history of being more group oriented than individual oriented.  That said, countries like S. Korea and Japan have been very successful as democratic, capitalistic nations despite having such histories.  Its hit and miss, but I see and generally agree with your assertion.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think there is a reason that Communism took so well in Asia, many of those cultures had a history of being more group oriented than individual oriented.  That said, countries like S. Korea and Japan have been very successful as democratic, capitalistic nations despite having such histories.  Its hit and miss, but I see and generally agree with your assertion.

but why are japan and SK the way they are? heavy western influence and administration during concurrent wars.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think there is a reason that Communism took so well in Asia, many of those cultures had a history of being more group oriented than individual oriented.  That said, countries like S. Korea and Japan have been very successful as democratic, capitalistic nations despite having such histories.  Its hit and miss, but I see and generally agree with your assertion.

but why are japan and SK the way they are? heavy western influence and administration during concurrent wars.

That is true.  A good example of a country that hasn't been occupied by the US or UK military that has developed a very western style government with many of the liberties we hold dear is the Republic of China (not to ever be confused with the PROC!).  Many Asian nations have histories of autocratic governing and have cultures promoting strong central government and society over individual.  Despite this, you see those countries that invest heavily in strong public education and that allow for some degree of dissident develop more 'liberal', western style governments.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think there is a reason that Communism took so well in Asia, many of those cultures had a history of being more group oriented than individual oriented.  That said, countries like S. Korea and Japan have been very successful as democratic, capitalistic nations despite having such histories.  Its hit and miss, but I see and generally agree with your assertion.

but why are japan and SK the way they are? heavy western influence and administration during concurrent wars.

That is true.  A good example of a country that hasn't been occupied by the US or UK military that has developed a very western style government with many of the liberties we hold dear is the Republic of China (not to ever be confused with the PROC!).  Many Asian nations have histories of autocratic governing and have cultures promoting strong central government and society over individual.  Despite this, you see those countries that invest heavily in strong public education and that allow for some degree of dissident develop more 'liberal', western style governments.

well, taiwan has also been heavily supported by the west to guard against chinese influence. anyway, i'm sure some new order will arise, just don't expect it to be quite as liberating as what we now enjoy. i mean we're in the process of being phased out, due not only to our own policies, but also due to birthrates.

OFFLINE

Well, one of the big reasons the values/philosophies of the west have been so prevalent/successful over the last few centuries hasn't been because there was necessarily anything inherently better/more worthy in them, but because we were generally the ones with the guns, the big ships and the infectious diseases. As Robert DeNiro said in The Untouchables:  "You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word".

Sort of goes back to my favourite Eddie Izzard sketch as well....



:-)

The reason we're not so much in the ascendant these days is that a lot of the rest of the world has pretty much caught up with us technologically (and economically, for the likes of china, india and maybe russia), so they aren't as easy to push around any more.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

The reason we're not so much in the ascendant these days is that a lot of the rest of the world has pretty much caught up with us technologically (and economically, for the likes of china, india and maybe russia), so they aren't as easy to push around any more.  

the rest of the world is about to do the pushing. our time has come and gone, due to our own extinctionist policies.

OFFLINE

i mean you could say the rest of the world is catching up, but they're catching up while we're falling behind. why? they're actually competing economically, and utilizing their resources. now western europe may be out of resources, but america is not. we're just not competing anymore, content with (or blind to) our decline.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think there is a reason that Communism took so well in Asia, many of those cultures had a history of being more group oriented than individual oriented.  That said, countries like S. Korea and Japan have been very successful as democratic, capitalistic nations despite having such histories.  Its hit and miss, but I see and generally agree with your assertion.

but why are japan and SK the way they are? heavy western influence and administration during concurrent wars.

That is true.  A good example of a country that hasn't been occupied by the US or UK military that has developed a very western style government with many of the liberties we hold dear is the Republic of China (not to ever be confused with the PROC!).  Many Asian nations have histories of autocratic governing and have cultures promoting strong central government and society over individual.  Despite this, you see those countries that invest heavily in strong public education and that allow for some degree of dissident develop more 'liberal', western style governments.

well, taiwan has also been heavily supported by the west to guard against chinese influence. anyway, i'm sure some new order will arise, just don't expect it to be quite as liberating as what we now enjoy. i mean we're in the process of being phased out, due not only to our own policies, but also due to birthrates.

Birthrates are not a huge issue to me.  Actually it may prove an attribute in retaining agricultural self sufficiency.  It may sound somewhat trivial, but simply feeding the masses has been a huge issue in Japan and many parts of the world.  In the US (for the moment at hand, anyways) we are able to provide for ourselves rather nicely.  And what we need that may be lacked in birthrate we make up for in immigration.

One other huge advantage that we currently hold is our higher education.  While our elementary and high schools may not be universally highly regarded, our universities are.  Every year the lists of top universities in the world are dominated by American schools like Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.  The best and brightest from all over the world (especially countries like India, Japan, China, and S. Korea) come to the US to study, and many of the best scientists from these countries end up teaching in American institutions.  They often even become permanent residents or even US citizens.  This has been a serious issue for many countries as they can not retain their intellects.  China has recently been trying to challenge the US in the volume of scientific literature published and number of PhDs produced, however like most Chinese products they lack the quality of their American rivals.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

but why are japan and SK the way they are? heavy western influence and administration during concurrent wars.

Western nations are primarily Christian Nations.  And the tenents of Christianity teach that people treat one another the way they, themselves woul like to be treated.  Christianty teaches compassion, goodness and moraltiy. So it was inevitable that eventually the people (wh finally were able to read teBible for themselves) began to deman that govts treat the people this way.

China and Japan are primarily athiest countries.  (I dunno about S Korea).  But N. Korea is athiest too.  And Islamic nations do not adhere much to the compassionate teachings of Christianity.  Those nations all have brutal, political philosophies and the govts and dictators do not value their people like the West does.  Inividuals have few rights.

THAT's why they are they way they are.  Rule by the sword...not by the will of the people.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i mean you could say the rest of the world is catching up, but they're catching up while we're falling behind. why? they're actually competing economically, and utilizing their resources. now western europe may be out of resources, but america is not. we're just not competing anymore, content with (or blind to) our decline.

Dod, we're falling behind because of our politics.  NAFTA has just about destroyed us as an economic powerhouse.  We've shipped most jobs oerseas.  We've strangled businesses to the point that it is easier and cheaper for them to move overseas and hire foreign workers.  We manufacture very little here anymore.  

Our trade policies favor foriegn markets.  We're deep in debt to others because we have spent ourselves into poverty and had to beg China to bail us out.  When China stops helping us, will we turn to the EU?

We have no control over our borders.  And rather than enact policies to retify these things, we continue to spend, continue to tax businesses and people and focus on sending illegals to college and banning stupid things like circumcision.  Our EPA has imposed restrictions on our oil so that instead of just 1 blend being produced, we now have to make several different blends of oil to satisfy the bureacracies of varous regions of the nation.  We're more worried about seals and wildlife and impose even more taxes and restrict areas of wilderness that businesses might otherwise be able to us.  That's why California hs such high taxes ad why we cant drill in ANWAR.

Political Correctness has turned this once mighty nation into an afterthought.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Western nations are primarily Christian Nations.  And the tenents of Christianity teach that people treat one another the way they, themselves woul like to be treated.  Christianty teaches compassion, goodness and moraltiy. So it was inevitable that eventually the people (wh finally were able to read teBible for themselves) began to deman that govts treat the people this way.

But thats not the way it is.  The first Republic was founded by pagans five hundred years before the birth of Christ.  The first democracy was founded by, yet again, pagans at around 500 BC.  Did Rousseau cite Christianity as the reason for freedom in Social Contract?  Was Voltaire motivated by faith in Christianity?  While the moral philosophy of Jesus was influential on Kant and while Locke was certainly very Christian, it is very historically inaccurate to try to attribute most of the western ideals of individual rights and anti-authoritarianism to Christianity (the religion used to justify monarchies and slavery into the 1800's).

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
China and Japan are primarily athiest countries.  (I dunno about S Korea).  But N. Korea is athiest too.  And Islamic nations do not adhere much to the compassionate teachings of Christianity.  Those nations all have brutal, political philosophies and the govts and dictators do not value their people like the West does.  Inividuals have few rights.


THAT's why they are they way they are.  Rule by the sword...not by the will of the people.

So by your explanation China and Japan are brutal authoritarian countries because they are mostly atheist?  Despite the fact that Japan has a democratic government with individualistic rights?  According to this the UK and many Scandinavian countries would likewise lack you "western christian values" because they have dominantly atheist populations.

I wouldn't be so bold as to say the Islamic countries are so horrible because they lack the compassionate teachings of Christianity.  The witch hunts and the Reconquista don't say much about Christian compassion.  The Islamic countries are so horrible because unlike in Europe, too few people have been bold enough to risk their lives and challenge the religious institutions (a la Galileo).

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
I think there is a reason that Communism took so well in Asia, many of those cultures had a history of being more group oriented than individual oriented.  That said, countries like S. Korea and Japan have been very successful as democratic, capitalistic nations despite having such histories.  Its hit and miss, but I see and generally agree with your assertion.

but why are japan and SK the way they are? heavy western influence and administration during concurrent wars.

That is true.  A good example of a country that hasn't been occupied by the US or UK military that has developed a very western style government with many of the liberties we hold dear is the Republic of China (not to ever be confused with the PROC!).  Many Asian nations have histories of autocratic governing and have cultures promoting strong central government and society over individual.  Despite this, you see those countries that invest heavily in strong public education and that allow for some degree of dissident develop more 'liberal', western style governments.

well, taiwan has also been heavily supported by the west to guard against chinese influence. anyway, i'm sure some new order will arise, just don't expect it to be quite as liberating as what we now enjoy. i mean we're in the process of being phased out, due not only to our own policies, but also due to birthrates.

Birthrates are not a huge issue to me.  Actually it may prove an attribute in retaining agricultural self sufficiency.  It may sound somewhat trivial, but simply feeding the masses has been a huge issue in Japan and many parts of the world.  In the US (for the moment at hand, anyways) we are able to provide for ourselves rather nicely.  And what we need that may be lacked in birthrate we make up for in immigration.

One other huge advantage that we currently hold is our higher education.  While our elementary and high schools may not be universally highly regarded, our universities are.  Every year the lists of top universities in the world are dominated by American schools like Berkeley, Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.  The best and brightest from all over the world (especially countries like India, Japan, China, and S. Korea) come to the US to study, and many of the best scientists from these countries end up teaching in American institutions.  They often even become permanent residents or even US citizens.  This has been a serious issue for many countries as they can not retain their intellects.  China has recently been trying to challenge the US in the volume of scientific literature published and number of PhDs produced, however like most Chinese products they lack the quality of their American rivals.

two points...well, maybe three. firstly, birthrates and immigration are a big deal. we may import more people into the country, but with them come their own attitudes and beliefs, rather than western beliefs. so over time, you quite obviously phase out the western way of life. just look at what is happening in europe, not only with the eastern europeans flooding into the west, but more importantly with the insane surge in muslim populations. it's happening before our very eyes. and the same thing is happening with the hispanic community here, which wouldn't be a problem, if these people weren't being fed radical anti-western propaganda. did you see the crap that they're exposing high school students in that TU4SD class in tucson? dude, go read the "speaking of schools" thread in this category. it's on the third page back.

add that to the chicano movement, and their whole perception of aztlan, and these people do not want what we want. look at what they want. they want to "take back" half of america.



this is very similar to the right of return issue with the palestinians. and in both cases, they are receiving help from the communist radicals such as bill ayers, and groups funded by george soros.

friend, the west that we know, and the values that we have striven for are under attack. start looking into everything i've told you, and if you dig deep enough, you'll get to the truth.

point two. our education system is a joke. you mention that the private institutions (universities) are the only ones succeeding. i think you get what i'm saying there. additionally, again university students are being bombarded with this anti-western, anti-capitalism, anti-religion propaganda. there is no longer any doubt that college professors are WAY out there to the left. they're teaching (along with al gore and van jones [i've seen the footage]) that kids know more than their parents these days, and that they should "educate" their parents to the "new realities." in short, they're teaching disobedience, and they're teaching that parents are just out of the loop these days, and that it's time for the youth to stand up and take the lead. how twisted and perverted is that? how many god dam stories are there about liberal professors basically silencing any differences of opinions that students may have with their marxist ideology?

and this same indoctrination of thought has seeped all the way down into our public class rooms. what about the arkansas year book just recently published that had a 'worst 5 people of all time' list, which consisted of hitler, bin laden, charles manson, george w. bush, and dick cheney? or how bout the mmm mmm MMM barack hussein obama productions put on by ELEMENTARY STUDENTS?! are you starting to get a picture of just how widespread this is?

you seem to have a great deal of faith in universities, but you go to college to get a job. and there's nothing wrong with that. but if you really want to LEARN, you have to go and learn it for yourself. you have to self educate. it's like a church. you can go in there and listen to everything the preacher (slash professor) has to say, but you're not going to have a clear understanding of god (slash the way the world works) unless YOU pursue a personal relationship with god, and do the research yourself. but you can't just read the bible, even if that's what you believe in. if you want to educate yourself and really understand what you believe in, then you have to go read the book of mormons. you have to read up on buddhist philosophy, and islamic teachings. even new wave wiccan beliefs. you have to search for the truth where you don't think it lies, in order to have a fuller understanding.

which leads me to point three; your last post. i understand the moral equivalency you're trying to draw here. that the muslims are only 4-5-600 years behind us, because christians once did horrible things like sharia countries do now. but as i asked in another thread, do we really have 600 years to wait for them "catch up?" at the rate we're going, we'll be phased out in a hundred.

and i dont think that the muslims ever will become as moderate as the christian west. why? the teachings are completely different. islam is a very hate filled religion with punishment for enemies, and a conquest-like mentality. polar opposites with jesus' teachings of peace and tolerance. i also think you need to brush up on your christianity, because jesus was very anti-authoritarian and rebellious. he spoke out against the hierarchy of the jewish priests, and i'm sure would do the same of the catholic church. but the papacy is a hold over from the age of monarchs in europe, and for much of its history, the pope was just another emperor. but who was it who primarily settled america? protestants, with their strong distaste for the heirarchy of "the church."

regardless, we're in the here and now, absent of a time machine, to compare the past of western ideals with the current state of islam. apples and oranges.

the end.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


two points...well, maybe three. firstly, birthrates and immigration are a big deal. we may import more people into the country, but with them come their own attitudes and beliefs, rather than western beliefs. so over time, you quite obviously phase out the western way of life. just look at what is happening in europe, not only with the eastern europeans flooding into the west, but more importantly with the insane surge in muslim populations.

This has always happened.  When populations mix their cultures usually fuse to produce something new.  Thats much of our cultural history, immigrants coming and culturally mixing.  

it's happening before our very eyes. and the same thing is happening with the hispanic community here, which wouldn't be a problem, if these people weren't being fed radical anti-western propaganda. did you see the crap that they're exposing high school students in that TU4SD class in tucson? dude, go read the "speaking of schools" thread in this category. it's on the third page back.

add that to the chicano movement, and their whole perception of aztlan, and these people do not want what we want. look at what they want. they want to "take back" half of america.

I remember the video you posted on the Tucson issue.  That was very, very wrong.  Most Americans -hispanic, white, or other- would be quick to observe that.  The issue at stake is how common is this.  From my experience in central California is not very.  I don't know how the Cubans and their descendants generally act in Florida, but from most of my experience both the hmong and mexican immigrant populations in the Valley have been fairly quick to assimilate (such as my fiancees family).  There is an impact to the eurocentric "American" culture, but thats a natural process (plus, its the reason we have some awesome Mexican and Thai/Vietnamese restraunts in Fresno).  While some idiots hold a belief in hispanic ethinic superiority they're a minority of the accused population.  What you've done is essentially the same as holding up a picture of a Amr. Nazi or Klan rally and accusing all white people of being racist.

  

Again, only the idiots would want this.  Most left Mexico and other central/south American countries for a reason.

this is very similar to the right of return issue with the palestinians. and in both cases, they are receiving help from the communist radicals such as bill ayers, and groups funded by george soros.

friend, the west that we know, and the values that we have striven for are under attack. start looking into everything i've told you, and if you dig deep enough, you'll get to the truth.

Again, fanatics aside most immigrants either come to western countries because of the freedom offered or at worst impartial to it.

point two. our education system is a joke. you mention that the private institutions (universities) are the only ones succeeding. i think you get what i'm saying there.

No, not necessarily private.  While admittedly all but one (UC Berkeley) of the schools I cited are private, most of the universities we rely on are public.  I could as well have cited U. Chicago, UNR, UCLA, UC Davis, U. Colorado, U. Arizona, Arizona State, U. Virginia, U. North Carolina (UNC), U. Wisc., Penn. State, U. Florida, Texas A&M, Rutgers, the list goes on ad nauseum.  You'd actually be surprised by the number of bright Chinese and Japanese students in lower tier universities like Fresno State.  These students (mainly the Chinese and Indian, the Japanese are used to it) are getting a healthy does of our dear western values and mostly seem to like it.

additionally, again university students are being bombarded with this anti-western, anti-capitalism, anti-religion propaganda. there is no longer any doubt that college professors are WAY out there to the left.

Some professors do harbor some fringe beliefs.  The question is do they a) bring it into the class room and b) to they persecute those who disagree with them.  I've been in college far too long, and during this time I've only had two instructors who tried to push leftist thought in class.  One was a sociology professor and he actually had evidence to back up most of his assertions.  The other was a poli sci teacher who was completely full of it.  My (nor any one else's to the best of my knowledge) grade was not impacted when I challenged their views so long as I could cite evidence.  I've only had Marxism discussed in two of my classes.  One was in a historiography course (the study of the study of history), where marxism was discussed as one form of historiography that was popular in the 1960's (the teacher didn't seem to much care for Marxist historiography, he seemed to favor historicism).  The second was in a sociology class when we discussed class conflict theory as a mode of sociological inquiry (one of three we studied).  I've had one prof do the same with conservative thought (he taught criminology, so no surprise there).  While it does happen, I think that there is probably much less anti-capitalist and anti-western 'indoctrination (thats only what some of it is)' going on in most universities.  That said, most of my coursework has been in the sciences, history, and music and may not represent whats happening in other departments.  Most of the anti-religion isn't indoctrination, its challenging religious arguments with science and philosophy.

they're teaching (along with al gore and van jones [i've seen the footage]) that kids know more than their parents these days, and that they should "educate" their parents to the "new realities." in short, they're teaching disobedience, and they're teaching that parents are just out of the loop these days, and that it's time for the youth to stand up and take the lead. how twisted and perverted is that?

New realities?  That's rubbish, same reality different understanding.  That said, I am better educated than my father and (in science) mother.  If the topic at hand is how to paint a building or how to raise three children on a tight budget then my father is the one to ask, if the question is related to paleoclimatology, evolution, or volcanology I'm much more the authority.  I love and respect my mother, however if she makes a bad argument about evolution I'll chime in.  Challenging authority and out dated thoughts isn't twisted or perverted, its essential to both social and scientific progression.  If the young hadn't challenged the way their parents did business we'd still all be living in caves and hunting with spears.

how many god dam stories are there about liberal professors basically silencing any differences of opinions that students may have with their marxist ideology?

None from anyone I've ever met that has any first hand experience.  Mostly my profs have challenged their students to disagree with them.  The only condition is that they have to have a well reasoned argument supported by facts.  But then again, this has mostly been in history, philosophy, or science.  Perhaps the do business different in other departments.

and this same indoctrination of thought has seeped all the way down into our public class rooms. what about the arkansas year book just recently published that had a 'worst 5 people of all time' list, which consisted of hitler, bin laden, charles manson, george w. bush, and dick cheney? or how bout the mmm mmm MMM barack hussein obama productions put on by ELEMENTARY STUDENTS?! are you starting to get a picture of just how widespread this is?

I have a lot of family working in education.  It seems that, contrary to your suggestions, that these kinds of things are not very wide spread at all.  If anything, in my K-12 education quite the opposite has been true, but then again I'm from a fairly conservative area.

you seem to have a great deal of faith in universities, but you go to college to get a job. and there's nothing wrong with that. but if you really want to LEARN, you have to go and learn it for yourself. you have to self educate. it's like a church. you can go in there and listen to everything the preacher (slash professor) has to say, but you're not going to have a clear understanding of god (slash the way the world works) unless YOU pursue a personal relationship with god, and do the research yourself. but you can't just read the bible, even if that's what you believe in. if you want to educate yourself and really understand what you believe in, then you have to go read the book of mormons. you have to read up on buddhist philosophy, and islamic teachings. even new wave wiccan beliefs. you have to search for the truth where you don't think it lies, in order to have a fuller understanding.

Thats something that most good instructors tend to understand.  The geology program at Fresno State, for instance, requires all students to do an independent research project under the supervision of a faculty adviser.  The idea is that the students have been equipped with the fundamentals of the science and as such should go out and investigate the world for them selves.  If what they see contradicts how the literature says it should be, document your findings and contradict the status quo with your evidence.  That the only way for us to progress as a science is to go into the world, learn from what we see, and try to figure out why that happens.  Thats the basic most approach to science.  Unfortunately not all programs share this sentiment.  Or in short, I agree real education takes place in the world, not in the lecture hall.

which leads me to point three; your last post. i understand the moral equivalency you're trying to draw here. that the muslims are only 4-5-600 years behind us, because christians once did horrible things like sharia countries do now. but as i asked in another thread, do we really have 600 years to wait for them "catch up?" at the rate we're going, we'll be phased out in a hundred.

No, we shouldn't wait 4-600 years.  We should challenge the lies and human rights abuses where we find them.  People in those societies need to raise up and challenge the religious establishment if they ever wish to be free (or else the best they can hope to be is Turkey, and thats not a particularly healthy system).  

and i dont think that the muslims ever will become as moderate as the christian west. why? the teachings are completely different. islam is a very hate filled religion with punishment for enemies, and a conquest-like mentality. polar opposites with jesus' teachings of peace and tolerance. i also think you need to brush up on your christianity, because jesus was very anti-authoritarian and rebellious. he spoke out against the hierarchy of the jewish priests, and i'm sure would do the same of the catholic church. but the papacy is a hold over from the age of monarchs in europe, and for much of its history, the pope was just another emperor. but who was it who primarily settled america? protestants, with their strong distaste for the heirarchy of "the church."

I get what you are saying, but I don't necessarily agree.  While Jesus may have taught compassion, the other half of the book spews hate.  While the New Testament was meant to amend the Old, no one ever went in and crossed out where the Old was in conflict.  Because of this people can go and correctly site passages condoning all sorts of evil actions from the OT.  Exodus 22:20 justified killing non-Christians while Exodus 22:18 condoned the witch hunts.  A nasty side of Christianity exists, but as a result of social changes in the last couple hundred years people have been reading the bible differently.  You don't hear many stories about Christians "suffer[ering] a witch to live."  If the social values in the muslim countries would change their reading of their holy books and suggestive accompaniments would change.

As for the protestants, they came over and created their own socio-religious hierarchies.

regardless, we're in the here and now, absent of a time machine, to compare the past of western ideals with the current state of islam. apples and oranges.

the end.

OFFLINE

well, i was gonna go line by line in response, but i think we're getting a little far into the weeds.

first, i'm skeptical - nay, disbelieving - that the muslim culture, as it has existed at any point thus far, CAN mix with western culture. for some muslims, it obviously can, but for islam as a whole, i don't see that happening, particularly when they despise our way of life, and want to see it undone. you forget to account for the deep seeded desire to have a global caliphate. if a muslim is a good muslim (i.e. adherent to the holy koran) then they on some level long for a muslim dominated planet. it's like communists. communists can't REALLY fit in and coexist in the western world, because it's like oil and water. communists aren't just going to give up on their ideology, and their ideology runs contrary to western ideals.

i guess most importantly, i feel that you fail to recognize just how every single one of these issues that i have brought up are connected. let me just put it this way. there are many in positions of power, both in the government and media, as well as in the business world, who want to see an end to the current world order. they want a form of authoritarianism - be it communism, or some form of crony capitalism, particularly of the current chinese model - (and many want this under a one world government) and america is really and truly the one linchpin left that stands in the way of this. the same radicalism of the 60's has now matured, as have those original radicals. the ideology of the left has permeated our culture, and we are now led to believe that we need a strong government to take charge, and bring us out of this "mess." hell, thomas friedman for the NYtimes talks about how envious he is of the chinese model, and we need that here, practically on a day by day basis.

but it is these same radicals that WANT to create civil unrest. they want riots, they want chaos. clowers and piven came up with a way of collapsing the american system all the way back in the 60s (surprise, the 60s), and that was by getting SOO many people on welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc, that the government just couldn't handle it. fast forward to today, and and a full 14 percent of americans are on food stamps.



More than 44.5 million Americans received SNAP benefits in March, an 11 percent increase from one year ago and nearly 61 percent higher than the same time four years ago. Nearly 21 million households are reliant on food stamps.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/congress-mulls-cuts-to-food-stamps-program-amid-record-number-of-recipients.html

you have van jones going around talking about his bottom up, top down, inside out theory, where the people have to get out and riot and protest, and force the government to declare martial law and clamp down to restore order. and this is the way he sees as bring down the current system.

and then you have george soros, who i'm about to devote a topic to.

anyway, point is, the elite positions within the democratic party have been taken over by far-left ideology. our president has filled his adminstration with like minded individuals. even before he was president, obama was in the company of radicals. bill ayers, a terrorist. frank marshall davis, an avowed communist. jeremiah wright, a black liberation theologian. and in the administration you have (or had) van jones. cass sunstein. anita dunn, who said she "worships" "her hero, chairman mao. in the state department you have harold koh, and advocate of transnationalism, which is defined as: … a concept that argues in favor of “global governance” as opposed to the constitutional sovereignty of independent nation-states. he also said that "“in an appropriate case, he didn’t see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.”

you also have obama's science czar john holdren, who has written:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

a few direct quotes:

"compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society. "

"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. "

the book is called "ecoscience" if you care to investigate.

there are just way too many of these radicals in the white house, including their boss, for me to get into, but here's a good link if you want to learn more about the people this president has surrounded himself with.

http://theundergroundconservative.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/obamas-radical-czars/