Did everyone see the attempted lynching at Ground Zero today?
Aguasilver.....
Islam most definitely allows freedom of religion....
While "Christians" (before and after AL Andalus) in Spain were persecuting Jews (and Muslims later on)....it was Muslims in the Ottoman Empire who offered safe haven....1492..the same year Columbus would "discover" the "West Indies."
It was in Al Andalus (The Land of the Vandals-Iberia) that Muslims built on the faded decay of western Roman structure...and would halt the hostility (again) wrought towards Jews by the Visigoths.... This latter group of people jailed, tortured, and deported Jews...forced them to convert their children to Christianity, and then forced those who would not leave the country to live (even as converted Christians) as second class citizens who were always under the Panoptic lens of scrutiny..... "perhaps they are not Christian enough"...was the thinking..."they might go back to their old ways."
After expelling Muslim rule from the Iberian Peninsula, the newly minted "Spaniards" went back to the same type of behavior...but towards Muslims as well as Jews...causing deportations...forced conversions...killings....and then building the society of scrutiny that, until the 1970's (and even not ending there) denied the right to worship to Jews and Muslims...and denied their place in Spanish history....
My family lived under the rule of Muslims since they entered what was once Armenia.....and my family lived for 500 years in peace...keeping their Armenian Gregorian faith, and finding success....
Protestant Christian assaults on the Gregorians via missionaries throughout the 19th century created great social conflicts amongst native Christian populations...which in turn tore at the heart of the Ottoman government itself...Aguasilver, it would be to your best interest to read about Armenia, the Gregorian Church, and the Ottoman Empire from various sources. Mikelong's rendition is totally unrecognizable history.
I'll just say this about the matter on this forum. Just because you claim to be something, that doesn't make it true. Marxism claims to work for freedom, but the only way to make Marxism stick is through some sort of totalitarian government. That's why all Marxist government have been totalitarian ones. It was wasn't just Stalin who started it, Lenin had a hand in it as well.
Le Defense Tech,
Marxism has been around before Marx even existed. He just defined ideas of social charity and collective effort. Socialism is about benefiting society through equality. One popular republican idea (that’s inherently financed by the Government) is equality before the law, with a free (Socialist) public defender—no matter how poor you may be.
Now, you're right. Most attempts of Marxism have been horrible. Stalin and Hitler killed groups of people (genocide) to accomplish equality and justice... but I think we agree that's wrong and counter-intuitive.
You have to understand there's more than one way to accomplish an idea. You're talking about policies, not ideology. Have an open-mind. Don't let the Propaganda Machine convince you to not even listen to ideas from Marxism.
Even if I'm a Looney-Toon that's completely wrong, then at least you can use my incorrectness and inverse the parameters to determine truth. But before you can do that, you must entertain my ideas by reading them before making a judgment.
If we could balance 1st (life, liberty, happiness), 2nd (healthcare, education, justice), and 3rd generation (minority or group) human rights, then I believe we could have true peace. I don't think we'll be ready for a long, long time—but I'm talking about it now so these ideas can mature and grow.
Thanks,
Dan
P.S.
What do you think of someone building a Mosque on private property near Ground Zero?Check out some of the comments I made on your hub and you might have a better idea of why I'm opposed to socialism. Marx was the first guy to put this stuff down in writings, but he got most of his ideas from the Jacobins in France, who, I might remind you were in large part responsible for the Terror.
As for the mosque, I think it's a stupid idea to build there and if this Imam forces the issue there will be repercussions. At the very least it shows an insensitivity to the families of the victims of 0/11. Because of that, I have a hard time believing this Imam when he says he wants to reach out to people of other faiths.
There would be no loss of face for this Imam to move the mosque. In fact he'd probably gain face by showing that, yes, Muslims are willing to compromise. Right now all most non-Muslims see is the non-compromising face of Islam like al-Qaeda, the Darfur genocide and honor killings.Le Defense Tech,
I read your comments, but they don't really apply to my essay. Judging by when I posted the suggestion to when I received your comment, it seemed as if you didn't have enough time to read my essay at length (unless you’re a super-human reader). Regardless, the argument doesn't hold up. My idea proposed a constitution that balances Marxism with Libertarian values. People can't just kill others through mob rule. That would violate the right to life.
As for your position on the Mosque, you're entitled to your opinion. But isn't it weird that a socialist like me is more of a constitutionalist than yourself?
It doesn't matter if the Imam won't compromise. Neither should we. The government can't stop someone from building a house of worship unless they changed the zoning laws before they legally obtained a permit and lease agreement.
Thanks,
DanIf you reread what I said, I never said it was illegal for the to build that mosque there, it was a stupid idea. Not quite the same thing you being more constitutionalist than me.
No I didn't read your essay all the way through, I skimmed it and picked out two of the most inconsistent points of the essay. You might look up the USSR Constitution of 1936. There's parts in there that talk about people being secure in their persons and papers, kind of like we have in our Constitution, but as a practical matter there were no limits to the power of the Soviet government. I'd really like to see someone appeal actions of the KGB to the Politburo.
You still haven't told me how property held in common can in any way be reconciled with the private property belief of libertarianism. I'll give you credit for thinking about it, but you have a way to go before you can discriminate logically between two choices.Le Defense Tech,
What you said to me was, "What I find especially confusing are your inconsistencies. Privatizing police and courts, but nationalizing healthcare? Why privatize one and not the other? Why nationalize one and not the other? If you inaugurate technodemocracy through (shudder) Facebook, how do you keep mob rule from occurring."
I proposed that it may make sense (if people voted for this idea) to privatize the police force because then the government can't, as you say, steal property or kill people in the name of the state (or the "common good"). The education and voting systems would pay citizens to learn and make decisions that may go to subscribing to a "Brink Home Security" force (if they thought they needed it). That's not an essential idea to Libracracy, but it's a thought.
The Justice, education, and healthcare system would be paid by tax money, but it would be decentralized. You could appeal the decision, if you'd like. The people would decide how much of their money goes to this community pool-purse.
I didn't mean literally making Facebook the way "spokespeople," "Examination Result Analysts," and "Judges" are elected. I used that as an example. Facebook is a social networking site using the internet. What I'm saying is technology presents us with a new way to make decisions—making macro-democracy possible. Before electricity, information travelled as fast as the fastest horse or car. Now it's the cosmic speed limit: the rate of light. It's entirely possible now for self-governance.
The way this democracy wouldn’t result in mob tyranny like Nazi Germany relies on the Justice System (with three courts: Legal, Industrial, and Intra-Judicial) interpreting the proper balance of the human rights laid out in the "new constitution," which is basically the America Constitution, plus Marxist rights like education, healthcare, and justice provided to everyone equally.
Property would remain private under this system—unless democratically voted otherwise. In which case, I don't know how that would be reconciled with libertarianism. At that point, it would be up to those people. They could outgrow private property in theory.
Keep in mind, this idea relies on Game Theory. No one can vote to change the constitution, but everything else is open to change as fast as the group consensus. Eventually, people will calibrate the proper proportions to balance these "contradicting" human rights—along with the Judges they elect.
This so called paradox between freedom of individuals and groups, I believe, is a puzzle to be solved. I haven't figured it out yet, but I've faith in humanity to do so eventually... with the ability to learn from mistakes.
Stalinism was a mistake. Fascism was a mistake. Should we ignore all ideas of Marxism? No. These are age-old ideas that never go away. People ought to help more than just them—but do so in a way that doesn't compromise liberty of people (which, in my essay, would become states with legal codes). To put it in a sentence, Libracracy is a decentralized, democratic confederacy of human beings. I encourage you to read the whole thing some time.
Thanks,
Dan
Flightkeeper....I suppose you have "history" that outweighs my own familial legacy?
Please, cite your sources before you go trying to misrepresent actual facts....
Show us your knowledge of the Ottoman Empire, Iberia, or just plain anywhere...
You haven't yet shown anyone "Muslim dress"....so I highly doubt I am going to be getting an actual response from you...
More snide comments.....it's too bad that seems all you are aspiring to do....She's probably talking about the Armenian genocide by the Turks during the Great War. It's been so forgotten that the Turks threaten people with sanctions who say anything to say that the genocide really happened. It's the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Led....not only did my family members die in this genocide....but I, and others, have spent years studying this event...and reaching our own conclusions...
Family members of mine that survived were protected by Muslims....what a government does, and what people do are two different things...
For the past 4 years I have been conducting a day of rememberance at Los Angeles Mission College concerning the Genocide.... I'd love for you and flightkeeper to challenge me on my knowledge of these events.... I transcribed accounts of survivors....
What I do know, very very well, is that American (and other) missionaries entered the Ottoman Empire (as early as the 1830's) and worked fervently to undermine the Gregorian and Greek millets... My family was Gregorian far before the Ottomans...and they never lost their ability to practice their faith or live in peace...
For those who want to talk about the Genocide, lets discuss it....maybe you will learn something.....for I have a wealth of perspective and knowledge to give..
Events like these are not what they seem..... Please...push me further regarding the genocide of my own people and family....I am eager to teach..and the last thing I'll need is some link...especially wikipedia....Then start teaching instead of challenging people to contradict you. I don't doubt that some Muslims remained true to their faith and helped you and yours, much like those Christians who kept the faith with the Jews they hid from the Nazis. But, much like the Nazis a generation later, most Turks either assisted in the genocide or looked the other way.
Sure missionaries tried to convert people, that's what they do. But for you to suggest that is was missionaries in the 1839's and 1840's who started a chain of events that culminated in a genocide in 1915 is ridiculous. If you've studied the holocaust as you claim, then you know that other millets were targeted like the Greeks and Assyrians. You might be able to stretch the Greeks, but not the Assyrian angle. They were persecuted much more and far longer than other Christians in the Ottoman Empire.
The persecutions were also how and why the Greeks broke away from the Empire. Now I'll accept the fact that Georgian and Armenian surivors might have seen the incursions of Protestant missionaries as a catalyst for the genocide, but that beleif doesn't make it the truth. Rather questioning the Turks would be a better way to understand why the genocide happened. They, after all, were the ones who started it.
It would seem that the initial moves against the Armenians were due to the defeat of the Turk general who was sent to recapture territory from the Russians in the late 19th century. The Minister or War failed and blamed his failure on Armenian conscripts who lived in Russia and sided with the Russians. So it would seem that the Great War was responsible for the genocide, not some crazy conspiracy theory about Protestant missionaries.
I'll start then....
There is a certain huge event that played a key role in setting the stage for the deportation and killings of Armenians within the Ottoman Empire....
Who can tell me what it was...........The entrance of the Ottoman Empire in the Great War.
Nope..... That didn't come until later....something happened much earlier....
I won't spell anything out for people.... It is you and Flightkeeper who try to make it seem that I don't know what I'm talking about...
I want you to do the research for yourself...either that or desist in talking about things that you haven't learned about....
I prefer that people educate themselves, though... And I know that you are a smart guy Led....
Sidenote....when you talk about groups "breaking away"...don't forget the foreign influence stripping them away... I'll start my example on this regard with the British snatching of Egypt away from the Ottoman Empire.... Why did they do that?
But, I'll keep that for another time, or perhaps for a hub....That's just conspiracy nonsense. The Turks had a long history of mistreating Christian minorities in the Empire. Why do you think the Great Powers of the time pushed for the Tanzimat or religious toleration for Christians in the Empire? Even after the adoption of Tanzimat, the persecutions continued. Mistreating the minority population is, after all, a favored method of despots who want to distract the majority from their failed polices, oppressive rule, etc.
I can't believe you're trying to set the blame on European imperial ambitions for the problems Armenians suffered in the early 20th century. You need to stop reading revisionist history. Imperialism was bad, but it wasn't the only bad thing going on in the world at the time.
There is no way an event that happened so far back in time that no living Turk remembered it a century later caused the Armenian genocide. Look at Alsace and Lorraine. The conquest of those provinces were still in the living memory of most French in 1914 and that's what made the French so gear for war. They lost lost territories in 1870 a mere 45 years prior to the outbreak of the Great War.
The Minister of War for the Ottoman Empire failed in his mission and used the Armenians as an excuse for his failure. Based on that the Empire's machinery of death began grinding its way towards the Armenian people in particular and Christians living in the Empire in general. Why else do you think the Turks so vehemently deny the genocide today. At least the Germans accepted their guilt for the Holocaust.
P.S. Actually it was the French who got to Egypt first, the British took it away from them at the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.
No...not conspiracy nonsense...there is one key event from which others trickle down...
And by the way, it was Ottoman governor Muhammad Ali who, under British coersion, turned against the Sultan, and declared Egypt independent of the Empire...
One key event.....the bankruptcy of the Ottoman Empire......
Why did they go bankrupt?
What did this do to Ottoman society?Seriously, people need to get a grip.
The way this situation looks, from an outsiders perspective (not living in America) is insanity. People on this page are talking about god knows what, Marxism, and ottoman history..9/11 conspiracy theories - wow! It's one giant smorgasbord of people trying to outdo each other with how much trivial knowledge they can argue. Let's stay on topic...
Unfortunately this entire mosque business has become such a spectacle a proper resolution where everyone wins is getting to be impossible to reach. The more it grows, the less likely each side is going to want to peacefully retreat without seeming weak, and not being understood.It's going to become more of a circus and made to be a bigger deal than it ought to have been in the first place.
People are acting as though Islam raises terrorists through its teachings. That would be like saying the New Testament influences Catholic Priests to be perverts. EVERY religion has its share of skeletons in its closest - NOT ONE is exempt from that. You get over a million followers trying to understand a dated text, and not everyone will take it the exact same way. It is religions FOLLOWERS, its staunch believers which give the rest a bad name. A few bad apples are no reason to chop the entire tree down. If there are different interpretations of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or Taoism, why can't there be separate views of Islam? This doesn't make sense.
The fact that there are other institutions of varying sleaze, grease, and capitalism in the area, without any protest of THEIR intruding on a sacred ground definitely is reason for raised eyebrows. Does every other business successfully honor the victims? I take a crap in my bathroom, I don't confuse it for my kitchen and I don't say that I eat where I relieve myself. I know that these are two distant, distinct and DIFFERENT places. Why does the mosque now have to conform to the emotional needs of everyone? The mosque being built 2 blocks from ground zero has nothing to do with a mosque itself being built, so much as it has to do with it being a place for Muslims to come practice Islam and people's sensitivity to perceptions and tolerance of said religion.
This also begs the idea that if a mosque shouldn't be allowed to be built so close, should any other religious institution, a church, a temple, a synagogue, have the right to build above them? Absolutely not. This should be equal, despite the stigma of Islam=evil. What's the problem?
If the mosque were to be built FOUR blocks instead of two, would people still make a stink about it? Some might relax, some would still be opposed (" it's too close!").
What if it were built a mile away? How far does it have to be before people feel comfortable? No distance will ever be far enough for some.
No one will ever be 100% happy with wherever the distance lies, which is why it should remain where it is being planned, and people should get used to it. People should be able to freely express their rights to protest, to disagree, to practice their religions, and enter public arguments WITHOUT it being driven by hate and fear. At times we are asked to be sensitive to Muslims rules (such as not depicting Muhammad), just as other religions ask for exemptions, and differing signs of respect and this is followed with varying degrees of success and failure. If these requests for tolerance are met with ridicule or not taken with seriousness, why is it any surprise then, that when WE ask for sensitivity from those in religion, we are not given it? It's a joke until we feel WE are personally being mistreated unfairly. Tolerance needs to be given to be accepted.
I'm genuinely curious how many people who oppose the building of it have ever actually stepped inside a mosque? The mosque being built should be built so close to help people come out of their shells, and embrace understanding a religion they may be unfamiliar with. If people are under the impression that this is a religion which fosters hate and terrorism, signifies that building a center of LEARNING and KNOWLEDGE is a step in the correct direction.
My biggest fear with the mosque being built where it is planned DOES have to do with its chosen location, unfortunately. Though this is something which cannot be predicted, but seems likely; I can see vandalism and attacks concentrated in that area if it IS built. I truly hope this does not come to fruition.
If this issue hadn't received so much media attention, would it be THAT big a deal? Would people be so rabid if this was an issue being dealt with inside New York, and no one else in America knew about it? Probably not.
I can truly empathize with those who lost loved ones during 9/11. Through most news outlets, you would think many are opposed. And, I'm sure you wouldn't be wrong. Some of those are opposed, just as some support it being built, and some are nonchalant, just like it is with most any other issue. One thing I think we should agree on is that media and government should have played a smaller role in this. I wholeheartedly agree that the site of 9/11's attacks is a sacred ground. This brings me to my biggest source of confusion and the part I don't understand: Why are so many New Yorkers are in a fervor over THIS. THIS!?! When all that effort, that passion and anger should be used to get a proper memorial built that adequately honors those fallen, celebrates continued life and inspires the citizens of New York and visitors alike.
You're arguing more over having something NOT be constructed, when all this media attention is RIPE for the public to take control of, and leading it towards getting something MADE. And this appears to be the LAST thing on anyone's minds.
The question people should be focused on isn't their views on Islam and it's weak-pseudo-relation to terrorism, it is: Why was it that this issue of a mosque being built was what suddenly lit a fire under peoples asses, and made the world take note that "THIS SPOT IS WHERE THE TOWERS FELL. THIS IS A SPOT I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER. THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS HOLY AND UNITES US.""My biggest fear with the mosque being built where it is planned DOES have to do with its chosen location, unfortunately. Though this is something which cannot be predicted, but seems likely; I can see vandalism and attacks concentrated in that area if it IS built. I truly hope this does not come to fruition."
This is the cause for debate I believe. That many will find it offensive. Of that many a few will react irrationally. Things will spin out of controll.So, some johnny come lately doesn't "approve" of our conversing....or what we are conversing about..
If someone doesn't realize the importance of getting to the root of conflicts, like the Armenian Genocide, which people today like to spin based of religious ideations...they must not really care about learning or spreading fact over fantasy...
Too bad for them...
Led...are we going to continue our discussion? Shall I open a new forum?
Where did Flightkeeper go......she was so quick to inform others that my perceptions of Armenian and Iberian history were wrong...... My facts began appearing, and she disappeared....You went around the question......
We were speaking of Ottoman bankruptcy, and what it did to the Empire....
The industrial revolution had an impact, yes.
The "age of exploration" had a great effect....I agree..
But there is more....
Remember, we are talking about this topic because you, and Flightkeeper, put forward the idea that the Genocide is an example of Muslim animosity and violence... The "Islamic threat."
So...once we reach our destination through this discussion, will be see this "threat", or are there other things going on?
"Other things" is my firm answer...and I hope we can continue this discussion to find out why this is....I can't speak for flightkeeper, but I believe I said that the persecutions were due to the majority persecuting a minority. Happens all the time. That's partly what the Tanzimat was supposed to protect against. It didn't because the majority didn't believe in the principles advanced by the Tanzimat. The only reason the Europeans came to the conclusion was because of the fallout from the Wars of Religion in the 17th century which in turn sparked the Enlightenment and development of what we now call humanities.
I disagree with your Tanzimat claim...
Don't deal with generalities and start looking at the specifics...
Using foreign debt as leverage, Britian (I will focus on them for now) interjected itself into the Ottoman landscape...gaining control of lands, towns, cities, and resources....
Prior to the Genocide, Britian already had in place a plan to rule the Ottomans from the outside through two consulships...
The entire tax system of the Ottoman Empire had changed...and foreignors could pay the Ottoman government cash for the ability to get access to Ottoman territory, and tax the Ottoman people whatever they wished....tax farming...
The entire Ottoman world was under attack....and then there were the missionaries...and their assault, not on the Ottomans, but on the Christian populations of the Empire...turning Christian against Christian, father against sons, daughters against their parents....
This is not rhetoric......this is fact. Not only can I cite my own family history at this point, but my former professor (and monument of Armenian History) Prof. Hovannisian has written extensively on this subject...
The Western Europeans and Americans would also use the very open Muslim ruling concepts to also divert their trade contacts.... Instead of working directly with Muslim merchants....the fact that Christians and Jews under Ottoman rule could engage in their own trade with their own rules (very liberal of them) opened opportunity for outsiders to stop paying Muslim merchants notice....
As for Tanzimat.....what this did was reduce the strength of the Ottoman dynasty (remember, they are a family who ruled solely through bloodline) and create legislature.... Abdul Hamid did not like what he saw inside his state...he observed the influence of Western Europeans, and he decided to take his place back....
There are several things going on here....but they center on the creation of a new elite within the Empire, who were supported financially, politically, and diplomatically from outside the Empire..
Again....it is bankruptcy in the Empire..and the taking over of its banking system by the British...that started breaking the Ottoman system down.... It would get worse from there on...
I wonder what the American reaction would be if the same thing was happening to this nation.... The Ottoman Empire and the U.S. have a lot in common....
I compare the Civil Rights movement to the Tanzimat....and as with the Empire, the U.S. is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state that has a traditional religious and ethnic elite who's power is eroding...
We also have a history of genocide and racial/religious elitism/hatred....
What we don't have, however, is a long term track record of peaceful coexistance with "minority others"...but the Ottomans did....
Words of warning....You don't seem to get the central point. You see the fact that the Empire being rules by a one family despot as a good thing. Your view dovetails with that of Thomas Hobbes who believed any society needed a strong monarch to keep society peaceful and organized.
Britain did, without a doubt, operate just as you said. I'm sure the Ottoman empire was a target of imperialism just as Africa and China were. I've never disputed that. I'll even go so far as to give you that they used the treatment of Christians in the empire as a rationalization for the shady things they did. But, remember, we're talking about governments here, that's what they do.
What, exactly is wrong with using Christian merchants instead of Muslim ones? If the Muslim merchants of the time acted like their predecessors prior to the age of exploration did, they probably gouged the Europeans. I'll bet the Christians gave better deals to the Europeans, nothing wrong with that.
I have to say I'm confused at your line of reasoning. You're attempting, I think, to pin the blame on the Armenian genocide of meddling by outside powers. Have you considered that by absolving the people who actually did the killing, you're giving tacit approval to genocide. Personally I don't care what justification people use for the wholesale extermination of a population, genocide is never justified. If the Turks hated the Armenians that much, they could have exiled them. It wouldn't have been a good thing for Armenians, but at least they would have a shot a building a new life. But the Turks chose genocide.Led...did I weigh the sultan rulership as good or bad? I don't remember those words....
Thomas Hobbes has no place with any of my arguments....stick to the point...
I am describing to you how insecurity is created.....how differences are exacerbated, and how tensions placed on a state by outsiders can cause said state to rip itself apart from the inside....this is all... I am debunking the "Muslim threat" and replacing it with reality....this is all....
What "shady things" was the Ottoman government doing? You create the false idea of trading rights for Christians and Jews as a rationalization?
Nonsense.... The Ottomans valued the people who worked the land, and benefited the Empire...they followed the Qurannic concept of living in toleration of others....regardless of religion... They also saw opportunity...
And, when the "Spanish" were kicking out their Jewish population in 1492, who gave the Jews a safe, stable home?
The Ottomans....
I did not say that there was anything "wrong" with using Christians and Jews within the Empire for trade..... I am pointing out how the respect for rights held by the Ottomans enabled Europeans to undermine (with intent) the Ottoman economy...and their government...
I am absolutely blaming the genocide on meddling outsiders....no doubt... And I have been pointing out evidence along the way.. If you choose to not recognize it, this is another thing...
Of course....there is another part, which I mentioned, that you have left out of your response...
The Armenian Gregorian and the Greek Orthodox Churches were responsible for their communities within the Empire... They collected the taxes that would, after taking their cut, would be paid to the Sultanate...
These churches were the symbolic nations to their people...
When American and other missionaries began tearing away at that fabric, they turned Armenian on Armenian and Greek onto Greek... The missionaries would then try to create their own new "nations" within this system.... They wanted millet status for newly converted Armenian protestants and Roman Catholics and so forth.....
You then have the Armenian and Greek Orthodox patriarchs (who were also part of the Ottoman administration) calling for help... What they viewed as their people, and their tax base, was being undermined, while Americans (and their ilk) found new profit streams...
Animosity....jealousy...anger....all of these things are being formed... They didn't exist there before...but with European intervention....we now have a problem...
We are just setting the stage here Led..... We are just scraping the surface....
I have to head out to UCLA, but I will be back later...
Please, I encourage you to spend more time learning about the fall of the Ottoman Empire..... It relates to us today in many, many ways...So you're saying that just because Roman Catholics and Protestants didn't exist within the Empire before, that they should be denied the same rights as other members of the Empire.
Hobbes and his theory of social structure has a lot to do with this topic. The England of his day was much like that of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. That's what happens when you have minorities who are denied the same rights as everyone else in a society who agitate for extension of those rights to themselves.
We here in the States, have avoided most of that, with some notable exceptions. But I'd also hasten to add that we've paid for those times in which we tried to create second class citizens.
The Polish also took in diaspora Jews. I'd also remind you that the only reason the Ottomans took in the Jews was because the Jews had a monetary hold on the Sultan. That and Jews were and are some of the most educated people in the world and any society that is lucky enough to attract them benefit. Spain's loss was the Empire's gain.
As for the Armenian and Orthodox churches, well they must not have been meeting the spiritual needs of their people. I'm sure the Roman and Protestant churches didn't attempt to convert by the sword, so that must mean they had to convert through dialogue and discussion. People chose to convert, in other words. Are you saying this justified the Empire not granting them the same rights as others within the Empire.
The reason I bring up single rule governments is because those societies tend to be inflexible. Because they try to control everything, they fall behind countries that are free. That's why the US today is so far in advance of Turkey. Rather than worry about controlling the uncontrollable, we just let people do what they will and suffer the consequences of their good and bad decisions. That is, after all, how we learn.I am saying, quite clearly and repeatedly, that the religious wars of the soul directed by the American and British missionary boards (not to leave out others) had, by far far far, more to do with the Genocide than "Islamic threats."
I repeat the fact that Christian Armenians, even my own family, were protected by Muslims....otherwise I would not be alive today to write this post.
I'm off...I'll write more later...Daniel, I don't see "independents" as really being so....
Democratic bills, like the Dream Act and the Employee Free Choice Act would still never leave committe, or plain die...
There is more that can get done if there are Democrats in office...
Splintering up the field even more will, in my opinion, lead to only more infighting and political side-show...Mike Long and Ralph Deeds,
I'm just tired of these corrupt politicians. The whole lot of them are bought out by special interest. Who will bring public financing? McCain has gone far right now and helped kill his own bill. Ron Paul is the only man I trust with that power, because he's a strict constitutionalist.
As much as I love social programs (because I'm part-Marxist), we can't afford most of them anymore. Social Security will go broke in most states by 2016. “The unfunded liabilities are the excess of promised benefits under current law minus revenues from dedicated payroll taxes—or $72 trillion in off-balance-sheet obligations, the bulk of which stems from Medicare” (http://www.aei.org/issue/20844). Radical changes need to occur for our economy not to tank. Technology is the only thing holding us up.
If anyone here has read my hub, "From Paper to Digits," you'd know my stance is clear: We must be fiscally conservative or else we'll need to adopt virtual currency much sooner than I'd like us to. We're talking about "Mark of the Beast" stuff where the government will know everything anyone ever buys, sells, or borrows through a centralized, digital money supply. The best way to handle that power is for true self-governance (a la Libracracy or something like it), which we won’t accomplish anytime soon. In the meantime, it’s better to keep money physical to secure liberty.
I guess what I mean to say is I'm ready for a leader who won't compromise, and I think many independents are ready to write-in candidates too.
I hope the democrats or republicans plan to adopt some of Paul's principles, or the independent movement might reach a threshold in the 2016 election cycle.
Thanks,
Dan"Social Security will go broke in most states by 2016."
Where did you get this piece of misinformation? Social Security is not funded state by state. It is a federal program. With a small tweak or two it will be good for the forseeable future. Medicare funding is another story, a much bigger problem.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.htmlRalph Leeds,
What I like about the idea of confederacy is that we don't put all our eggs in one basket. There are a variety of governments to choose from, and states compete for tax payers.
I'm for universal healthcare... but I think it would be best accomplished through decentralization, like in the U.K.
Thanks,
Dan
P.S.
I guess I was mistaken about Social Security. I thought I read somewhere that some states will be handing out I.O.U's for years of abuse by the government to relocate funds. Nobody seems to talk about the Inter-Governmental Debt... it's the most toxic problem of all.
P.P.S.
An alternative is to nationalize the banks, to secure a zero-interest-rate credit-line.
Neither bill I mentioned earlier is a social program...
The Dream Act would enable undocumented youth and young adults who are in school, trying to get into school, as well as serving in the military to gain legal status and a track to citizenship for honorable service and accomplishment...
This bill helps bring people out of the dark who want to contribute to this society. It also lessens the load on law enforcement because there would be less "violations" of statute... Now a young man or woman can get a valid drivers license without having to stray into illegal acts.. They can be assured a legal paid job...
And this is where social programs come into play...
Our population is aging rapidly, which is sucking on our social program funds... Social Security is going to drain faster...Medicare will as well. Many older people who live on small, fixed incomes also need welfare money and other funds/benefits...
We suffer from a lack of youth to support the tax base, and the national base period, that we have created. In the field of medicine, we are going to be suffering from a huge shortage of doctors in the relatively near future.... There will be plenty of nurses....but not many doctors...
By opening pathways for legality, recognition, and success, more men and women will step up and achieve...
The Employee Free Choice Act, at least in its older form, fast-tracks the ability for workers to organize their job site.
This is especially of importance because of the exacerbation of temp-worker jobs. In the Inland Empire here in California, where the housing bubble grew the most, and where it crashed the hardest, the continuing downturn in the economy has created a disaster.
The logistics industry is the lifeblood of the region at this point.
But, workers in the warehouses of Walmart, Target, Best Buy, et al, make 8 dollars or so an hour....in an environment that requires 17 plus dollars an hour to take care of just basic needs for a family (3-4 people w/two breadwinners at full-time hours).
But, many of these warehouses outsource their direct labor needs to temp agencies....the agency gets paid 10 dollars, they take their cut, and pass on the rest, without medical/dental benefits, to their employees.
There is no leverage for workers to step up for more benefits, for the warehouse can cut the line to the temp agency, and California's "at will" termination policies allow any employer to get rid of any employee without any warning, and for no justifying reason...
Currently any temp employees seeking organization would have to get two positively affirmed votes of the worker pool in favor of seeking a third party mediator via the Federal Labor Board...one vote toward the temp agency, and one for the warehouse owner, whether Walmart or some third party logistics firm, etc..
The EFCA requires that workers only hold one vote, regardless of the dual employer status...
But our social mindset has to change...we have to be willing to change and challenge harmful aspects of our professional realm..
There is now way a legislature further fragmented will be able to get meaningful, substantive bills onto the House or Senate floors for discussion, let alone an up or down vote....
I'm a registered Republican.....but my party affiliation is transcended by our national need to reinforce and reinvigorate our workforce...
There is more from here, but I will reserve my time for future use...Daniel,
I will point out that a Muslim does not have to be a Sufi to support secular government or religious tolerance. I'm sure you realize this, but I wish to still forward the idea.
I wish as much scrutiny will be paid to Christian and Jewish houses of worship....accounting for where and to whom they are sending money/support.
If only this were so..Mike Long,
You’re right. But this mosque is claiming to be Sufi. And the Sufi are scrutinized (and, yes, persecuted and killed) for believing in religious tolerance.
But the point is taken. It doesn’t matter what the religion believes in, as long as the religion doesn’t commit crimes, then it will be legal for it to buy private property for worshipping at. (Scientology exists, after all). The Muslims buying this property, or who plan to worship there, had nothing to do with 9/11. If people feel they’re connected, they’re welcome to prove it. But until then, only senseless hate or maybe bigotry is the evidence. But it doesn’t prove the Mosque shouldn’t be built. What it does prove depends on how we react. As the cliché goes, “Only time will tell…”
Thanks,
Dan
Did anyone read about the Israeli rabbi who called for a plague to kill all Palestinians, as the peace talks were about to begin?
Israel was in an uproar on Sunday over a refusal by Israeli theater artists to perform in West Bank Jewish settlements, and Palestinians were outraged by a virulently anti-Palestinian sermon by a Jerusalem rabbi, further fueling the atmosphere days before the expected resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in Washington.
The Iraqi-born rabbi, Ovadia Yosef, 89, is the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, which is a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government coalition. A widely respected religious authority, Rabbi Yosef also is known for his incendiary pronouncements against Arabs and homosexuals, among others.
Referring to Mr. Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, by his popular name, the rabbi said that “Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this earth.”
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said in a statement that the rabbi was “literally calling for a genocide against Palestinians” and “for the assassination of President Abbas.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/world … amp;st=cseFOR ANYONE INTERESTED: A FEW PEOPLE ON HUBPAGES ARE TRYING TO HAVE ME REMOVED FROM HUBPAGES BECAUSE I STARTED THIS THREAD AND I SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE PROTESTERS OF THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO. THE WAY THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IT IS SO UNDERHANDED AND COWARDLY.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/52019This is paranoid and delusional. I do not appreciate that you are stretching your fantasies onto multiple threads. It is not always about you.
They can't be trying to remove you because of this thread... Perhaps there were some statements that you made that some people reported as offensive...
It hasn't been a bad thread, especially compared to some I've run across in the past...
Ralph...interesting...
Related Discussions
- 179
Do you support Obama's statement about Ground Zero Mosque?
by Liberian1847 13 years ago
Even though I'm not Muslim however, I can't help but wonder if it is fair to hold all Muslims accountable for the deeds of other Muslims ( especially those extremist groups). Would'nt it be absurd to blame every living White man for the enslavement of Blacks? Or, do you call every German a...
- 69
Ground Zero Mosque
by TruthDebater 13 years ago
I know this question has probably already been slung around the forums quite a bit. Forgive me if I am being repetitive. If the religious behind 9/11 would have been christians instead of muslims, would there be any controversy about christians building a temple at ground zero? I understand...
- 9
Building the Islamic community center at Ground Zero on private property is a Co
by cindybarrymore 12 years ago
Building the Islamic community center at Ground Zero on private property is a Constitutional Right.Correct? If not, then why? Please support your arguments with facts NOT emotions. Because we all know that more than just Christians died in the 9/11 attacks, correct? If I'm wrong, please tell me so,...
- 9
Can anyone state 3 reasons why a mosque should be built at Ground Zero?
by vicki simms 12 years ago
Can anyone state 3 reasons why a mosque should be built at Ground Zero?Everyone is quick to say No to a mosque (which can I add I do AGREE with) but I want to know if anyone can give 3 reason why there SHOULD be one built......
- 160
Do You Think it's Right to Build a Mosque at Ground Zero?
by Morgan F 13 years ago
Most of us have heard about it already, plans are in the works to construct a mosque at ground zero. The site where over 3,000 people died in the catastrophic event of 9/11. Mothers, fathers, husbands, and wives died in the twin towers that day, and now a giant mosque is being erected in their...
- 117
A Mosque at ground zero NY; You are kidding right.
by TMMason 13 years ago
I would say your kidding right. But they are not."What could be more insulting and humiliating than a monster mosque in the shadow of the World Trade Center buildings that were brought down by an Islamic jihad attack? Any decent, American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn’t dream of such an...