Why does the US always have to have an enemy? (drug, Afghanistan)

[macmeal]

Don't know all the details, but just this week in our area, I heard that a public school in San Diego ("Carver", I believe,-not sure) has blocked out a 15-minute recess in its daily after-lunch schedule to accomodate about 100 muslim students who want a prayer period. It's my understanding that this will now be built into the schedule. Don't know if it will lengthen the day or not.
Is it possible the School Board is "afraid" of anyone? How does this fit in with modern secular thinking? If this is true, it certainly seems to be inconsistent with other school regulations...and if so, should we be surprised that "other" groups in the school might take it as unfair favoritism? Is this, and the "anger and intolerance" alluded to earlier in this thread, perhaps be the very earliest rumblings of the "cultural collapse" I've been predicting? If there ever WERE to be some sort of cultural disintegration, how would it look to those to whom it was happening? I just don't know.....

[burdell]

Originally Posted by macmeal

Don't know all the details, but just this week in our area, I heard that a public school in San Diego ("Carver", I believe,-not sure) has blocked out a 15-minute recess in its daily after-lunch schedule to accomodate about 100 muslim students who want a prayer period. It's my understanding that this will now be built into the schedule. Don't know if it will lengthen the day or not.
Is it possible the School Board is "afraid" of anyone? How does this fit in with modern secular thinking? If this is true, it certainly seems to be inconsistent with other school regulations...

I don't think it fits at all with modern secular thinking nor does it belong in a publicly funded school.

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by burdell

To continue the analogy I have to ask has anyone ever known a schoolyard bully who didn't eventually have their clock cleaned by an even bigger, meaner, nastier bully?

I don't think so and I think it eventually applies to nations also.

Good point, Burdell. But I'd have to take the analogy to its limit. Sometimes the bully got his "clock cleaned" not by another bully, but by "recognized authority" (ie, school officials. police, etc). The problem here seems to be, do you or do you not recognize a "right side", in the sense of a internationally-recognized "authority", or do you not? In the first instance, you'd support the right of the "good folks" to hold the "bully" in check.In the second, you'd be saying that no one has the right to judge anyone else, and that yes, in fact, the condition of mankind is such that he's simply destined to live under an ever-changing succession of bullies. (I HOPE you wouldn't take a THIRD position, that the "bully" was the only "good guy"--though some people do seem to feel this way, astounding as it may seem).
Obviously, definitions here are the key. To Saddam, George Bush is a bully. To George Bush, Saddam was "A bigger one" (so THERE !). To Osama bin Ladin, the West is "evil". (he's obviously correct to a degree, but is "calling the kettle black", I think). To gang-bangers, the police are the "bullies". In the final analysis, we all, sooner or later, have to make choices; call it "taking sides" if you wish. There's no alternative.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by macmeal

Good point, Burdell. But I'd have to take the analogy to its limit. Sometimes the bully got his "clock cleaned" not by another bully, but by "recognized authority" (ie, school officials. police, etc). The problem here seems to be, do you or do you not recognize a "right side", in the sense of a internationally-recognized "authority", or do you not? In the first instance, you'd support the right of the "good folks" to hold the "bully" in check.In the second, you'd be saying that no one has the right to judge anyone else, and that yes, in fact, the condition of mankind is such that he's simply destined to live under an ever-changing succession of bullies.
Obviously, definitions here are the key. To Saddam, George Bush is a bully. To George Bush, Saddam was "A bigger one" (so THERE !). To Osama bin Ladin, the West is "evil". (he's obviously correct to a degree, but is "calling the kettle black", I think). To gang-bangers, the police are the "bullies". In the final analysis, we all, sooner or later, have to make choices; call it "taking sides" if you wish. There's no alternative.

Ooh, if I had the defintive answers I wouldn't be typing as I'd be Master of the World and have other diversions available


In actual practice I don't believe an internationally recognized "authority" exists. The theory of the UN may be a good idea but I can't say I've seen much in my lifetime to give me faith in that body being recognized as an "authority".

I know we eventually have to take sides and in many cases there are more than two. That was my point, in the absence of authority that wields authoritative power, continually attempting to establish your positon by force alone will inevitably put you up against a bigger, meaner, nastier force and then??????????????

[macmeal]

Originally Posted by burdell

Ooh, if I had the defintive answers I wouldn't be typing as I'd be Master of the World and have other diversions available


In actual practice I don't believe an internationally recognized "authority" exists. The theory of the UN may be a good idea but I can't say I've seen much in my lifetime to give me faith in that body being recognized as an "authority".

I know we eventually have to take sides and in many cases there are more than two. That was my point, in the absence of authority that wields authoritative power, continually attempting to establish your positon by force alone will inevitably put you up against a bigger, meaner, nastier force and then??????????????

Good points, well spoken. It seems that we agree the problem has no simple answers. Let me add, too, that our current administration is partially to blame, regardless of the merits of the situation. Their extreme secretiveness has, admittedly, been off-putting. I'd go so far as to venture that, ANY message, no matter how positive (say, an answer to global warming- cure for cancer or HIV- or a car that gets 105 mpg--), if the bearer of that message approached the podium with a swagger, looked at the audience with a sort of smirk, and referred to himself as "the Decider", would irritate the listeners.
Even Bush, I read recently, has apparently asked trusted "advisors" whether part of the problem may be his own personality. I'd tell him yes, George, that's at least PART of it!

[bily4]

macmeal I agree -we are probably closer together than apart on our views. I think everyone can agree there are a lot of evil "uncivilized" muslim radicals out there, and they do horrible and unspeakable acts to innocent people. Yes, we have a unique and terrific country. I do know our government (not just the present morons, but going back decades) is responsible for a lot of bad things that have happened in the world, either directly or as an indirect consequence of our actions. Some we know about, some we don't. And all of that does have a direct link to what we are confronting today.

And while you and I can dismiss as simpletons those that post "let's turn Iraq into a parking lot", it does have a dangerous and pervasive effect on our views as a society. Similar to those that post, "C'mon let's deport 15 million people and build a wall around our entire country, with a little cubbyhole to peek through every 50 feet. Problem solved."
Immigration and the issues with radical Muslims are both incredibly complex, and these kindergarten responses don't help any. And when you allow a fundamental Christian to get into our highest office then that becomes more then then just a joke or a channel you can turn off. Our lives are directly impacted.

[JD.]

Originally Posted by GregW

I wonder if in your zeal to hunt down Islamic militants just how far are you willing to go? How many are you willing to kill either by having your army do the deed or would you be willing to do it your very own self? How many? Kill a few of them after they have attacked? Kill many of they before they have attacked? Destroy the schools of jihad along with the teachers and the children learning to be martyrs?

Just how far do you want to take this defensive killing? The upper limit seems to be around a couple of billion Muslims? Would this be enough? What is your limit?

I know mine but I am asking about yours.

I don't have a 'zeal' to hunt down Islamic militants, I just believe people need to be protected from what is a very dangerous religious faction which is in a CONSTANT state of outrage about one thing or another. I hate to answer a question with another question but how many innocent people are you willing to see being slaughtered by radical jihadists before you stand up and say enough is enough? If that means destroying the jihad schools the indoctrinate hate into young minds and taking out the leaders of these gang of murders, than yes, I don't think that's too much to ask.

[JD.]

Originally Posted by macmeal

Don't know all the details, but just this week in our area, I heard that a public school in San Diego ("Carver", I believe,-not sure) has blocked out a 15-minute recess in its daily after-lunch schedule to accomodate about 100 muslim students who want a prayer period. It's my understanding that this will now be built into the schedule. Don't know if it will lengthen the day or not.
Is it possible the School Board is "afraid" of anyone? How does this fit in with modern secular thinking? If this is true, it certainly seems to be inconsistent with other school regulations...and if so, should we be surprised that "other" groups in the school might take it as unfair favoritism? Is this, and the "anger and intolerance" alluded to earlier in this thread, perhaps be the very earliest rumblings of the "cultural collapse" I've been predicting? If there ever WERE to be some sort of cultural disintegration, how would it look to those to whom it was happening? I just don't know.....

Isn't it also interesting that the ACLU, which is more than happy to jump all over Christian groups for anything and everything is silent over this one. Makes you wonder what's REALLY going on.

Burdell: I could go into details with you on the subject of secularization in Europe (34% of Europeans believe in God, 92% of Americans do), but that's a whole other subject and is probably best for the Religion forum.

[macmeal]

You are all on a fascinating roll here- Hollywood couldn't WRITE better stuff than what's going on all around us every day. In my teenage years I was a huge fan of science fiction, and believe me, a lot of it was no stranger than our everyday reality now.
I couldn't help but being amused by the immense ironies seen here- isn't it truly amazing that some of our angriest Christian zealots are coming perilously close to adopting the very tactics of the "other side", while some of our biggest "libs" are toying with a "turn the other cheek" approach that would do credit to the Christian right, if only the Christian right would live by the words of its original (middle eastern) Founder?--- Can anyone figure this out ??? Sheeeeeesh!!!

[macmeal]

[quote=JD.;1047506]Agree completely with your last post macmeal. Appeasement only makes the agressor more aggresive.]

JD I meant to address your interesting statement. It fits right in with my "cultural" take on all this turmoil. Your observation about the "aggressor" is a great illustration. To "us" (western judeo-christian culture), "Appeasement" is used as a well-meaning attempt to reach out, make concessions, and compromise with the "other". If the "other" shares our culture, then all is well and good- each side makes an efort to "get along".
There are cultures, however (a number of them, by the way), in which "compromise" is a sign of weakness- it results not in a feeling of appreciation, but in contempt, disgust, and a loss of respect from the "other" side.
As I've side before, nuclear bombs and terrorists will probably affect relatively few of us. But small, intractable cultural differences may well result in a society that is practically impossible to live in on a day-to-day basis.....We'd be well-advised to be VERY leery of any well-meaning moves toward "multi-culturalism", until we can come to some sort of mutual understanding. This, I'm afraid, is a long way off.....