Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (31395)	10/9/2001 9:47:58 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Warring Against Modernity By Aryeh Neier Tuesday, October 9, 2001; Page A29 In the aftermath of Sept. 11, some commentators have invoked Samuel P. Huntington's famous essay, "The Clash of Civilizations?" Writing in 1993, Huntington argued that we are entering a phase of history in which "the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." In Huntington's view, the divisions between civilizations are substantially -- though not exclusively -- religious. Among those he identifies that may come into conflict with each other are Western, Confucian, Islamic, Hindu and Slavic-Orthodox civilizations. Though President Bush and other leaders have made commendable efforts to deter Americans from taking out their anger on Muslims in the United States, and his administration has forged an international coalition against terrorism that includes some predominantly Muslim states, many fear we are entering an era of conflict along the lines Huntington predicted. The principal antagonists, we imagine, will be the West, led by the United States, and Islam, led by the likes of Osama bin Laden and fanatic followers prepared to commit suicide for their cause. It is a terrifying thought. Even assuming the number prepared to engage in terrorism is minuscule, how can we defeat an enemy who takes shelter among a billion more or less sympathetic coreligionists? The vast superiority we enjoy in military might provides no security in such a struggle. Perhaps one way to avoid a conflict between Islam and the West is to recognize that today's clash has a somewhat different character. Huntington could be right in suggesting it is cultural, but religion may not be the most important fault line. The calamitous events of Sept. 11 can be seen as a new phase in a long struggle in which tribalists and fundamentalists have identified cosmopolitanism and modernity as their archenemy. The World Trade Center, attacked in 1993 and brought down on Sept. 11, was an obvious target. Located in the cosmopolitan capital of the world, it was the ultimate symbol of modernity: enormous, efficient, anonymous and the home of commerce with global reach. New York is not the first urban center to be attacked by the enemies of modernity. The victims include two Arab cities once considered cosmopolitan jewels, Alexandria and Beirut. A quarter of a century ago the Khmer Rogue evacuated the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh. Over a few days, 2 million people were forced to leave their homes, their possessions and their urban lives. Thousands who were slow to comply were summarily executed and thousands more died on the trek to the countryside. Almost all those driven out of Phnom Penh were Buddhists, as were the blackshirted troops who drove them out. As Elizabeth Becker, a close-up observer of the Khmer Rouge revolution, wrote, "To be Cambodian is to be Buddhist. The Khmer Rouge were no exception. Buddhist monasticism may account for the extraordinary puritanism of the Khmer Rouge." A city that came under attack more recently for its cosmopolitanism was Sarajevo. It was besieged for 3 1/2 years by Orthodox Christians who loathed the multicultural character of the mostly Muslim city. Some 10,000 Sarajevans were killed by shelling and sniping from 1992 to 1995, thousands more were injured and much of the city's cultural heritage was destroyed. The city's historic mosques seemed prime targets. Two days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Rev. Jerry Falwell told a television audience that America "deserved" what happened on Sept. 11 because of the American Civil Liberties Union, abortion providers, gay rights proponents and federal courts that banned school prayer. They "make God mad," he said. Falwell apologized a few days letter. Yet his remarks make clear that American fundamentalists are as hostile to modernity as their counterparts elsewhere. Our enemies are the contemporary counterparts of the Nazis -- for whom the Jews represented the cosmopolitanism they loathed -- the Khmer Rouge and those who bombarded Sarajevo from their safe perches in the hills. Every major faith is represented among both the assailants and the victims in this long-lasting global struggle. Recognizing this may help us avoid a clash of civilizations. Some Islamic leaders are tepid in their support for us, both because they remain uncertain whether we will pursue terrorism in a manner that will contribute to such a clash and because, as modernizers themselves, they are wary of becoming targets. We need to go further to make clear that their religion is not our enemy. One way to do this is by seeking support from the United Nations Security Council for our military action. This time we need not fear that any of the council's permanent members will obstruct action. Many Islamic states could join the struggle more wholeheartedly if it took place under the authority of the world body, and fellow travelers of the terrorists would have more difficulty in whipping up the anti-Americanism on which they thrive. The writer is president of the Open Society Institute. washingtonpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (31395)	10/9/2001 10:30:47 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

God Bless America is a tricky song in that it is both patriotic and a prayer. It seems to me that everyone should recognize the sensitivity surrounding it and act responsibly. You have a point but on the other hand agnostics and atheists are not the only people who can have sensitive feelings. Some atheists or agnostics might think that God bless America sends them a message that they are less American or less welcome, but some religious people might feel that pushing away things like singing God Bless America is an attempt to send them a message that their belief is somehow wrong or unacceptable. I think atheists should tolerate God Bless America and other signs of faith while religious people should tolerate atheists and there expression of their ideas. Both groups should attempt to make their expressions in such a way as to not offer insult. But both groups should also not look for insult twisting around what other people are saying or doing it so as to take it as an insult when no insult was intended. Tolerance doesn't mean you give up your views or even the expression of them. Tim