Burn the Koran

Remove all ads!

Nah, what makes you a liberal is your endorsement of liberal policies. That has nothing to do with morality, it's just an opinion on best government.

As for your moral outrage, if you're serious that you're as offended when the Left does these things as you are when the Right does these things, then I'm pleased. As for me, I see no point in being so offended that I abandon the whole party over what a few people did. I'd rather endorse (with my vote) the ones who don't, and try to improve the party as a whole. It's not much, but it's what I can do. If that makes me a partisan, so be it. You'll note, however, that I'm not the one condemning a whole party for their fringe.

EDIT: Of course, being German, I suppose that isn't an option for you as far as American politics is concerned.

 

NOG,
just this: Don't get led astray. For instance being against torture is not exactly liberal, and opposition to torture is not exactly a liberal policy position. Was that so, American conservatives went a long way since Reagan signed and Congress ratified the Convention Against Torture and made torture a federal crime.

Spoiler

Torture is a crime, domestically and internationally, and prosecuting it ought to be a matter of course, as indeed it was among conservatives.

As the spectacle of the Republican primaries strongly underlined, no more.

Which is curious, since being against torture is an expression of core beliefs perfectly befitting a conservative - after all it is about respect for individual rights, due process and a fair trial - Freedom™ and Liberty™ - or in other words, it is about about fundamentals.

I rather that there is no purer expression of tyranny than torture (in particular when contrasted to health care). Yet it is popular among conservatives today to endorse the former and decry the latter. Reality beats satire indeed.

 

No, they are not. Those are liberal principles. Of course, everyone says they are for "freedom and liberty," but most conservative countries do not apply those liberal principles -- Iran, Saudi Arabia are examples of extreme conservative countries that don't apply those liberal princples of which you speak. There is confusion because America is a very conservative country, but the principles that are "conservered" are liberal. That is a direct quote from this man, from his book, Albion's Seed, a book about the founding folkways in the colonization of America.




The liberal principles are decidedly anti-authoritarian, but balanced with personal responsibilty. A disregard for authority does not mean anarchy and doing whatever comes to mind without consequences. That is not what is meant by liberty in the classic sense of the word. The term is very much abused by both sides these days.

 

And that is about where conservative Libertarianism and Liberalism meet. It is neither an accident nor an aberration so see Bob Barr cooperating with the ACLU on privacy issues (read: against warrantless wire tapping and the like).

 

That is amazing, Ragusa. Even Dick Armey is considering working with the ACLU?

 

Believe it or not, there are a lot of conservatives who are still waiting, with baited breath nonetheless, for trials of war crimes against Dick Cheney and the like. I'm not sure Bush was involved enough to be charged, much less convicted (though I'm open to evidence on that note). Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's going to happen under this administration. Now, why aren't you starting a thread about that? I know I've seen a number of opinion pieces about it, so I can't imagine that the topic has missed you.

I... don't think Iran and Saudi Arabia are for "freedom and liberty", even in their own PR. I also think it's blatantly dishonest to compare politics from not only different nations, but also radically different societies. In those countries, monogamy may be considered a liberal position, while taking care of the poor may be conservative (it is commanded in the Torah and Bible, and I think the Koran).

I think you may be talking about idealized liberal principles. Today, a lot of liberal politics is meant to shield people from personal responsibility. It's something a lot of conservatives criticize the liberals for, while the liberals criticize the conservatives for expecting everyone to take care of themselves, without any help from society. Both positions are BS.

 

NOG,
I am all for prosecuting Cheney for torture.

​

And I think it is likely that Cheney made sure that Bush signed off on all the key decisions.

It is Republicans who have been twisting this administrations arm to the extent that prosecuting Bushies would be politically very costly. The Omaba administration, in order to get anything done, has (sadly) decided to avoid rancorous Republican accusations of vengefulness and that they criminalise totally legitimate policy positions (like a torture policy *sarcasm*). That was what the revolting spectacle of Republican candidates out-endorsing each other on torture in the Republican primaries was all about. Just look at all those factually challenged, rancorous and utterly misleading propaganda Miss Liz Cheney has made to prevent Guantanamo from being closed or what her outlet 'Keep America Safe' is about (hint: It starts with 'don't prosecute' and ends with 'my dad').

As a result we have Obama and Holder 'looking forward'. I think that is the false decision, certainly from a rule of law point of view, but politically prosecutions are considered not doable. It's not just about the current administration. The last one still has a determined rearguard making sure that prosecutions won't happen.

Besides, I have said that they committed crimes for since roughly about 2003, and all it got me was the accusation that, to say such vile things, I must hate Bush, and be anti-American anyway. I can be forgiven having gotten tired of that particular dance.

 

They are not, which was my point. They are orthodox, conservative countries.

So they would admit to being tyrants and oppressive? The Islamic Revolution was supposed to end the "tyranny" of the Shaw and the Western powers that were involvled in shaping their policy. They are now "free" of "western imperalism" and influence to a large extent. I am not saying they are correct, only that PR is still largely rhetoric.

I am not "comparing politics between nations." There are no members of the Democratic and Republican party in Iran, hence there can be no "political comparision." But, if you like, we can compare specific issues of freedom and liberty, as oppossed to conservative, orthodoxy of current institutions, and how that translates into policy. Like say, freedom of religion, or women's rights, or gay rights or gay marriage, or even more generally, freedom of expression, or the freedom to master of one's own destiny.

My use of the terms conservative and liberal are meant within an historical context: Reform versus tradition. The political propaganda and rhetoric used by the media and current politicians and pundits are meaningless to me, unless they are used in regards to a specific policy or issue.

That's just gibberish from the media pundits, unless it is attached to a specfic issue, that can be proven to be a true liberal position. Otherwise, it is a meaningless statement.

 

Oh, please, Ragusa. Now you're just breaking your own back to defend Obama. When Obama came into office, the liberals were ready to skin him alive if he didn't prosecute Bush and Cheney, and he had a supermajority, meaning he didn't need the Republicans for squat (as seen in the Health Care Bill). When he didn't, the liberals did skin him alive in the media, and I remember you (or was it Chandos?) chiming in with stark disappointment. Actually, I think it was you. I seem to recall Chandos saying that Obama would never do anything to diminish the power of the Presidency, which prosecuting Bush would do.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 45 seconds later... ----------

No, they don't admit to being oppressive, they just claim their focus is on other things, like 'maintaining the purity of The Prophet's Holy Message' or some such.

No, you were comparing 'conservatism' and 'liberalism'. For example, when you said this:

'Those' are not liberal principles. 'Those' are American principles. Both conservatism and liberalism are entirely relative concepts, which is why comparing them between nations, as you just did, is total BS. In the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia are vastly conservative, more conservative than anyone wants. In Iran, Saudi Arabia is vasly liberal. In Sweden, the US is vastly conservative.

 

No, they're French. Or English. Or maybe German. Certainly European and certainly not American.

Or maybe a better way of saying it would be to call them Liberal, like Chandos did - heard the term Liberal Democracy before? A term that originated in the enlightenment period in Europe. What about separation of powers? Again, Europe. Inalienable rights? Europe. Need I go on? They are very typical tenants on liberalism, focusing on the rights and liberty of individuals over all other things. Even the modern American Conservative movement can trace back most of its routes to the Old World.

 

Nothing in that statement is correct from an historical PoV. RotU has it exactly right.

 

Chandos,
of course they are American.

They're American in the sense that when Boeing bought McDonnel Douglas, the DC-3/C-47 became a Boeing aircraft, and was celebrated as a 'Boeing contribution to aviation' in a Boeing ad during a Berlin airlift anniversary. Never mind that the two companies were competitors then, and would continue to be for half a century.

Point is, America wouldn't be the unique, indispensable, annointed nation if all those influences you folks named were not American. So they are.

After all, if the line 'As American as apple pie' is any indication, apple pie is an American invention as well.

 

He always does!

 

A right wing journalist who is always getting himself in trouble printed this. I hear what he is trying to say, though I myself would never burn anyone's religious book or beloved symbol.

I particularly liked this quote:

I believe that we simply cannot let the threats of others bully us into abandoning our rights.

 

Sorry for the double post, but this is too interesting to pass up. If they had burned Bibles, they would never have been arrested. But we daren't offend the Muslims! Flat out and straight up, the West is allowing itself to be intimidated by Muslim extremists, and we are cheerfully handing over the right to free expression that we fought so hard to achieve.

In Quebec, I've heard it termed this way: The Quebecois people feel they've struggled mightily wo come out from under the domination of the Catholic Church (in a societal sense, anyhow). They are at the forefront of the Anti-Muslim backlash in this country because they are totally uninterested in replacing the Catholic theocratic influence with a Muslim theocratic influence.

If Muslims want any respect at all from Western people, they need to stop acting as if their beliefs are superior to ours or that they are entitled to never being offended. Otherwise, they will earn our everlasting contempt and will stay at the fringes of society forever.

 

He was arrested for what, exactly? The charges weren't listed in the article. Assuming Britain doesn't have some law against burning books, what were the charges. This sounds like to me. (Not the story itself, but that charges would actually be pressed against this guy.)

---------- Added 3 hours, 31 minutes and 11 seconds later... ----------

I just saw this article (link) on msnbc that gives some more details on the story. While this is legal in the US, it isn't in England. From the article:

 

You wanna know what I think? If an Imam took a huge crap on a pile of Bibles on the steps of Westminster Abbey, he'd never even be arrested because "we need to be tolerant of the beliefs and practices of others."

It's a load of double standard horse doots, and it pisses me off no end.

 

Sorry, does it say somewhere that the person wouldn't be arrested for burning a bible? Or is that just a bunch of groundless claims there?

Also keep in mind that these people haven't been found guilty of these crimes - only charged with them.

 

That's pretty awesome. When are they going to file charges against the pope for stirring up hatred against atheists by equating them with nazis?

 

Someone is the UK has been arrested for expressing their opinion? What's new?