Ah, ok, I think I see what you are saying now. Hiredgun, thanks for the clarification I appreciate it.
There isn't much of an impasse as you may think. Certainly there is plenty of room for discussion.
I don't think you are being too paranoid in this context. Having religion dictate policy (as far as I can tell) does not seem to be a wise idea and I would agree, that it is not a "substitute for political thought". However, I think you may be giving too much credit to the evangelicals (as far as I can tell), at least when it comes to Israel. At the moment, it does not appear that they wield too much influence (yet).
I would agree it is something to watch due to George Bush's association with them and previous committment to religion as a guide for his administration.
There should definitely be a concern for religion dominating political decision-making. Just look at the extremists in the Middle East as an example of "because God said so" as an acceptable subsitute for political thought. It is most certainly not healthy for democracy over there.
However, it's not just relegated to Islam, it could conceivably happen here with Christianity as the extremist group in government.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I worry when anything clouds anyone's judgment. Israel isn't by any means perfect, but we back them consistantly. We arm them. We protect them. We champion them when others question the bulldozing of buildings or the erection of walls around Palestianians. I think that a good ally has even handed involvement. Help when needed, but call them on their bullshit aswell. A nation-to-nation friendship should be as a person-to-person friendship. We seem to be in a codependant relationship with Israel, who is passive aggressive. I find the implications from the article in the OP facinating, if telling about the dangers of blind loyalty.
|
Will, this is a very interesting topic you raise (and what Hiredgun and I briefly touched upon). We may have to open up another thread on it though to elaborate more fully.