Debate
Free World: The book
Latest
Commentary
Suggested Websites
Timothy Garton Ash
Do American and European values differ?
| Nearly four out of five Europeans asked in one poll said they thought Americans and Europeans have different values. Almost as many Americans agreed. But the Inglehart Values Map (see p.257 of Free World) shows a much more complex picture. Do you think we have different values? If so, what’s the biggest difference? |  |
Debate - Page 3/13
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Harri Mikk, Estonia
For me the only conclusion of the discussion is very simple ˆ we Europeans could get a bit more American and the Americans could get a bit more European :)
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian:
We were discussing the issue of intolerance of religion and you stated:
"Ok, so in your eyes governments should revert to forbidding being
gay, possibly even making it an offense punishable by law?". Please
show me where I ever stated that. I do believe that governments should
not recognize "marriages" between gays or between lesbians.
And in that view, I am supported by the majorities in America who voted
to ban recognition of gay marriage in 11 states.
You also stated that "So we´re not in the least talking about
religious tolerance here. We´re talking about Mr. Buttiglione wanting
to impose his fundamentalist religious views on everybody else (including
the two other major religions you mentioned). We´re talking about
him professing religious intolerance, Phil." Well, no, I don't think
so, unless the official position that Mr. Buttiglione was running for
would have given him the power to impose those views on others, which
I personally doubt.
You further stated "Oh, but you´ll agree with me that a criminal
record should have a bearing on him taking up public office, I hope."
Actually I believe that is something that should be decided by the voters,
and I believe that the decision of the voters should be respected and
accepted regardless of whether you personally agree with it.
You stated as well that "Many europeans are religious people, many
others aren´t. It´s beside the point. What you´re saying
is that "european elites" try to actively suppress any form
of religion and that that´s religious intolerance." What I
stated, correctly, is that there is enormous intolerance in Europe of
religion and of people who espouse views based on religiously based beliefs.
The crude caricatures in Europe of Americans who actually believe in Christianity,
the constant disparaging of us as "living in jesusLand", the
assumptions by Europeans that we in America are somehow mentally defective
or simply stupid if we publicly profess belief in God or religious faith,
all demonstrate that. The many comments on this board alone from Europeans
who exclaim that anyone who acts on their religious values and faith could
NEVER be elected in Europe, that religion supposedly "should not"
play ANY role in community or family life, to quote one poster, all are
merely further evidence supporting my view. We are not talking about religious
intolerance, Mr. Bastian -- we are talking about intolerance OF religion.
Jan Paul, USA
Margaret Kearney. As an Austrailian with the history of
how your nation rose and became the force it is, you should know this.
The rise of every nation culminates in turning more and more responsibility
for running the country's social programs over to the government. The
best education, the best employment, the best national unity occurs when
a nation is growing. Once it starts growing its government faster than
the nation, it peaks and then soon declines. Just look at every past powerful
nation in Europe and the Americas. Now look at who is coming up the ladder
and will soon pass them. It will probably be some country who currently
is seeing a shrinking government and more dependence on family, friends
and neighbors for social programs, education and jobs. When "fairness"
becomes more important than "justice" (and their is a big difference)
the country is in trouble. No government has been or ever will be fair
to all of its citizens and is lucky to just be fair to the majority and
sometimes even that is difficult. But a government can be just by applying
its laws, rules, and social norms to all of its citizens equally so the
people who chose to live there can work together for common goals. Others,
as has happened throughout history, will move to other countries that
meet their beliefs and needs better. Once a country tries to become all
things to all people it soon loses it identity, it power, and its ability
to compete with the "hungry" nations.
Your recent election in Australia shows this struggle for identity goes
on all over the world. Yet, your country chose to return the leader who
supported the U.S. in this war against terrorism. Are you saying the majority
in your country don't have that right to choose what they did? Doesn't
mean either group is right or wrong, just different with different views
and different priorities and different beliefs. Let liberals live where
they want, conservatives live where they want and socialists where they
want. Each can have its own place in the world and whoever wants to join
with them can. A one size fits all nation has never and will never work.
Each nation needs its own identity and that identity, right or wrong,
needs to be determined by the majority. They can have tolerance for others,
but if they lose their identity the nation that has power will soon lose
that power because its people can no longer pull together.
Michel Bastian, France
> We were discussing the issue of intolerance of religion
and you stated: "Ok, so in your eyes governments should revert to
forbidding being gay, possibly even making it an offense punishable by
law?". Please show me where I ever stated that.
It´s called sarcasm, Phil.
> I do believe that governments should not recognize "marriages"
between gays or between lesbians. And in that view, I am supported by
the majorities in America who voted to ban recognition of gay marriage
in 11 states.
Ok, fair enough, but we´re not talking about gay marriage, here.
We´re talking about a potentially very powerful person stating that
homosexuality is a sin. That (and his previous political record) implies
that he wants homosexuals to be completely "banned" from society
somehow, and frankly, that´s not my (or most europeans´) idea
of minority rights.
> Well, no, I don't think so, unless the official position that Mr.
Buttiglione was running for would have given him the power to impose those
views on others, which I personally doubt.
Mr. Buttiglione would have been general director for justice, freedom
and security of the EU commission. That´s roughly the EU equivalent
of an american federal attorney general. So yes, that would put him into
a position of real power.
> Actually I believe that is something that should be decided by the
voters, and I believe that the decision of the voters should be respected
and accepted regardless of whether you personally agree with it.
Well, the voters had their say. They directly elected the european parliament
which told Mr. Buttiglione to "go pound sand", as you´re
so fond of saying.
> What I stated, correctly, is that there is enormous intolerance in
Europe of religion and of people who espouse views based on religiously
based beliefs.
Whatever gave you that idea? Go to France and ask them about not tolerating
catholicism. Go to Germany and see for yourself how the lutheran and catholic
churches are so discriminated against that we´re even paying official
state taxes to them. Heck, the last time I looked the archdiocese of Cologne
was the second wealthiest in the world (right behind Chicago, incidentally).
We don´t mind people who have religious views. We just start getting
itchy when we think they try to enforce their views through government.
> The crude caricatures in Europe of Americans who actually believe
in Christianity, the constant disparaging of us as "living in jesusLand",
the assumptions by Europeans that we in America are somehow mentally defective
or simply stupid if we publicly profess belief in God or religious faith,
all demonstrate that.
Well, what can I say: there are idiots everywhere, even in Europe. Me
personally, I´d never say such things, because they´re just
plain wrong and they´re also insulting.
> The many comments on this board alone from Europeans who exclaim
that anyone who acts on their religious values and faith could NEVER be
elected in Europe
There might be people on this board claiming this (I´ve given up
on reading all the posts), but I agree that´s BS of the highest
order: of course somebody who´s religious can get elected in Europe.
One of the two biggest political parties in Germany is called Christlich-Demokratische
Union Deutschlands (literally translated it means Christian Democrat Union
of Germany; CDU for short). They´re called that for a reason, you
know. You can also bet that well over 60% of delegates in the Assemblée
Nationale (French parliament) are practising catholics, and I´m
not even talking about the Spanish and Italians.
> that religion supposedly "should not" play ANY role in
community or family life, to quote one poster,
Again, this is not my view. I didn´t say anything about community
or family life. I was referring to political life and actual law-making.
That´s where religion should stay out of the picture as much as
possible.
>We are not talking about religious intolerance, Mr. Bastian -- we
are talking about intolerance OF religion.
Untrue. Man, you definitely have to come over here. You have a marked
experience deficit when it comes to Europe.Like I said, europeans are
not intolerant of religion any more than americans are. Many (and by no
means all) of us just don´t like religion with their politics.
Michel Bastian, France
To Harri Mick
> For me the only conclusion of the discussion is very simple ˆ
we Europeans could get a bit more American and the Americans could get
a bit more European :)
Hehe, trust an eastern european to cut right through the bull :-). Well
said, Harri, that about sums it up.
David Maakestad, Rock Musician
What Europeans probably perceive correctly is that the essentially left social democratic/liberal communistic social welfare entitlements explored as institutional aspects of the human rights envelop by progressive European states is continuously, incrementally and substantially under erosive and tranformative attack by the US market. It's no miss that the tradition which labeled and persecuted leftists during the 1950's in the US is alive and well today. Consider, as one ephemeral point, the coordinated right wing counter to the Clinton administration's attempt to introduce some form of universal national health insurance program in first term. Too many people sell insurance to permit that happening in the US. In Europe the question is whether health and relative wealth redistribution to counter the inherent mechanisms of deprivation in a laissez-faire human condition should continue to be deployed and explored as a part of enlightenment practice.
Juanma Fernandez, Basque Country, Spain
How can anybody believe USA is the most tolerant country in the world? A couple of weeks ago I read in The Guardian that in Alabama they had vote to segregate black children form white at school. Good example of tolerance.
David, Germany
Phil Karasick, you sound like a real "hardliner". You justify almost all the military actions from the US. You said also that you are proud of your military. Well, i must admit you have a lot of convincing arguments. You brought also in the "american interests" when you justified military actions for example the A-bombs on Japan. Well, i don't know much about you but I am sure that you've never been to war. If you are so proud of your troops and on what they are figthing for, you maybe join them? I am sure that Mr. Rumsfeld would be glad to have a recruit like you, especially because a lot of soldiers are tired and want to go home. My brother is in Afghanistan, were he is also figthing for YOUR mission "enduring freedom". I think its not wrong what the soldiers are doing there because the terrorists started the whole thing but its not the fault of the afghani and iraqi people and they have no choice because they live there. What would you do when a bomb killed your whole family because of an accident? I think we have to be very cautious with going to war and i am sure that the iraq-war was not necessary. The price for liberating those people was too high. My brother has changed by fighting in a war and I am sure you wouldn't be so exited about what a war is when you were there so please think also of other possibilities to defend your country and don't talk about all the battles and wars if it were something harmless.
Andrzej, Poland
Politicians very much like to talk about "Transatlantic
ties", common heritage, values, interests etc.
Yet there is no doubt about the fact that American and European values
differ.
In Europe we see "culture of death" prevailing in most countries.
We see lack of any moral values in politics and among ordinary citizens.
On the Old Continent there seems to be no more sense of right and wrong,
everything is relative. Europeans have lost any sense of higher purpose
in their lifes, there are no values for which they are ready to sacrifice.
They also abandoned religious beliefs (with the exeption of Poles and
the Irish).
Europe is also not competitive economically, either. Unemployment is rising,
GDP is not. Cutting edge technologies come from Asia and the US, not from
Europe.
Europe is inhabited by millions of immigrants from Muslim countries, who
do not wish to be integrated into European societies and who despise European
culture and tradition. This can result in Europe becoming an Islamic protectorate
within one generation`s time.
America, by contrast, despite all her flaws, is still the country of freedom
for all opressed, the land of opportunity for everyone who wishes to work
hard. Americans are idealistic and decent people, they wish to do good
in the world. Noone in this world is perfect so Americans sometimes fail
in what they are doing, but even then they still have some set of ideas
which guide them.
I am European, but to be honest I`m ashamed of this continent, most of
all of its so called "elites".
Chirac, Schroder and Zapatero are a disgrace, most others are no better.
Sorry Europe, that`s the sad truth about this continent. It won`t get
any better here unless we look up to America for moral values, honesty,
economic and military strength.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Dear Michel Bastian,
I think you've just personally agreed and confirmed that, in fact, there
IS rampant prejudice in Europe against people whose personal moral and
religious beliefs are unpopular or considered "out of the mkainstream".
In other words, they believe in rules for living as defined in a holy
book such as the Bible, the Torah or the Koran.
I asked you the folllowing question: "Mr. Buttiglione held that being
gay was a sin. Are you therefore telling me, and is it therefore your
view and public belief, that anyone who holds and publicly expresses the
belief that being Gay is a "sin" and not merely a matter of
Nature, is therefore "unfit" to hold the political position
& job for which Mr. Buttiglione was running?"
You replied with the following: "Again, you´re deliberately
misinterpreting what I said to make your point. You know quite well that´s
not what I meant, and you also know quite well that´s not the reason
why Mr. Buttiglione was not accepted as commissioner. " Actually
I do not "know quite well" that this was not the reason why
Mr. Buttiglione was not accepted as commissioner. I maintain that he wasn't
accepted as commisioner because he had the courage to publicly state his
view that the act of homosexuality was Sinful, and that he was punished
purely for his Beliefs. You, on the other hand, appear to be trying to
say that he wasn't accepted as commissioner because he'd been involved
in an embezzlement scandal, and that his beliefs weren't the issue.
Yet, in your very next statement, you basically conceded my point. You
stated the following: "
The reason for that is the fact Mr. Buttiglione´s stated beliefs
were incompatible with basic values of the EU institutions, namely freedom
of religious and sexual orientation." Let me restate your own words:
"Mr. Buttiglione's STATED BELIEFS.....". In plain English, Mr.
Buttiglione was denied the opportunity to serve as commissioner because
he publicly stated beliefs and views that disagreed with the EU "Party
Line". The EU has adopted as a "basic value" and Party
Line the Party Doctrine that homosexual acts are to be accepted as "normal".
Mr. Buttiglione's religious beliefs and moral values say otherwise. Rather
than simply toeing the EU Party Line and keeping his mouth shut, Mr. Buttiglione
exercised what he thought were his EU-guaranteed rights of Freedom of
Speech, Freedom of Thought and Freedom From Ideological Persecution and
openly spoke his mind. The result was that, as you yourself have confirmed,
his stated beliefs were held to have violated EU Party Doctrine, and he
was punished by being rejected for a governmental position. Th EU has
established its Party Line and its Doctrine; Mr. Buttiglione's views deviated
from that Orthodoxy; his beliefs were held to be "incompatible"
with the "basic values of the EU institutions"; the EU's Party
Doctrine could not tolerate someone like Mr. Buttiglione who "Thought
Wrong" and practiced (and publicly stated) "Bad-Think";
therefore, the EU Party Doctrine was required to Prevail and Mr. Buttiglione
was required to Lose, because the EU could not tolerate someone in any
position of power whose views publicly differed from the so-called "basic
values". (Who decided these "basic values", anyway? Was
it put to a public vote or referendum?). Thank you for being refreshingly
clear, Mr. Bastian; you have confirmed for me that Mr. Buttiglione, for
failing to remain silent, is essentially as much a Prisoner of Conscience
as Anatoly Scharansky was during his persecution by the Soviet regime.
WJ, UK
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington USA
Your points here are a dichotomy. You support your government in 'liberating'
Iraq and then support them when they prop up a dictator ship. Iran here
is a case in point.
http://www.ehistory.com/world/CountryView.cfm?ID=102
A democratically elected president was thrown out of office in favour
of a western leaning dictator. Granted the regime that threw the dictator
was even more appaling than what came before but your claim that the Shah
of Iran was a beacon for democracy is a complete joke.
Secondly, I strongly doubt that we will ever agree on the situation in
Iraq. A quick question for you personally though, do you feel that your
government has lied to you about the reasons for going to war in Iraq?
... Also please justify your countries democratic support for Augusto Pinoche and the current House of Saud. attacking one example does not justify your point...
Europeans have scorned God and replaced Him with the image
of an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Benevolent And Loving Government.LOL,
last time I voted it was based on who was not going to be worst. Not as
some deity like governement.
Any chance of a straw poll amongst us Europeans? In fact how many democrats
were actually voting for Kerry?
Margaret Kearney, Australia
*Spontaneous standing ovation*
Why can't I make a point that clearly and well? :-)
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To David Maakestad, Rock Musician:
You stated that "Consider, as one ephemeral point, the coordinated
right wing counter to the Clinton administration's attempt to introduce
some form of universal national health insurance program in first term.
Too many people sell insurance to permit that happening in the US."
Actually, the failure of the Clinton Administration's attempt to Communize/socialize
the U.S. health-care system had nothing to do with "too many people
selling insurance". Rather, it had a great deal to do with the millions
of Americans who contacted their congressional represwentatives and urged
them to defeat the Clinton Administration's oppressive and Big Government-loving
legislation.For all befuddled Yurup-pee'uns who can't understand why some
Americans would feel this way, here are some possible explanations. Contrary
to the opinion of Margaret Kearney in Australia, I personally do not believe
that my American Government has any responsibility whatsoever for "guaranteeing"
my personal health. I do not regard the lack of a universal medical health
care program in the U.S. as being a "disgrace" at all. I do
not want to entrust my health care, my well-being -- my very survival
-- to the same fat,lazy, bloated, wasteful, inefficient Big Government
bureaucracy that is unable to successfully convey a letter to an address
across town without screwing it up. Contrary to the perception of some
Yurup-pee'uns who seem to think that Individuals are nothing but Idiot
Children who "must" be "gently, lovingly Guided" by
the Big Mommy Government, I am quite capable of taking care of my own
health. I eat sensibly, exercise regularly, avoid cigarettes and illegal
drugs, consume alcohol in moderation. I am not interested in participating
in a universal health care system that charges me the same health-care
premium as someone who drinks alcohol like it's water, smokes like a chimney,
weighs 50 pounds more than they should, or actively invites disease and/or
death by engaging in unsafe sexual practices or use of dangerous and illegal
drugs. I don't want physicians to be allowed to unionize. I don't want
them to be allowed to endanger the public's health by going on strike.
I don't believe that being Poor or Disadvantaged on "Your" part,
"auto-magically" "Requires" huge Big Government social
programs fueled by Tax Increases on "My" part. I do not "need",
nor do I "want", the Government's "help". I do not
"need" to be "protected" from "The Big Bad World"
by the Big Mommy Government. I neither "want" nor "expect"
the Government to "take care of me". I can take care of myself,
and I will expect you to do the same.
To Juanma Fernandez, Basque Country, Spain
You stated the following: "How can anybody believe USA is the most
tolerant country in the world? A couple of weeks ago I read in The Guardian
that in Alabama they had vote to segregate black children form white at
school. Good example of tolerance."
You need to re-read the article, or else write in and correct the article
in the Guardian. Children in Alabama are not segregated by race as a matter
of public policy. The state Constitution of Alabama contains anachronistic
segregationist language dating back to the 1950s. The segregationist language
is invalid and legally unenforceable, since segregation was ruled illegal
decades ago. A proposal to remove the segregationist language from the
state Constitution was put to a public vote this last November. It likely
would have passed, except that its backers overreached themselves and
added in language that could have been construed as requiring tax increases.
The proposal thus was seen as a "back-door" tax hike. Had the
extra verbiage been left out, the measure likely would have passed quite
easily. Even so, it lost by only a very narrow margin.
Dear David in Germany,
I would be happy to join US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, if I were allowed
to. I tried to enlist once before but was turned away at the time because
of a medical condition at the time, and am now too old to be allowed to
join up. I agree that the tragedies that befell the Iraqi and Afghani
people were and are not their fault and are indeed unfortunate. That's
why I hope so strongly that the Iraqi and Afghani peoples' newly acquired
freedom will go a long way toward improving their daily lives. You have
stated that you think the Iraq War was not necessary. I disagree with
the "timing" of the Iraq War (I prefer my wars one at a time,
thank you) but not with the necessity of removing Sadly Insane Hussein
from power by use of military force. You also stated that "The price
for liberating those people was too high." Freedom seldom, if ever,
comes cheaply, David. Freedom is not "free". It is Priceless.
You also asked "What would you do when a bomb killed your whole family
because of an accident?". I have answered this question before but
will do so again. I would grieve, I would mourn for them, and then I would
move on. And I would feel gratitude to the invaders for liberating my
country from a murderous tyrant. I would realize that transitioning from
a murderous dictatorship to a free and democratic country is not an overnight
affair, and that the presence of foreign 'invading' forces is necessary
until such time as democratic institutions in the country are strong enough
to stand on their own. (Transitioning formerly Nazi Germany to democracy
took more than 10 years, cost hundreds of millions of dollars and required
the stationing of US forces there for decades after the war actually ended).
And if I lost a family member during the process of seeing my country
liberated, I would grieve for them because they did not live to see their
country freed, but I would understand that this is an inevitable cost
of conflict and that there is no "blame" to attach to the liberating
forces. That's the reason why today, almost sixty years after the end
of WW II, Germans do not "hate" us for having had to kill Germans
while conquering Nazi Germany, but regard us as Liberators who helped
to Free them from the Nazi regime.
Peter Trevino, USA
"Do American and European values differ?"
Right now America has different values within itself!
But under "normal" circumstances I would say that Europe and
the United States have the SAME values. Considering the both parties want
Peace, I think that so far the only difference has been how to accomplish
it.
I am convinced that if both, the United States and Europe would sit, with
Britain in between, to talk HONESTLY about the best way to work together
they would accomplish a lot.
Michel Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick,
>I think you've just personally agreed and confirmed that, in fact,
there IS rampant prejudice in Europe against people whose personal moral
and religious beliefs are unpopular or considered "out of the mainstream".
Have I? Interesting.
> Actually I do not "know quite well" that this was not the
reason why Mr. Buttiglione was not accepted as commissioner.
Well, ok, so NOW you know, since I´ve told you :-).
> I maintain that he wasn't accepted as commisioner because he had
the courage to publicly state his view that the act of homosexuality was
Sinful, and that he was punished purely for his Beliefs. You, on the other
hand, appear to be trying to say that he wasn't accepted as commissioner
because he'd been involved in an embezzlement scandal, and that his beliefs
weren't the issue.
No, that´s not what I said. Read the post (I mean, actually READ
it, don´t squeeze it so it fits in with your own little concept
of the world). First of all, he wasn´t "punished". He
ran for public office and wasn´t accepted. If that´s wrong
we might just as well forget about democracy. Also, both his involvment
in criminal acts AND his statements about homosexuality and women´s
rights were the reason for him not being accepted by the european parliament.
> Yet, in your very next statement, you basically conceded my point.
Again! Incredible the things I can say without actually saying them :-).
> You stated the following: "
The reason for that is the fact Mr. Buttiglione´s stated beliefs
were incompatible with basic values of the EU institutions, namely freedom
of religious and sexual orientation." Let me restate your own words:
"Mr. Buttiglione's STATED BELIEFS.....". In plain English, Mr.
Buttiglione was denied the opportunity to serve as commissioner because
he publicly stated beliefs and views that disagreed with the EU "Party
Line".
What "party line"? No need to restate my words if you´re
going to deliberately misquote me. I meant exactly what I said. Mr. Buttiglione
is against freedom of religious and sexual orientation. That´s not
"party line", those are basic human rights, and yes, they´re
basic values of the EU. Last time I looked they were part of the american
constitution, too, actually (if Mr. Bush hasn´t rewritten that part
of the constitution in the meantime).
> The EU has adopted as a "basic value" and Party Line the
Party Doctrine that homosexual acts are to be accepted as "normal".
You´re being repetitive. If you insist on that "party line"
theory of yours, you should perhaps specify what party you are talking
about. There´s a rather large number of those around in the EU,
you know.
> Mr. Buttiglione's religious beliefs and moral values say otherwise.
<...> (Who decided these "basic values", anyway? Was it
put to a public vote or referendum?).
Well, yes, actually this "party line" you´re talking about
is part of the constitutions of all EU member states. Like I said, it´s
also part of the american constitution. Do you really want to change that?
If so I´ve overestimated you.
> Thank you for being refreshingly clear, Mr. Bastian.
You´re welcome :-). Apparently didn´t help much, though.
>you have confirmed for me that Mr. Buttiglione, for failing to remain
silent, is essentially as much a Prisoner of Conscience as Anatoly Scharansky
was during his persecution by the Soviet regime.
Yeah, well, we haven´t finished building the gulags yet. We thought
of Guantanamo Bay, but realised the space was already taken :-).
To David
> If you are so proud of your troops and on what they are figthing
for, you maybe join them? I am sure that Mr. Rumsfeld would be glad to
have a recruit like you, especially because a lot of soldiers are tired
and want to go home.
Hehe, excellent point, David :-).
> My brother is in Afghanistan, were he is also figthing for YOUR mission
"enduring freedom".
Yes, that´s another thing. All the western media emphasize the heroic
sacrifices of american soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Few of them even
mention the european soldiers there. Not even the brits in Iraq get the
appreciation they deserve outside the UK. So greetings to your brother,
David. He, like all the other european troops on site, has earned my personal
gratitude and my respect for doing a difficult and dangerous job well.
Hut ab.
> I think we have to be very cautious with going to war and i am sure
that the iraq-war was not necessary. The price for liberating those people
was too high. My brother has changed by fighting in a war and I am sure
you wouldn't be so exited about what a war is when you were there so please
think also of other possibilities to defend your country and don't talk
about all the battles and wars if it were something harmless.
Absolutely true. Go into a war zone first and then we´ll see if
you´re still so keen on sending troops out to kill and die, Mr.
Karasick.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
WJ in UK,
You stated the following: "A democratically elected president was
thrown out of office in favour of a western leaning dictator. Granted
the regime that threw the dictator was even more appaling than what came
before but your claim that the Shah of Iran was a beacon for democracy
is a complete joke."
First of all, I never claimed that the Shaw of Iran was ever a 'beacon
for democracy'. I said that he was a wise, decent and moderate leader.
He was. I stated that Iran under the Shaw was a civilized, cultured and
politically moderate country that had a prosperous, Western-oriented middle
class. It was, and it did. I stated that Iran under the Shaw did not make
war on its neighbors and never sent millions of young, naive and virtually
untrained Irainians to be slaughtered while armed only with plastic "Keys
to Heaven" and copies of the Qu'uran. It didn't.
Second of all, I did not ever claim I was in favor of overthrowing the
government that preceded the Shaw. I think that was a mistake on our part.
However, in I think we have to be careful about making blanket declarations
of the "right-ness" or "wrong-ness" of actions that
occurred decades ago in a completely different world environment. We need
to bear in mind the context of the times. The Cold War was still very
much an ongoing struggle at the time that the government that preceded
the Shaw was overthrown. And it was a struggle that was very much in doubt
and which the West could have ultimately lost. At that time, actions were
carried out by governments in both the West and in the Soviet Bloc that
would be reconsidered decades later, after the Cold War had ended in triumph
for the West.
You also stated: "A quick question for you personally though, do
you feel that your government has lied to you about the reasons for going
to war in Iraq?" My answer is No, absolutely not, I don't feel that
my government "lied" to me at all. An awful lot of people believed,
quite reasonably, that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did indeed possess WMDs.
One of those people was John Kerry himself, and he publicly said so at
the time, although of course he tried later to run away from his earlier
statements about that. Whether or not he had WMDs at the time that we
liberated Iraq is irrelevent to me. He clearly had been pursuing development
of WMDs literally for years on end. He had been caught numerous times
trying to buy / build / steal WMD components. And there's no doubt that
had sanctions been lifted, he would have gone right back to trying to
buy / build / steal WMDs. He came right out and admitted that after he
was captured. He wasn't going to stop - Period. Well, now he has been
stopped, permanently. And that would not have happened if we had not invaded
and liberated Iraq.
You stated: "... Also please justify your countries
democratic support for Augusto Pinoche and the current House of Saud.
attacking one example does not justify your point..."
US 'tolerance' for Augusto Pinochet was a product of its times during
the Cold War. It was and is a well-documented fact that the Soviet Union
and its Marxist allies (Cuba, Angola, etc.) were engaged in attempting
to overthrow Western-oriented governments in America's backyard in Central
and South America and replace them with Communist regimes. It is furthermore
a Fact that the Soviets and their allies had provided billions of dollars
in arms and training to Marxist guerilla groups. Salvador Allende's Marxist
orientation, his destruction of the Chilean economy, and his welcoming
of 'fellow traveller' Marxists from Cuba, all were seen as proof that
the Soviets were successfully establishing a beachhead in the Americas
a'la Cuba. It was unfortunate, but given the context of the times it was
not surprising.
As for our alleged "support" for the House of Saud, the relationship
between the US and the Saudi government began with US Pres. Franklin Roosevelt
- a Democrat, as I recall. We need the Saudis' oil (as do all countries,
incidentally -- the UK would be buying oil from the Saudis, too, were
it not for the North Sea oilfields). And the Saudis need to sell their
oil to us if they want their country's economy to survive, they have nothing
else to sell on world markets besides Sand. The fact that we buy their
oil does not mean in any way that we necessarily "like" their
form of government. We don't need to "like" them in orderto
do bujsiness with them. (I personally despise Venezuela's Hugo Chavez,
but we buy his country's oil, too, and for the same reason). The House
of Saud is the sole legitimate representative of the Saudi people, whether
you like them or not. And in fact the Saudis have realized the need to
democratize and are taking their first cautious steps toward allowing
political pluralism.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Michel Bastian, France:
You stated: "Read the post (I mean, actually READ it, don´t
squeeze it so it fits in with your own little concept of the world)."
I did read what you said, thanks. You then stated: "Also, both his
involvment in criminal acts AND his statements about homosexuality and
women´s rights were the reason for him not being accepted by the
european parliament." Precisely. Thank you for makin g my point for
me. His statements about his views of homosexuality were a factor in his
not being accepted by the European Parliament. Ergo, he was punished for
his open statement of his beliefs by being rejected for office. If he
wasn't in fact being persecuted or punished for his beliefs, then his
beliefs shouldn't have even been a factor at all. He should have been
accepted or rejected without any regard whatsoever to his beliefs about
the alleged Sinfulness of homosexuality. His personal beliefs should not
have disqualified him from holding public office. That they did, demonstrates
to me that there is intolerance in Europe of people with Mr. buttiglione's
views.
You also stated: "Mr. Buttiglione is against freedom of religious
and sexual orientation. That´s not "party line", those
are basic human rights, and yes, they´re basic values of the EU."
That's the problem right there -- freedom of "sexual orientation"
is NOT a "basic human right".
You further stated: "Last time I looked they were part of the American
Constitution, too, actually (if Mr. Bush hasn´t rewritten that part
of the constitution in the meantime)." Apparently, you haven't looked
at the American Constitution in quite some time, if you ever did at all.
There is nothing in the US Constitution pertaining to or recognizing any
"freedom of sexual orientation". And in the view of millions
of Americans, there shouldn't be, either. It's Immoral. That's why Americans
in 11 states voted this November to entrench language banning recognition
of gay marriages into their respective State Constitutions.
You stated: "Well, yes, actually this "party
line" you´re talking about is part of the constitutions of
all EU member states." Mr. Buttiglione's disagreement with that party
line shouldn't have led to his rejection. The fact that it did, demonstrates
to me (again) that there is intolerance in Europe for those whose religious
beliefs disagree with those of the constitutions of the EU member states.
You also stated: "Like I said, it´s also part of the american
constitution." Well, no, it's not. You're very much mistaken. There
is NO "freedom of sexual orientation" in the US Constitution,
and never will be, either. And you asked: "Do you really want to
change that? If so I´ve overestimated you." Actually, I can'tchange
something that doesn't exist in the first place. But enough Americans
were apparently concerned about the prospect of legal recognition of gay
unions, that they voted to amend their State Constitutions to explicitly
bar any such recognition.
You also stated: "Yeah, well, we haven´t finished building
the gulags yet." I'm surprised that you hadn't finished building
the Gulags yet -- or importing them. After all, there were and are millions
of avowed and self-declared Communists in France. (Maybe you really are
a bunch of Commies over there, eh?). They supported the USSR during the
Cold War. They insulted and belittled dissidents who had fled the Soviet
"Workers Paradise". They supported the Soviet invasions of Hungary
(1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1979). They could barely
conceal their satisfaction at the Soviets' and Polish Marxists' crushing
of independent trade unions in Poland in the 1980s. And they still control
the CGT to this day, do they not?
And you stated: "We thought of Guantanamo Bay, but realised the space
was already taken." No problem, I'm sure you can re-use the cattle
cars that your government and countrymen used to ship French Jews to the
Holocaust. Mais non?
Irene Adler, USA
"Juanma Fernandez, Basque Country, Spain
How can anybody believe USA is the most tolerant country in the world?
A couple of weeks ago I read in The Guardian that in Alabama they had
vote to segregate black children form white at school. Good example of
tolerance."
A good piece of advice, Ma'am: don't believe anything you read in the
Guardian, especially if it is about the US, without seeking another source
of information.
Segregated schools were ruled unconstitutional in the US more than 50
years ago. No goverment body can possibly "vote to segregate black
children from white at school" without the officials being sued or
going to jail.
You can Google quite a lot of information about our civil rights struggle
on the Internet. Search on "Brown vs. The Board of Education"
and a lot of info will come up, I'm sure. That is if you are interested
in really learning about the US rather than simply reinforcing your prejudices
by reading the Guardian.
This is a good example of the European tendancy to just take what is written
in the socialist EuroMedia about the US for the gospel truth without question.
I'm sure that what we do not know about Europe or the rest of th world
is at least equally matched by what you guys do not know about the USA.
The difference is that we admit it when we don't know something; the Euros
seem to just keep repeating the same inaccurate talking points from the
Guardian, the BBC or whatever, over and over again, like sheep.
Ross Gurung, France
Gosh ! I’m in a fix ! !
I’s of the opinion that this website was meant to let people of
different creeds and races express their thinkings as free as anything.
But to my great dismay, most of them are more prone to come to fists than
argue like civilized internauts.
On top of all, a human being is usually guided by (according to C.G. Jung)
an invisible shimmering light with two different characteristics as a
whole, namely, 1) Innate and 2)Acquired.
People behave and think promptly according to how and where they are born
and brought up. In general, it is true but not always, though.
In the USA, the children are born and brought up normally in a smooth
lingering atmosphere of “The survival of the fittest.” I presume,
it is cause of their pioneering spirit of the adventurous past. Alas,
it occurs that all of them cannot always reach the winning threshold.
Therefore why, a few of them are fond of using tricks such us doping in
sports. In economy, most of them want to earn easy money at their quickest.
So why, the casino-economy, predominated by the hunk of doughs of the
pensioners, whose fund managers seek an immediate profit in the stock
exchange by means of gambits, leaving aside more than 40 millions of the
left outs without a safety net, at the mercy of catholic and protestant
churches. In diplomacy, what is demanded is much patience, clairvoyance
as well as the art of dodging, in order to avoid the type of quagmire
where the USA are these days in Iraq, which the USA cruelly lack, except
Mr. K (Kissinger) used the tact and cleverness to his own benefit.
If ‘W’ finds out the solutions between Israel and Palestine,
no doubt, he’d obtain the Nobel prize. That way his mumbling first
four years would just be forgiven and forgotten. This fall, it is really
probable.
To my mind, the intervention of the USA in Irak was, to some extent, good
intentioned, in a sense that we fellows living in the free world cannot
always go on claiming justice against the highhandedness and cruelty of
those autocrat dictators all over the world and more or less stay cross-fingered.
If there were the UN promulgated resolutions of interference to intervene
where ever it is necessary to oust the tyrants in countries such as North
Korea, Belorussia, Cuba, Burma , Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan,
Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast (and why not the UN forces between the Israel and
Palestine. – buck up ‘W’, you are most demanded
at that end !), the inhabitants of these countries would be very grateful
to the UN. To fulfil such a hectic programme the UN should be escorted
by an army of well trained best elements of all participating countries,
thereafter, making well equipped several light and furtive squads ready
to intervene anywhere in the world at the cost of their lives. This is
probable only if all countries involved look toward the same direction.
It is just like Martin Luther King used to proclaim “I’ve
a dream etc”. So far, it appears to be next to impossible to arrive
at something concrete materializing.
On the other hand, The Europeans have their own background of both culture
and history. In the very past, there were much rivalries amongst the peoples
as well as the sovereigns of different states ‘cause of the feudality
prevailing all over the continent and the Great Britain. One could not
stay at one’s nook to chew one’s long time collected knots
and kinks (should that be applied today to Ladislav of Slovakia ?) without
an alliance with the neighbouring sovereigns. An opportunist could wipe
one out in a jiffy if one’s flanks were left unprotected. So why,
they developed progressively the art of dodging, so to say the art of
dissuasion in order to avoid conflicts. Ciceron alias Marius T. Cicero,
Machiavel, Metternich and Chateaubriand were some of the most telling
figure heads.
In plus, the European countries were very often devastated by famine and
plague. Europe was poverty stricken in the middle ages. The only safer
way to get rid of such rude and ruthless situations was either to migrate
to the new world or to put themselves under the aegis of the then ruling
governments. So why, the social security became primordial. Nowadays,
it depends upon the doses injected in accordance with the colour of the
respective government and its electoral promises as well.
At the end, an American ancient reporter used to argue by saying ; we
Americans, we’ve our God, whereas, you, Europeans, you’ve
replaced Him by the social security. And that’s that.
Ah, if life were that easy ! ! To me , life is a capacity to adjust itself
according to the changes in circumstances.
The very sky is azure blue for both Americans and Europeans and vice versa.
Both of them are linked up by an invisible thread for good (at least for
those majority of the Americans of European breed) ‘cause of their
common and appropriate heritage and aspiration as well to become good
and honest citizens. And to be happy and prosperous up to the great extent
of possibility.
Phil Karsick, Seattle, Washington, USA
Here are a few well-chosen thoughts about
Iraq from Joe Scarborough.... More reasons why I respect and admire him
for his forthrightness.
Did you know that the overwhelming number of Shiites and Kurds support
America's efforts to bring Democracy to Iraq in the form of elections
this month?
Did you know that Shiites make up 60% of Iraq?
Did you know that Kurds make up 20% of Iraq?
Did you know that the Sunnis, who have been dictators over Iraq, only
make up 20% of the population ˜ and many of them support the vote
in January?
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support the US-backed
elections in January?
Did you know that the most powerful Shiite leaders in Iraq are telling
their followers that participating in the American-led elections is a
religious duty on par with fasting?
Did you know that the Kurds in the north fought alongside, and often in
front of US troops?
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of soldiers and marines fighting
in Iraq support the President's handling of the war?
Did you know that the overwhelming majority of troops in Iraq believe
this war is a noble cause?
You don't know any of these facts if you get your information from the
mainstream press. For whatever reason, these powerful media outlets spend
a disproportionate amount of time reporting on the treachery of terrorists
instead of the work of those building the first democratic Arab state
in Middle East history.
Former U.S. House Speaker Sam Rayburn once said that any jackass can kick
down a barn. It takes a carpenter to build one.
Sadly, American media remains fixated on the jackass angle of this remarkably
important story. It seems freedom doesn't sell newspapers.
You can read it yourself at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6330851/#041222a
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
More well-spoken words by Joe Scarborough:
Creating a new democratic world (Joe Scarborough)
Some of you older Americans may remember when the New York Times editorial
pages attacked the Kennedy and Johnson administrations for striking out
and alienating the Ku Klux Klan and other racist organizations across
the South during the 1960s civil rights battles.
The way the Times looked at it, these Klansmen were being brutalized and
having their rights trampled by a federal government that no longer respected
the fact that their racist domination of black Americans was going to
be forever changed with radical new civil rights laws JFK and LBJ were
pushing through Congress.
Despite the fact that these bigots had dominated the Deep South through
fear and torture instead of democratic elections made no difference.
This was not a matter of popular will. Instead, it was about making sure
that all elements participated in the New South's democratic process.
Without support from Klansmen and segregationists, any election in Dixie
would be invalid. And any continued violence from the Ku Klux Klan against
blacks, Catholics and Jews would not be the fault of the Klan, but rather
the federal government in Washington.
Oh wait.
Maybe I've confused the Times' position on civil rights in the South with
their remarkably similar position on Iraq.
This morning the nutbars at the New York Times actually took the Bush
Administration to task for not doing more to bring Sunnis and Baathists
into the Iraqi political process.
To hell with the fact that 75% of the country that live in the Shiite
and Kurdish regions are excited about selecting their first democratically
elected president next month.
The Times is emotionally broken up about the 25% of Iraqis who have driven
their collective boots into the heads of the Shiite and Kurdish communities
over the past half century.
These supposedly educated editorialists just can't seem to figure out
why Baathists and Sunnis are angry about entering a brave new political
world where one person gets one vote.
No longer will Shiites be assassinated by Saddam's Sunnis if they dare
to tell their followers to worship God in their own unique way.
No longer will Kurds worry about whether their political acts will lead
to their children and wives dying unimaginably gruesome deaths.
A Stalinist leader who allowed Sunnis to rule by tyranny is in prison,
the oppressed are on the verge of being liberated by our country, and
the New York Times is bitching about it.
What's wrong with this picture?
The Times editorialists are angry because we destroyed some buildings
in Fallujah where the Sunni population conspired with terrorists to kidnap
Americans and carve off their heads.
And they're mad--get this -- because we didn't protect Saddam's Baathist
thugs from mass firings after moving into Baghdad.
I could almost write the Maureen Dowd column for the day in 2003 after
President Bush announced that all of Saddam's henchmen would be welcome
to keep their jobs in the Army and police force.
What an ugly, insulting column that would have been.
Thought we were there to liberate from Saddam's thugs...just proves we
went in for oil...liberation for Iraqis was never the goal...all about
Halliburton...blah, blah, blah.
As 2004 comes to a close, I say let the Sunnis face this brave new democratic
world the same way the racist minority in the South had to face integration
forty years ago.
They need to face the fact that their tyrannical world has been destroyed.
They can help build a better world or get the hell out of the way.
CB, Australia
"They ignored the fact that 70% of Americans supported
the war at the time of the invasion."
No-one 'ignored' this fact. We (ie. most of the world's population) instead
reduced our respect for the US population another notch or two. Again,
the US population has been lied to by it's quasi-State-controlled 'media',
and again, it believed (in this case, the nonsensical proposition that
Hussein's regime was involved in the 9/11 disaster).
The value divergence isn't so much between America and Europe, as between
a bare ruling majority of Americans, and just about everyone else in the
world.
Polities are in effect machines for producing and supporting human populations.
Unfortunately the US is producing a population of low and decreasing quality.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Jerry David -- GREAT POST!!
Michael Bastian, France
To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian, France:
You then stated: "Also, both his involvment in criminal acts AND
his statements about homosexuality and women´s rights were the reason
for him not being accepted by the european parliament." Precisely.
Thank you for makin g my point for me. His statements about his views
of homosexuality were a factor in his not being accepted by the European
Parliament. Ergo, he was punished for his open statement of his beliefs
by being rejected for office. If he wasn't in fact being persecuted or
punished for his beliefs, then his beliefs shouldn't have even been a
factor at all. He should have been accepted or rejected without any regard
whatsoever to his beliefs about the alleged Sinfulness of homosexuality.
His personal beliefs should not have disqualified him from holding public
office. That they did, demonstrates to me that there is intolerance in
Europe of people with Mr. buttiglione's views.
Ok, so you´re basically saying it shouldn´t matter what personal
beliefs a person holds when he runs for public office, right? So you wouldn´t
mind an outspoken Nazi getting into public office? Or an advocate of apartheid?
Or somebody who advocates legalizing murder (I mean outside of abortion
or euthanasia issues)? Your argument just doesn´t stand at all,
sorry.
> You also stated: "Mr. Buttiglione is against freedom of religious
and sexual orientation. That´s not "party line", those
are basic human rights, and yes, they´re basic values of the EU."
That's the problem right there -- freedom of "sexual orientation"
is NOT a "basic human right".
It´s not? Ok, the Supreme Court must be wrong then, since they thought
it was part of the equal protection clause (you know, that bit where it
says "Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.". Fourteenth Amendment, I believe).
Have a look at Romer vs. Evans.
> You further stated: "Last time I looked they were part of the
American Constitution, too, actually (if Mr. Bush hasn´t rewritten
that part of the constitution in the meantime)." Apparently, you
haven't looked at the American Constitution in quite some time, if you
ever did at all.
I did indeed. And I also looked at the corresponding Supreme Court rulings.
Did you? Obviously not.
> There is nothing in the US Constitution pertaining to or recognizing
any "freedom of sexual orientation".
See my comment above.
> And in the view of millions of Americans, there shouldn't be, either.
It's Immoral. That's why Americans in 11 states voted this November to
entrench language banning recognition of gay marriages into their respective
State Constitutions.
Who said anything about the recognition of gay marriages? I was talking
about discrimination because of sexual orientation, which is quite a different
thing.
> You stated: "Well, yes, actually this "party line"
you´re talking about is part of the constitutions of all EU member
states." Mr. Buttiglione's disagreement with that party line shouldn't
have led to his rejection. The fact that it did, demonstrates to me (again)
that there is intolerance in Europe for those whose religious beliefs
disagree with those of the constitutions of the EU member states.
As well there should be. If somebody disagrees with fundamental values
of the US constitution, would you vote for him?
> You also stated: "Like I said, it´s also part of the american
constitution." Well, no, it's not. You're very much mistaken. There
is NO "freedom of sexual orientation" in the US Constitution,
and never will be, either. And you asked: "Do you really want to
change that? If so I´ve overestimated you." Actually, I can'tchange
something that doesn't exist in the first place. But enough Americans
were apparently concerned about the prospect of legal recognition of gay
unions, that they voted to amend their State Constitutions to explicitly
bar any such recognition.
See above.
> You also stated: "Yeah, well, we haven´t finished building
the gulags yet." I'm surprised that you hadn't finished building
the Gulags yet -- or importing them. <...> And they still control
the CGT to this day, do they not?
ROTFLMAO! Communists control the CGT? Oh, they´d like that, wouldn´t
they? Ok, information update on french trade unions: parties DO NOT control
french trade unions. It´s about as easy for a political party to
control a french trade union as it is to ride a tiger. Particularly the
french communist party (Communistes Républicains, or CR for short;
shows you that the word "republican" can be used in many different
ways ;-)), who has been in steady decline since the end of the cold war,
hasn´t got nearly enough political clout to control the CGT. Not
even the biggest parties have that. Simply put, french trade unions are
a huge pain in the ... errrm ... neck to any french political party. You´re
forgiven for your mistake,though. At least you knew that one of the bigger
french trade unions is called CGT. Not many americans would know that.
> And you stated: "We thought of Guantanamo Bay, but realised
the space was already taken." No problem, I'm sure you can re-use
the cattle cars that your government and countrymen used to ship French
Jews to the Holocaust.
Oh, ok, we´re always glad to take advice from a pro.
>Mais non?
As an aside: I believe the phrase you´re looking for would be "N´est-ce
pas?". "Mais non" is an exclamation, not a rhetorical question.
But keep trying, you´ll get there.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
CB in Australia wrote: "We (ie. most of the world's population) instead reduced our respect for the US population another notch or two." Gee, somehow or other (amazingly enough) I think the USA will actually survive and even (horrors!!) prosper in spite of your "reduced respect" for us. After all, we've been doing it for a little over 200 years now.CB in Australia also wrote: "Again, the US population has been lied to by it's quasi-State-controlled 'media' ". Our media in the US is not "state-controlled" at all. However, a number of media outlets in the US ARE owned by an individual investor, an immigrant who was already a successful entrepreneur in his own country and became even more successful here in the US. Some fellow by the name of Rupert Murdoch, I think. What country was he from, anyway? Australia?
"Unfortunately the US is producing a population of
low and decreasing quality." -- CB, Australia
Ah, so THAT must explain the 2 million or so people who last year emigrated
from other parts of the world to live in America.
Mike, London, England
The way I see it, the economics come first, the values
come second (see Karl Marx). Look at British (OK- English) literature
from the 18th century, and you will see it is full of nationalistic justifications
of imperialism/ colonialism (i.e. the belief Britain was actually spreading
noble values of trade, civilisation and democracy, and not in fact just
feathering its own nest). This world view can be seen as the birthmark
left on the USA after the war of independance.
Now look at any major powerfull nation in history- right back to the Romans.
The Romans had a strong belief in the superiority of their highly organised
culture and society, the Spanish had the rightousness of Roman Catholicism
to spread, Britain had aggressive capitalism, Nazi Germany had the ideal
of racial superiority. The fact is these ideals have come about in reaction
to economic and political strength, economic strength does not come about
as a result of these ideals (OK- maybe the disasterous forced industrialisation
USSR is an exception).
What I am trying to say is that the values of a society are more based
on immediate pragmatism as a result of economic and political realities
than on philosophical logic and argument. This is how the British justified
slavery: it made economic sense at the time and so it was mainly justified
as promoting Christianity, and civilisation- whatever was good for Britain
as the supposed flagship nation of the world was deemed, therefore, to
be good for the world at large (sound familiar?). When it no longer made
economic sense, it suddenly became immoral.
Coming back to the ideological birthmark the British left on the USA,
the USA has not faced the decline of it's international power (the use
of the word 'empire' here is a little too emotive and contraversial) as
Britain has, but quite the opposite. The two value systems are therefore
pulling in different directions. The US is creating an ideology which
explains its new found status as economic world number one, Europe is
creating an ideology consolidating its new position of not being world
number one. Therefore, while the societies may have much in common in
terms of structure, their directions are very different, and so are their
national identities. I therefore think the two value systems will continue
to grow further apart.
To put in a simple analogy- a weak man is more likely to argue the virtues
of diplomacy, a strong man is more likely to argue that might is right.
So: unless our respective nations become more similar on the economic
and political maps, our dominant value systems will not coincide.
Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA
To Michel Bastian: You wrote...."Ok, so you´re
basically saying it shouldn´t matter what personal beliefs a person
holds when he runs for public office, right?". Yes. Exactly. However
reprehensible I may find someone's personal beliefs, the mere fact that
I disagree with or do not share their beliefs should not, in and of itself,
disqualify someone from holding public office. What matters is whether
they allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their ability to lawfully
and objectively do the job for which they are nominated. Here is an example:
John Ashcroft was (and still is) a staunch social conservative. He personally
opposes abortion. He personally believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned,
that Roe v. Wade was a ludicrous decision that invented a "right"
to abortion out of thin air, and that the decision to legalize or criminalize
abortion should be delegated back to the individual states. In spite of
his personal beliefs, however, in his capacity as Attorney General he
made seemingly no attempt whatsoever to shred existing abortion rights.
His personal beliefs did not prevent him from enforcing a legal decision
that he personally disagreed with.
You wrote: "...So you wouldn´t mind an outspoken Nazi getting
into public office?". I wouldn't personally vote for them, because
I'm not a Nazi, but they have a perfect right to run for office and get
elected, like anyone else. We don't criminalize thoughts or ideas here,
only actions.
You wrote: "..Or an advocate of apartheid? Or somebody who advocates
legalizing murder (I mean outside of abortion or euthanasia issues)?".
I'd certainly be disappointed that sufficient numbers of people would
actually vote for someone like that, but once again, they have the right
to run for office if they choose to do so.
Michel Bastian wrote: "...Ok, the Supreme Court must be wrong then,
since they thought it was part of the equal protection clause (you know,
that bit where it says "Nor shall any State . . . deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". Fourteenth
Amendment, I believe)." Yes, they were indeed wrong. That's not unusual
at all, either. That's why the U.S. Congress has the right to rewrite,
override and nullify U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Michel Bastian wrote: "...Who said anything about
the recognition of gay marriages? I was talking about discrimination because
of sexual orientation, which is quite a different thing." No, it's
not a 'different thing' at all, it's one and the same. The gay and lesbian
community in the U.S. is making the argument that they have as much right
as non-gay, non-lesbian persons to marry and to have their "marriages"
legally recognized, along with all the commensurate rights that go along
with marriage. The basis for their argument is the same 14th Amendment
which you mentioned, and they contend that society's refusal to recognize
same-sex marriages is itself discrimination because of sexual orientation.
Michel Bastian wrote: "....If somebody disagrees with fundamental
values of the US constitution, would you vote for him?" Sure. Of
course I would. It would depend on whether I agreed with their position
and on which fundamental value they were referring to. It happens all
the time. Personally, I interpret the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment
to mean that "The right to bear arms... shall not be infringed upon".
But lots of Americans believe it means that only a designated "militia",
and not "individuals", can own firearms.
Michel Bastian wrote: "...So you wouldn´t mind
an outspoken Nazi getting into public office? Or an advocate of apartheid?"
So, are you claimingt that anyone who takes the traditional view that
marriage can only be between a Man and a Woman, or that homosexual acts
are sinful, is a Nazi?
Michel Bastian also wrote..."ROTFLMAO! Communists control the CGT?
Oh, they´d like that, wouldn´t they? Ok, information update
on french trade unions: parties DO NOT control french trade unions. It´s
about as easy for a political party to control a french trade union as
it is to ride a tiger.".... Excuse me, "control" was the
wrong choice of words. I should have said, "And I believe that they
still provide the backbone of support for the CGT, is that correct?"
I did not mean to suggest that the CGT was the "official" arm
of the Communist Party, I meant to state that Communists within the labor
unions in general (and perhaps, though not definitely, the CGT in particular)
provide the core support for the Communist Party in France.
Mike, London
Can I just mention on the subject of State Welfare systems
(i.e. health systems) that, contrary to the apparent beliefs of a lot
of American postings here, it does not lead to economic destruction.
After WWII Britain found itself on the cusp of bankruptcy, while the USA
had an economic boom. Britain has dragged itself up to be currently 4th
or 5th strongest economy in the world, despite it's socialist Welfare
state focus. This does not seem like the road to ruin to me.
Personally I would rather live in the safety of a caring society than
have maybe an extra percent or two annual growth. Try taking a look at
relative prison populations between the US and Europe to see how this
survival of the fittest ideology pans out.
Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
