The Slippery Slope

[dbasnett]

If you have read any of my previous posts you know that I think we have a government run amok. Recently I ran across Federalist Paper 84 again. In it Mr. Hamilton said something very profound.

"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

If Mr. Hamilton were alive today he would give us all a big

I TOLD YOU WHAT WOULD HAPPEN

What a mess this country has become.:cry:

[dbasnett]

In the paragraph prior to the quote I posted he said;

"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. "

[dbasnett]

The Federalist Papers (http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/)

[dbasnett]

I have always believed that the Constitution of the USA was to clearly define the role of States vs. Federal, and that unless specifically noted the Federal government could not overrule the States rights.

It has also been my believe that in cases where State law conflicted with Federal law Constitutionally Federal law won out. (see Supremacy Clause and McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)) In today's society it is common place for the Federal Gov't to routinely trump State law, but, in my humble opinion this is not Constitutional.

We in Missouri are about to put to vote Mr. Obama's health care mandate. The only remote Constitutional authority I can find for the law to stand is "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.", and a very encompassing interpretation of "promote the general Welfare".

Notable, that power is vested in the Congress with these words "general Welfare of the United States;" which seems clearly to be aimed at the welfare of the Sates, not of the Citizens.

[dbasnett]

Thomas Jefferson - Selected quotes

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master.

I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

[dbasnett]

Thomas Jefferson - Selected quotes cont.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

[dbasnett]

Thomas Jefferson - Selected quotes cont.

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[honeybee]

What's up dbasnett, you seem to be pretty pis*ed at the politicians lately.

.

[dbasnett]

Lately? If you live in this country are you happy. We have two groups spinning the far left and the far right. We have a government that, IMHO, doesn't remotely resemble what our founding fathers intended.

My Senator from Missouri has her panties in a wad about the mistakes made at Arlington cemetery. Being a veteran it is important to me that Arlington be properly run / maintained, but aren't there more pressing issues facing the country?

[Blakk_Majik]

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.

This is part of the reason we are so screwed now. The government hasn't been paying it's debt as it goes, just continuously borrowing against the income of generations that aren't even old enough to work yet!

The masses were ever so happy to "let the next generation pay for it", as long as they got their overpriced house/Cadillac/European vacation/etc.

What we are dealing with, in all Western countries, is the end result of insatiable feelings of entitlement. I should have a nice home because I live in America, I should have a nice auto because I was born in the UK. And if I don't want to get an education or be an otherwise productive member of society (which includes serving in the military btw) to get these things, the government should take from those that have (via taxes) and provide it for me.

Another one I like
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
This is why we need term limits in Congress. No one should be able to be a "career politician". Even if they start out good, after enough time they WILL bend to the demands of lobbyists and start looking out for themselves instead of their constituents. One Senator or Rep cannot be a tyrant on his/her own, but if you get the right lobby to get enough of them "groupthinking", they become one.

Looking at all these quotes just remind me of how MAD the Founding Fathers would be if they saw this country now. The very thing they wanted the Constitution to protect us against has been trampled over by a government who only knows allegiance to the wealthy elite. And Americans are too complacent to realize it. Just give them their "reality" television, and you can take anything else, including their freedom, from them.

[honeybee]

Lately? If you live in this country are you happy. We have two groups spinning the far left and the far right. We have a government that, IMHO, doesn't remotely resemble what our founding fathers intended.


That's more or less the situation in every country. The only happy people would probably be the nomads living deep in the African jungles, without any government or laws to screw their lives up.

I guess we are heading towards a WW III or some sort of a gigantic catastrophe. Don't ask me why, but I do believe so. The prophecy of Nostradamus (sp?) about the Christians and the Muslims fighting wars against each other is almost coming true, thanks to Dubya. I am hoping against hope that the pullout of the combat forces from Iraq, as announced by Obama, doesn't turn out to be the next big blunder after the US decided to invade Iraq.

After the Iraqi oil, now news reports are coming of vast mineral resources in the Afghan soil. So finally, we might learn the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's the greed that will be the undoing of mankind.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

The prophecy of Nostradamus

Oh Please, Nostradamus was not a prophet, just a bloke who wrote a lot of very vague predictions down at a time before a lot of people were even literate.

It has been shown time and time again then quite a large number of his so called prediction no one can show that they have happened and other are so vague that they could apply to any number of events.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Looking at all these quotes just remind me of how MAD the Founding Fathers would be if they saw this country now.

We have a government that, IMHO, doesn't remotely resemble what our founding fathers intended.

No you have a country that is a democracy that has a government that resembles what the majority of the people voted for.

You dont have to like it but then again you get a chance to change that in a few years time. The argument about the founding fathers tires me out a bit. Why keep harking on about the past, things change, societies change.

You no longer live in the same place as when the founding father were alive, and i dont mean geographically. If you go far back enough then what would the Indians of the 1600 / 1700 say if they
could see America today, they would be shocked and horrified, but that is to be expected isn't it ?

Generally when i look at recent history and compare it against the present unless i was in the wealthy minority i would be much happier living now than in any other time in the past.

At the moment the world is in Recession and lots of people are pissed as it was generally the fault of the Rich (bankers in this case) and as through out the rest of history the ordinary man and woman end up paying the bill. I can understand that disaffection but to question the way your whole country is run seems a little harsh.

Currently we have a government in the UK with a Majority party that's name has been mud in the UK for 13 years, and that i personally think are a waste of space and i dont agree with a lot of there policies but they are still the government they have been voted in and until someone comes up with a better system this is the one we have to live under.

The one thing i never understood about American politics is the fact the members of the government can hold outside jobs on the boards of major corporations at the same time as serving in office. It seems like a whole load of conflicts of interest waiting to happen.

[honeybee]

The one thing i never understood about American politics is the fact the members of the government can hold outside jobs on the boards of major corporations at the same time as serving in office. It seems like a whole load of conflicts of interest waiting to happen.

Waiting to happen?? Seriously, if you still think the conflict of interests is waiting to happen, your intelligence should be called in question.

Your patience with the existing government is commendable and your argument reasonable. However you can't deny the fact that if your country were being run by a board of directors and the elected lot were to be the CEO and other officers, not many would be able to save their jobs.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Waiting to happen?? Seriously, if you still think the conflict of interests is waiting to happen, your intelligence should be called in question.

It was an expression, rather than a literalism, as in i personally believe that it shouldn't be allowed. You shouldn't be on the board of a private company and work in government.

Your patience with the existing government is commendable and your argument reasonable. However you can't deny the fact that if your country were being run by a board of directors and the elected lot were to be the CEO and other officers, not many would be able to save their jobs.

Actually judging by private enterprise standards, all the board would be complicit, 1 or 2 shown to be responsible, lose there job but with a huge pay off only to be offered another job at another Big company within months. The rest of the board would carry on as though nothing had happened :0)

[honeybee]

Actually judging by private enterprise standards, all the board would be complicit, 1 or 2 shown to be responsible, lose there job but with a huge pay off only to be offered another job at another Big company within months. The rest of the board would carry on as though nothing had happened :0)

I guess I should have included the information that I consider the board would be made up of professionals, and not politicians. Now, if you have companies where the boards are pretty much indistinguishable from the government, then you are in deeper trouble :)

Just look at the state of preparations for the Commonwealth games to be hosted in India later this year. It's hardly a couple of months remaining and people are still trying to figure out if the work has started.

Edit:
It was an expression, rather than a literalism, as in i personally believe that it shouldn't be allowed. You shouldn't be on the board of a private company and work in government.
What I meant was the conflict of interest is not 'waiting to happen', but it's already happening since many years.

.

[honeybee]

Oh Please, Nostradamus was not a prophet, just a bloke who wrote a lot of very vague predictions down at a time before a lot of people were even literate.

It has been shown time and time again then quite a large number of his so called prediction no one can show that they have happened and other are so vague that they could apply to any number of events.

It looks like some people are bent on proving Mr Nostradamus (sp?) right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10838691

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I wouldn't quite go that far, Nostradamus predicted that a Muslim army with the Anti-Christ at it head would invade Christian Europe.

As far as i know that hasn't happened yet :D

[dbasnett]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the new Mosque is completed can I stand across the street from it with a poster depicting Muhammad stabbing Uncle Sam in the eye?

[honeybee]

And you want to do that?
Somewhere I think the kinds of freedoms granted by your constitution have reached a level where a huge conflict is being born. Which is why what ordinarily would have been a matter for the local municipal/city authorities is being referred to the president, and he too has to resort to ambiguities so as to preserve political ratings.

.

[dbasnett]

What do you mean when you say, "And you want to do that?"?

The direct answer is, no, I would not want to do that, but I think it represents the sentiment of many people. Would they have the right to do that?

I don't care if they build it there. I don't think it is smart. It absolutely doesn't have any thing to do with the First Amendment.

[honeybee]

Well, here's the conflict as I see it, or many other would:

As per the US constitution, the mosque can be erected anywhere, as long as it follows the applicable rules/laws. But at the same time, the proximity to the WTC towers' original location has caused some people to protest against the same.

Aren't the people, who think it's an unwise move, generalizing the war on terror as the war against Islam? What is the answer to the question if it was a church or a synagogue (or a Hindu temple for that matter) instead of a mosque? I doubt if anyone would even raise an eyebrow in that case.

So while your constitution grants all the religious groups the freedom to erect their places of worship, a large number of the population does not want a specific religious group to exercise that freedom. Do you not see this as a conflict?

.

[dbasnett]

I was talking about the right of protesters after the mosque was built. Islamic law, or what I know of it, say that the pictures or a likenesses of the prophet are not allowed.

The US Constitution doesn't deal in building codes. Establishment and practicing religion can be done anywhere. What is the proximity of Shinto or Buddhist temples to Pearl Harbor? The WTC was attacked by radical Muslims.

[honeybee]

So while the Muslims can go ahead with their freedom of erecting a mosque, the others will go ahead with their right of protesting against it.

I have nothing to say about the particular rights or freedoms, but I sure think there's a big conflict waiting to unfold with this system. If the people of America truly embraced all the kinds of freedoms you wouldn't have people protesting the mosque, would you?

And the main question still remains: Would you see the same amount of protests if it were a church or a synagogue?

.

[dbasnett]

So while the Muslims can go ahead with their freedom of erecting a mosque, the others will go ahead with their right of protesting against it.

I have nothing to say about the particular rights or freedoms, but I sure think there's a big conflict waiting to unfold with this system. If the people of America truly embraced all the kinds of freedoms you wouldn't have people protesting the mosque, would you?

And the main question still remains: Would you see the same amount of protests if it were a church or a synagogue?

.

The people protesting are not protesting a mosque, there are plenty of them in this country. They are protesting the location of this one mosque.

[honeybee]

The people protesting are not protesting a mosque, there are plenty of them in this country. They are protesting the location of this one mosque.

So essentially they are protesting one of the freedoms granted by the US constitution to the builders of the mosque?

.

[dbasnett]

So essentially they are protesting one of the freedoms granted by the US constitution to the builders of the mosque?

.

There is no right of "construction" in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Let me say this again, I personally do not have issue with the building of the Mosque.

IMHO it is a stupid choice for a location.

[honeybee]

I believe the right to construct a mosque, or any other place of religious worship is implied into the right to practice any religion.

I understand you have no personal agenda against the mosque or the people trying to build it or trying to oppose it. And I have no opinion on the matter too. I am just thinking that whether the mosque is built or not, the US constitution, and in turn the people of the US will lose.

.

[dbasnett]

I believe the right to construct a mosque, or any other place of religious worship is implied into the right to practice any religion.

I understand you have no personal agenda against the mosque or the people trying to build it or trying to oppose it. And I have no opinion on the matter too. I am just thinking that whether the mosque is built or not, the US constitution, and in turn the people of the US will lose.

.

Implied is not a legal construct. The US Supreme court is supposed to deal in matters of fact.

If the Mosque is built it will be a shining example of why this grand experiment works.

[honeybee]

I beg to differ on the implied rights. However, that's a minor issue compared to what I fear about the conflict. Here's a link on the BBC news website that sums up what I have been trying to post:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11076846

It also confirms that Japanese stores/Shinto shrines will not be welcome in the proximity of Pearl Harbour. An important distinction here is that while Pearl Harbour was an incident where Japan, as a nation, attacked the USA, the WTC towers is an example of a small group (compared to the number of Muslims in the world) attacking the USA. While I could understand the opposition to Japanese monuments at Pearl Harbour, I can't understand why the mosque should be opposed, if as you said the people really believe the WTC to be the work of a handful of radical Muslims.

Looks more like there's no more distinction between ordinary and radical Muslims.

.

[dbasnett]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

es·tab·lish·ment
[ i stábblishmənt ]

1. something established: something that is established as a business, institution, organization, or undertaking "worked for this establishment for forty years"
2. people in power: a group of people who hold power and control the institutions in a society or a professional group "One period's avant-garde becomes the next's artistic establishment."
3. business premises: a place of business "banned them from the establishment"
4. establishing something: the act of establishing something, or the condition of being established
"the establishment of new guidelines for users"
5. household: a place of residence, or the household that occupies it

The only way I can get from the actual words in the Bill of Rights to a physical structure, is to assume that what the word meant, as used, has two of the meanings simultaneously. That would be definition (1 or 4) and 3.

Here is the original wording "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.''

Yes, it does appear that the many are being blamed for the actions of the very, very, very, few. One thing I feel certain of is that this Mosque, and those that attend will be under a higher power microscope than others.

[honeybee]

Politicians the world over are some of the meanest s.o.b.s, IMO. Going by the opinions expressed in that BBC link I posted above, I personally think the divide between the Muslims and the Non-Muslims in the USA is going to widen further. Perhaps to a level where it cannot be bridged at all. And most of that hatred will be sown by politicians looking to make a quick popular impression of being patriotic.

With the pullout from Iraq completed in theory, the pullout from Afghanistan already announced, the conflict over the mosque, I guess the Muslim world will have more reasons to hate the USA. I personally feel such pullouts and announcements thereof are a good example why people should not be decisive. I feel it was a blunder to invade Iraq, but this kind of a pullout is worse than the invasion, where the entire country is left in a limbo. If the US were really serious about freeing Iraq from the clutches of Saddam, they should stay on and help build the democracy. It appears the US are now eager to wash their hands off the whole affair and get out of the muck as soon as possible, leaving the common Iraqi to fend for himself, without much means. Regime change from a dictatorship to a democracy is not a matter of a couple of years or just holding general elections and pretending to have a popular government. But then that never was the reason behind the Iraq invasion.

Same is the case with Afghanistan. Only it will take a bit more time before it falls, as the NATO troops will still hold out for a few months longer.

With Pakistan reeling under the floods, the risk of losing Afghanistan back to Taleban or Al Qaeda is even greater. Sadly these two invasions stand out as a glaring example of starting something that you can't finish.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I don't care if they build it there. I don't think it is smart

I have to say i think it is incredibly smart, that particular bit of America will never get attacked again, what fanatical Muslim is going to target a Mosque !! :D

Honeybee - Your last post pretty much sums up the situation perfectly. There never was any plan of what to do in Iraq or Afghanistan after the fighting when those invasion began.

The main plan was to 'Get the bad guy'. In fact The Iraq war in particular was a terrible war. It was needless, lacked public support (well in the UK anyway, i think in the US the public may have been for it at that point but they were deceived as well) and took the US/UK in to two wars that they couldn't win instead of 1 in Afghanistan which if they had focused there efforts, they may have been able to do a more reasonable job.

[honeybee]

Yep, stands to reason if the forces had focussed on Afghanistan, where the real threat lies, the chances of success would be much higher. As it is with the US forces gone from Iraq, after creating an impression of having wrecked/raped that country for good, and set to leave Afghanistan, Osama will be looking for a resurrection of Al Qaeda and its numerous other offsprings in the region.

With Pakistan reeling under the floods, I guess people will just leave Osama alone wherever he is hiding.

Personally, though I resented the invasion and hate the pullout even more than the invasion, I feel the US simply cannot continue occupying the foreign territories due to pure economic reasons. It probably doesn't have enough resources to support these deployments.

.

[FunkyDexter]

When the new Mosque is completed can I stand across the street from it with a poster depicting Muhammad stabbing Uncle Sam in the eye?Yes. The US constitution protects that right. As HB has said, it also protects the right of the local muslims to build it there as that, quite clearly, comes under the umbrella of practicing their religion. If they own that lump of ground then they have a right to build a mosque and practice their religion in it. I don't think that's 'implied', it's obvious. The only area of law that would prevent them from doing so is planning law and that cannot, as per the constitution, be made along religious lines. The question is not: why does the law not prevent it; it's: how could the law, framed within the terms of the constitution, prevent it. But their right to build it does not conflict in any way with your (or any protesters, as you've said you don't have a problem with it) right to protest.

Islamic law, or what I know of it, say that the pictures or a likenesses of the prophet are not allowedYou're not bound by Islamic law so where's the issue. Those who are bound by it choose to be.

Aren't the people, who think it's an unwise move, generalizing the war on terror as the war against Islam?Unfortunately that can be applied to both sides of the debate. There are muslims who make the same false equation and if the founders of the mosque fall into that category then it would be offensive.

Personally I think the mosque could be a good thing depending on how it's handled. If it's set up peacefully and reaches out to the community it could actually go a long way toward demonstrating that Islam != extremism and building some much needed bridges in the US. If, on the other hand, it is confrontational, it's going to make things far worse. I think the fact that this mosque can be built (protests aside) is actually a wonderful example of how open and tolerent the US really is (despite what us Limeys enjoy implying:rolleyes:) and I hope that openness doesn't get thrown back in their faces.

[honeybee]

Unfortunately that can be applied to both sides of the debate. There are muslims who make the same false equation and if the founders of the mosque fall into that category then it would be offensive.


There's a difference, I believe. The deeds for which the general population holds the Islam followers responsible were the deeds of a few individuals, groups or organisations. The deeds for which the Muslim population blames the USA are the deeds of a government. Ironically that means, at least to me, that the hatred a common Muslim may feel towards an American is much more justified than what a common American might feel towards a Muslim.

Yes, there will be voices of reason. But the din has already grown to a level where these voices will probably decide to keep quiet than risk being silenced.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

There's a difference, I believe. The deeds for which the general population holds the Islam followers responsible were the deeds of a few individuals, groups or organisations. The deeds for which the Muslim population blames the USA are the deeds of a government. Ironically that means, at least to me, that the hatred a common Muslim may feel towards an American is much more justified than what a common American might feel towards a Muslim.

That seems a bit irrational, does your government represent you ? do you agree with everything it does ?

Also what does it matter who's hatred is more justified ?

[honeybee]

That seems a bit irrational, does your government represent you ?


Funny, as the whole premise of a democratic government was it was elected by people and so was representative of the people. If you question that premise, there's no difference between a Saddam Hussein and a George Bush or Obama.

Now, if you are talking at the individual level, democracy works on the principle of majority. So at an individual level you will find there's no individual who can claim the government represents him completely.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Funny, as the whole premise of a democratic government was it was elected by people and so was representative of the people. If you question that premise, there's no difference between a Saddam Hussein and a George Bush or Obama.

That wasn't what i meant, you said Americans hold all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few, well the government by its very nature is a very few, and the American President does not have to hold a vote to go to War.

I suppose what i am saying is that holding all of America responsible for its governments actions is just as short sighted as holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of Muslim fundamentalists.

Also there are Muslims in America should they be hated by other Muslims as well for the actions of there government ?

Hatred is far easier to maintain when it is directed at a group of people with a figure head however that group are labelled, then hating lots of people individually.

Its easy and lazy to then expand that hatred to all those of a Religion or a country and it's that kind of thinking that is dangerous and divides people.

[honeybee]

I understand what you are trying to convey, however I still believe that when the head of a state makes a decision, it is taken to be the popular decision (i.e. decision that represents the will of the people). That's the convention whether the country is democratic or any other. It's the same when the CEO of a company takes a strategic decision. It is implied that the rest of the staff of the company support the decision. If you don't, you move out of the company.

The important difference, imo, is that when the terrorists strike (whether they be from Al Qaeda or the IRA or the Hamas or Lashkar), they are part of a small group of private individuals. When the head of a country like the USA decides to strike, it's the whole nation that has taken the decision.

So, if a common American wants to blame all the Muslims for the acts of a few, that's not accurate. But if an Iraqi wants to hold the entire USA responsible for the acts of GWB, he would be more justified in doing so.

Of course that's my interpretation and opinion.

.

[dbasnett]

"...when the terrorists strike (whether they be from Al Qaeda or the IRA or the Hamas or Lashkar), they are part of a small group..."

If you are speaking of "card carrying" members then the groups may be small. If you start including those that support them, without being active participants, the group becomes much larger. Support can range from being the parent to those that provide food and shelter.

A perception in the USA is that many Mosques preach death to the infidels. Is that perception correct? I don't know, and maybe the number is small. My believe is that most Muslims are peaceful, but I understand how the excesses of the few causes problems for the masses.

The USA is a representative form of government. That does not mean that the representation reflects the will or thinking of the masses, or that the masses condone or support the views of the representatives. It is true that if you do not support the position of the CEO of your company you can quit. This November many of us will "quit" this representative body because it so often did not reflect our will. When I wrote my Senator and Representative about bailouts, and was ignored, I reserved the right to not vote for them.

[honeybee]

Your argument for opting out of the elections is pretty good, but that's simply abstaining from voting for the government decisions. Not exactly quitting the government/country. And of course, as you can't find a government that will represent you 100%, there's no escape from the fact that even if you are able to elect a new government or simply leave the country and join another, the government may still not represent you. And I guess that's part of being a democracy.

Muslims have been cursed with poverty, lack of education and therefore no escape from the clutches of the religious preachers. They are the soft target for Jihadi groups and religious extremists.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

That's the convention whether the country is democratic or any other. It's the same when the CEO of a company takes a strategic decision. It is implied that the rest of the staff of the company support the decision. If you don't, you move out of the company.

The important difference, imo, is that when the terrorists strike (whether they be from Al Qaeda or the IRA or the Hamas or Lashkar), they are part of a small group of private individuals. When the head of a country like the USA decides to strike, it's the whole nation that has taken the decision.

So, if a common American wants to blame all the Muslims for the acts of a few, that's not accurate. But if an Iraqi wants to hold the entire USA responsible for the acts of GWB, he would be more justified in doing so.

Firstly i have worked at many organisation where i have completely disagreed with executive decisions, and have never even thought about leaving the company, this is because most people cant just make decisions like that out of principle, they have people to look after and bills to pay.

Secondly you cannot compare a Company to a country. You can choose the company you work for but not the country you are born in.

To say that if you dont like the decision of the president or government then you should move out of the country is a bit silly really. Were do you live Honeybee ? Would you leave your country and all your friends and family behind just because you disagree with a government decision ? Also moving countries is not a simple thing, there could be language barriers, many people are not high skilled workers, what do they do ? as it is a lot harder to emigrate somewhere if you are a low skilled worker.

Next your statement


When the head of a country like the USA decides to strike, it's the whole nation that has taken the decision.


is just completely wrong, in the UK for instance Tony Blair decided to go to War in Iraq despite widespread opposition to it, the fact is that in times of War most Country leaders can do what they want regardless of what the people want. The whole nation most definitely has not taken the decision, in fact the whole nation has not had the chance to make any decision at all !!!

It is just as wrong to say all Americans or All British people are complicit in the War on terror, as it is to say that all Muslims are terrorists or terrorist supporters. It is a fallacy which helps keep conflict alive.

I am no more responsible for Tony Blair's decisions than you are for Osama Bin Laden's !

[honeybee]

I have already said there's a conflict within the model of democracy, where although in reality the government is never completely representative of each and every member of the democracy, the responsibility of the government decisions falls on each and every member of the democracy.

My point in comparing the company with the country wasn't that you should leave a country if you don't like a government decision, but to stress the above, that when you choose to stay on, you accept responsibility for the decision that has been taken, whether you subscribe to it or not.

A glaring example of this is the recent TARP scheme under which the government has now spent taxpayers' money on salvaging the very companies and institutions which siphoned off the same very taxpayers' money. Many people would not agree to bailing out the financial institutions, but once the government decides to do that, these people also have to share the responsibility, by way of whatever taxes they have to pay or the missed opportunities of using those funds for better purposes. Similarly when a country goes to war, its people have to sacrifice by way of joining the military, contributing to the war chest by additional taxes or surcharges and by many other means.

It is with this premise that I say the responsibility for a decision taken by the head of the state lies with the whole country, even if you individually do not subscribe to or accept the decision wholly/partially. If my country borrowed heavily from the World Bank or the IMF and then hiked taxes in order to repay these loans, I cannot stop paying the taxes saying I didn't agree with the decision to borrow. I am sure nobody will even bother asking me my opinion in this matter. But once the government decides that it will borrow now, and will hike taxes in the future to repay the loans, I must either follow the decision or leave the country. As a citizen of my country I must accept my share of the responsibility of my government's actions, whether I like or not.

Now, since this paradox is inherent in the democracy, it is also important to keep in mind that while you as citizen of a particular country may have to bear the responsibility of its actions, you as an individual may not agree with it. We usually tend to mix up the two, which is where the America-bashing or the Muslim-hating comes into picture.

To answer your last statement, if you are a Brit, as a Brit you are as responsible you are for the decisions Tony Blair took as the Prime Minister as I am for the decisions of my government. Thankfully Osama doesn't rule my country, but if he were heading a democratically elected government of my country, I would have to share the responsibility of his decisions too.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

My point in comparing the company with the country wasn't that you should leave a country if you don't like a government decision, but to stress the above, that when you choose to stay on, you accept responsibility for the decision that has been taken, whether you subscribe to it or not.

Right i see what you are saying but i dont agree. You talk about choosing to stay, i believe that many people do not choose to stay somewhere they have no choice. Emigration is not always a choice that everyone has for many reasons, and as i have said earlier for many people it is not an easy process.

Also personally i feel no responsibility in any way for the Iraq War or Afghanistan War. I have taken no part in it, i did not vote for it, i did not endorse it, i dont even have any family members involved in it.

Yes i pay taxes in the UK and some of those taxes will go to the MOD and the Army, but i have no option to opt out.

I am responsible for my own actions, and that's plenty enough thank you very much.

Also if the public are responsible for there government are the people of India then responsible for the alleged corruption in the build up to Commonwealth Games ?

Are the people of Zimbabwe responsible for Mugabe ?

how can the general public be responsible for the failing of those that run for office.

[honeybee]

Also if the public are responsible for there government are the people of India then responsible for the alleged corruption in the build up to Commonwealth Games ?


Yes, very much, as far as they are Indian citizens. It will be a national failure if the games fail, even if it is the result of the acts of a few.

Regarding Zimbabwe, the nature of democracy there is questionable at best, so I would not want to comment on it.

Your point on the practicalities of migrating to another country is perfectly valid. However going beyond that, when you become the citizen of a country (say for e.g. the USA), you have to pledge allegiance to the constitution and the rules and regulations. As in your case, if the war effort proves to be a great burden and if the government hikes taxes, you cannot escape paying them by saying you didn't support the war. That's your responsibility as a citizen of the country. As an individual you are free to your opinion, but as a citizen you must abide by the rules and regulations of your country.

.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Ah well i suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one then Honeybee,

Personally i feel the place i was born to be an act of chance and therefore the idea of me being responsible for my country's (place of birth's) actions is completely alien to me and something i reject.

You may feel some responsibility for your governments actions, but until such a time as my government can be trusted i reserve that right !

Abiding by the rules & laws of the country you live in for me is a completely different issue.

[honeybee]

Yes, we can agree to disagree!

One last comment: In my posts (or even thoughts) I have not taken the country of citizenship to be synonymous with motherland. Motherland would be the country I was born in, but the country of citizenship could be different. All my arguments pertain to the country of which you hold a citizenship (and I have assumed you do not have dual citizenship). This is why I referred to the citizenship of the USA where cases of immigrant population becoming citizens are much higher than many other countries.

That reminds me: There must have been several people who defected from/deserted their motherlands, countries from Eastern Europe and sought asylum in the UK, US or Canada. Isn't that an example of people exercising their choice regarding government policies?

Yes, it's not easy when it comes to an individual and specific circumstances, but it can be done. Maybe there are ten people who were forced to put up with oppressive regimes for each one who defected, but the one who defected did get to exercise his right of abandoning the regime that didn't represent his views. So while it's difficult, maybe extremely, it's not completely impossible.