NightCrawler said:http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
NightCrawler said:http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
"Griffith No More!" said:That's why we don't have repressive government regimes running the country for decades that nessecitate a military coup, like say, Portugal.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob said:Did you just wake up this morning and think, "It's about time someone let those Americans know what I think," ?
dwarfkicker said:America isn't the problem. The Bush Administration is.
Sparnage said:There there Bob, you're fighting for a good cause no matter what those awful people say, you really really are. ;)
Aazealh said:Don't worry guys, give China 30 more years and nobody will care anymore about politics in America.
Sparnage said:Yes, it wasn't like America chose Bush twice or anything. ;D
Aazealh said:Don't worry guys, give China 30 more years and nobody will care anymore about politics in America.
Yeah, there's always that to fall back on. China, Empire of the past and the future. We're DOOMed. =)
NightCrawler said:
Duh, since you are so positive to allow yourself some irony, then enlighten me please on this.Denial said:(Historical note: Yeah, looks like Hitler and the rest of these guys were pretty popular with religions...)
So, perhaps you didn't see the links?Denial said:Fraudulent because I say so!
xechnao said:Duh, since you are so positive to allow yourself some irony, then enlighten me please on this.
Because my take is that your point here is wrong.
Don't forget North Korea and their Anti-aicraft bunkers!Aazealh said:Don't worry guys, give China 30 more years and nobody will care anymore about politics in America.
Denial said:Hitler considered the Catholic church to be an enemy, and religion in general to be an obstacle to nationalism. (Because, you see, religions tend to, by and large, emphasize the humanity of all people, whereas nationalism seeks to put people of a specific national origin in a position of primacy.) Mussolini & Pinochet had to be on good terms with the Catholic church, mainly because the Catholic church is a powerful political institution in its own right (both in Italy and in South America).
I don't know, and am not particularly interested in Indonesian politics, but from what it looks like Suharto used religion, or lack thereof, as a way of identifying Communist political opponents... A strange example since it doesn't fit in exactly with the author's agenda. What agenda exactly? Well, if you look at the original article it comes from the "Secular Humanist" website, and the author conveniently defines [his conception of] "fascism" in such a way as to allow him to ignore autocratic governments that are more similar to his examples (USSR, Khmer Rouge, Cuba, etc etc.) but without a strong religious element so that he can pretend that an example that is less similar is in fact more similar than the other examples.
The problem with this, of course, is that it relies upon a perception of the US as a theocracy like Iran... Which it might be if you're a "Secular Humanist" (Note: Usage of secular humanism here is synonymous with fanatical anti-Christian). So, yes, if you're like Michael Newdow the US might be a "theocracy."
Is having mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our coinage an establishment of religion? -- Maybe. However, the problem with Michael Newdow (and also with this little take off on Larry Britt's article) is absolutism. The people who wrote the First Amendment and voted for it also voted to ... have a minister present in Congressional meetings. By any rational standard this is a more substantial establishment of religion. The things that Michael Newdow prosecutes fall under the legal category of de minimis otherwise known as, "Too small to rationally care about."
Which of course, brings us back to where we started. One of the things the original article attempts to do is to posit "atheism" or "secular humanism" as the lack of a belief system, and thus allow the author to ignore (as I mentioned before) more similar examples, and instead draw a more outlandish (and politically motivated) one. You'll note in Larry Britt's original article that he mentions prosecutions of "secularists" specifically. Oh the humanity, Larry! Woe is you! Your local government might want to put up a nativity scene beside Santa. The oppression of having to see that other people don't share your religious views must be completely unbearable.
Since the article flows from a position of absolutism wherein even the permissability of religious expression constitutes the establishment of religion, its ability to make meaningful distinctions between things is destroyed. For virtually every claim that this author makes, you can point to pretty much any nation and see the same thing in action. Ex. Britain. Nationalism? Check. Established state religion? Check. Control of the media (BBC)? Check. Allegations of sexism? Check. Allegations of corporate favoritism? Check. Allegations of "suppressing labor power"? Check. Allegations of election fraud? Check. Etc, etc.
What this amounts to is a Yoda-like philosophy of politics. "Anger, fear, aggression" the fascist side of the government are they! -- A statement that may be true, but one that is completely banal, void of context, and which captures no important information. Relying on it as some sort of guide to figuring out what's "good" and "bad" is foolish because it's really easy to see "bad" motivations for people who don't agree with you... And, well, that's pretty much what this garbage is about, trying to impugn the US with the moral depravity of Nazi Germany. As far "bad" motivations for anything, Hitler is as high as you can go without crossing over into supernatural beings.
Denial said:Personally, I feel that if you feel comfortable making moral comparisons of anything to Nazi Germany without discovering mass graves, your judgement is already questionable beyond belief. The questionableness of the author's judgement is confirmed with essentially every one of his "14 points," as they're all picked not from the reality of the expression of common traits in the "governments we historically agree are bad," but from the author's own preconceived ideas about how the US is fascist. He thus structures each and every single one of his points around the goal of demonstrating "Fascism!" in the US. If you pick your facts selectively enough and spin hard, you can misinterpret anything.
Denial said:The rest of us who aren't off in la-la land see the guy picking his cherries (for one, calling all of these governments Fascist, because the connotation of Fascism is "right-wing," whereas the connotations of Socialism, as in the National Socialists, is "left-wing") and shaking our heads when he comes up with completely uncredible claims (The US Government controls the mass media? In your dreams.) or completely misguided interpretations of the politics of these past governments (Rampant Sexism? Uh, okay. Integral rather than ceremonial role of religion? Sure... "Protection of Corporate power"? A more legitimate assessment is the assumption of previously Corporate power into the powers of the State.)
Do we need even more demonstrations of questionable judgement? Well, some more examples: Writing for a journal titled "Free Inquiry" with the headline "The Republican War on Science." Yeah, totally a war there. Nope, Liberals/Democrats aren't waging "war on science" regarding genetic differences between Sexes/Races, only the Republicans are waging a war. Being published in the "Council for Secular Humanism" isn't really high ranking, on my list, but the content of the article itself is so iffy itself that it reflects badly on that site as well. And, of course, having the article re-re-published on a website titled "Project for the Old American Century" is probably the worst of all. Presumably the "Project for the New American Century" is some secretive Neoconservative plot for world domination. "Neoconservative," in case you're unfamiliar with the term, means "Jew." The "Project for the New American Century" is pretty much the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for the 21st centry, so suffice it to say this website is not exactly gleaming with credibility. I didn't check every one of the so-called "evidence" links, but most of them, from what I saw, went to your usual nutjob sites. The few that I saw that went to real news sites pretty much relied upon bizarre contortions of the facts to fit them with the authors prejudices.
xechnao said:North Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have had hundreds of thousands of victims becuse of US' aggressiveness. Liberal goverments are believed to have been far less aggressive historically.
xechnao said:I am sorry but I cant' follow you. What I know about the Vatican is that it didn't oppose Hitler (on the contrary they rallied to his side).
But this isn't what I am argueing about. The whole "arianism" thing's way was nothing but the religion they are talking about.
North Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have had hundreds of thousands of victims becuse of US' aggressiveness. Liberal goverments are believed to have been far less aggressive historically.
Denial said:... in Communist Russia, in Communist China, in Vietnam after pulling out, in North Korea to this day, the cost in lives of non-intervention, or more tepid Neville Chamberlain style intervention, is often greater than if the US is, as you say, "Aggressive."
Walter said:suc·cinct (sk-sngkt)
1. Characterized by clear, precise expression in few words; concise and terse.
antonyms:
- lengthy, drawn-out, elongated, long-drawn-out, long-winded, wearisome.
Yea because everyone that lives in N.Korea just love it!xechnao said:This is western fiction.