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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sultan who wrote (216138)	2/3/2007 9:16:02 PM
From: kumar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As Salaam Aleykum Sultan bhai, If you would like me to enter this discussion, pls let me know. Part of my family is Hindu, part is catholic, part is sunni muslim, part is shia muslim. drives my mother crazy with the events celebrated on a yearly basis. khudha hafiz, kumar

To: Sultan who wrote (216138)	2/4/2007 1:38:47 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sultan, that was a very nice speech, conceptually. It's important to give big-picture views of our destinations and the barriers to getting there. I thought the speech, in an abstract, theoretical way, and through the use of historical anecdotes, did that beautifully. Unfortunately, understanding the roadblocks to the formation of enlightened, successful democracies may tell us more about why plans to accelerate new democracies will not succeed than it tells us about how to help them succeed. I say that because many of the "problems" identified as leading to the failure of new democracies are problems that must be remedied through much better education, a higher standard of living, institutional change and cultural change. Understanding that is critical but the speech doesn't address the question of whether there are any methods of markedly accelerating those changes. I don't think there are any ways to markedly accelerate those changes and, in fact, any attempt to do so may create "conservative" resistance and actually impede change. I saw an interview with the King of Jordon a few years back. He said he was working to bring his country to democracy, and I believed him. According to him, however, his country wasn't ready for democracy. I think he was wise. It's not enough to give democracy any more than it's enough to give a man an airplane. There must be landing strips available, refueling stations and maintenance men. Then you have to teach him to fly it, otherwise you're wasting your time, he's going to crash and no one else is going to want a plane, ever. I thought the speech did a good job of illustrating that point. It's a far different perspective than the simplistic jargonisms that have been sold to us for decades and that George Bush/Cheney evidently adhere to. I think that's critically important because a democratic government established in a population that's not ready for democracy can be, as we've seen, a very painful experience. What I'm wondering is why the author of that speech isn't getting some play on public television to educate a lot more people about the fallacy of the "democracy will cure aggression, build better lives and stop terrorism" silliness? We're in critical need of that debate. I do have an area of disagreement but I'll address that in another post. Ed

To: Sultan who wrote (216138)	2/4/2007 2:05:26 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sultan, the speech said, in the context of discussing democratic reform: But a healthy sense of public integrity, in my view, will be difficult to nurture over time without a strong religious underpinning. In the Islamic tradition, the conduct of one’s worldly life is inseparably intertwined with the concerns of one’s spiritual life – and one cannot talk about integrity without also talking about faith. For Islam, the importance of this intersection is an item of faith, such a profound melding of worldly concerns and spiritual ideals that one cannot imagine one without the other. The two belong together. They constitute “a way of life.” I'd be more convinced if I could imagine any government managed by religious ideologues where those of other faiths and beliefs were allowed full religious freedom and freedom of speech. Based on a few decades of observing human behavior I simply can't picture that. Most people who think they are "doing God's will" have a pretty strong notion of what's right for them, and for the rest of us. After 300 years we're still having to fight off the religious conservatives in this country. I suspect that's an even stronger force in Islamic cultures. So, while I agree that every nation needs some kind of moral code and ethical underpinning, how can a nation become a theocratic democracy and expect to assure the rights of the "unbelievers?" Where's the history to support the view that such an outcome is possible, much less likely. And if you have a government that doesn't adequately secure the rights of the "unbelievers" what kind of democracy will you have? Ed