Pope Francis: You Cannot Impose Democracy On Cultures That Have No History Of Democra

I'm afraid I said Bush sold us the war based on 'democratization'. I did not say he sold us the war exclusively on 'democratization', but it was part of his multi-pronged attack on America. Did they ever give you a chance to ride the long bus?

 

Pope Francis knows

Heaven is NOT a Democracy!
And
Democracy is NOT Heaven​

Moi

r > g

View attachment 43176
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Yea, I had the chance, but I didn't want to be with the common scum, so I went to a private school and my parents drove me.

Were the seats as hard as I've heard on your short bus?

 

We didn't interpret the terrorism of the IRA as a problem Christianity was having. We didn't blame the Pope.

We didn't interpret the terrorism of Mandela as a problem with HIS religion.

But, NOW you say that terrorism in the ME is the problem of Islam - even though mainstream Islam sees these terrorists as apostate. Plus, like in Ireland, the motivations in the ME do break on sectarian lines, but the real cause of the ME violence has to do with disenfranchisement and criminal dictators.

As I have pointed out, there really isn't anyone in the ME other than Muslims, making it highly unlikely that there could be ANYTHING going on that doesn't involve Muslims in some way. So, yes there is a correlation. But, you have presented no evidence that the violence occurs because they are Muslims - that Islam is a cause.

Your logic makes no more sense that arguing that the reason for IRA violence is that they are all Christian. It's the same kind of correlation! Yet with the IRA, we can easily accept that Ireland is all Christian, so any violence pretty much had to include Christians as members, while we still (rightly) reject the notion that Christianity was actually responsible.

 

You are aware that religion is all but dead in Europe, yes?

Well, I've been studying Islam for a while now, so this is news to me. But let's test your statement-

ISIS does not show mercy to anyone. The Prophet said- "Be merciful to those on the earth,so the One above the heavens will be merciful to you."

ISIS finds pleasure in enslaving people. The prophet advocated ending slavery and freed all his slaves before he died.

ISIS kills wantonly. The Quran says: "whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

ISIS thrives on hatred and discord. The Prophet said: "It is keeping peace and good relations between people, as quarrels and bad feelings destroy mankind"

ISIS treats everyone who simply think differently from them with transgression. The prophet said "All God’s creatures are His family."

All of these are statements of the Prophet (or Quruan), and all contradict Islam. ISIS has nothing to do with this:

"It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing." (Quran 2:177)

 

Well, I see your statement as being in agreement rather than opposition.

However, I don't see any opposition to Assad being tolerated in Syria. He has been and continues to be using his military against the civilian population. In the last "election" only areas that were pro-Assad were allowed to vote. etc.

So, yes there is a revolutionary movement in Syria. And, yes, there are religious leaders who are part of that revolution - just as there were Christian leaders who backed the confederacy in the US and Christian leaders who supported the political cause of those disenfranchised in Ireland and religious groups in South Africa who supported Mandela (including his terrorism), etc.

And, it shouldn't be overly surprising that criminal elements such as ISIS would take advantage of the situation.

 

Hillary Clinton has three million more votes cast for her
Then Bernie Sanders

 

The atheists are eager to say so; I really have no way of knowing. You do realize, though, that church-going believers would have less time to post on internet Forums than atheists?

Glad to hear you're not planning to join ISIS.

 

Indeed, but it's not an argument, just a statement. If you really believe that the west isn't much different from e.g. the middle east, I don't think there's any hope for an interesting discussion.

hah, that's funny.. I guess that's why the ottomans killed the armenians, and got rid of the greeks.. And why the muslim world today has almost been emptied of jews and christians... And apostasy is punished by death in islam is it not? That tells us much about how insecure islam is..

That's kind of my point.. If they had any other reason -such as nationalism- they would justify it with that. But they dont have any other reason, they justify their terrorism with islam, and that's my point.

apples and oranges. You compare islam to christianity. You can compare westernism to middle eastern culture. Obviously, muslims are happy with islam, but christians are also happy with christianity.. Non-westerners don't like westernism, but westerners don't like e.g. the tribal culture of arabs either. You made a poor comparison.

You seem to assume a whole lot of nonsense... I've thus far only made a statement.. You are attacking an argument I haven't yet made. But yes, I think muslim terrorists -like isis, alqaeda- are religiously motivated. That's quite obvious isn't it?

Actually, they do show the islamic kind of mercy.. "submit or die". They tolerate christians if they submit to an inferior position and pay jizya. Don't they?

Islam allows for slavery, that's undeniable.

According to our eyes of course, but ISIS would tell you their killings are justified, because they are killing enemies, infidels who refuse to submit, sinners who refuse to repent, criminals guilty of major violations, and so on.. Islam allows for the killings of such people. YOu may disagree with ISIS on wheter the people they kill actually are in those categories, but you can't deny that Islam theorethically sanctions such killings.

Muhammed himself was a conquering warlord, and immediately after his death his successors went out and conquered one of the biggest empires in history. Spare us the bs. Islam doesn't forbid aggressive wars.

 

I don't know, is it? Are you an Islamic scholar who is well-versed in the hadiths or something? As to the Muslim world being emptied of Jews and Christians, it's weird how all that seemed to start when Europeans began colonizing the area. Jews lived all over the ME before the Zionists arrived; Christians too before the West destabilized and destroyed so many countries in the region.

But instead of admitting that you had something to do with it- nope, it must he the evil of Islam!

The fact that all you can refer to is the Armenians and the state of the Middle East TODAY is sad.

No, your point is that Islam itself is the problem. That they justify terrorism with Islam is expected, as they see themselves as Muslims.

Is the American constitution itself to blame if Americans justify war with nationalism? Of course not.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Actually, they have the option of paying a tax (and before you start whining, you should know that all governments enforce their authority through taxes. Since Christians are exempted from military service, they have to pay a protection fee).

Anyway, the world is a very different place compared to the 7th century. The problem with ISIS is that they think they have to mimic the past in order get Islam back on top. Another problem is with Westerners like you who thinks Islam is solely about Jizya and legal punishments. You just affirm their beliefs, and this just continues the cycle.

Islam is neutral on the subject, but encourages the freeing of slaves. Slavery was the backbone of society back then, and that's why it wasn't absolutely banned. But there is no reason to bring it back nowadays, which again explains why ISIS engage in it: it worked back then, so maybe it'll work today.

I think you should take some time to study Islamic theology and law before making such blanket statements.

No, you spare us your BS. The Prophet was, like Moses, a statesman that had to engage in stately matters, and that included war. Whether that offends you in some way is irrelevant. And who cares what his successors did? Oh right, I forgot, conquering is only bad when the Muslims do it.

 

Yes. I'm more trying to point to what is actually going on. I hope you're in agreement, and if not maybe this will help us get to where any difference might be.

ISIS are apostates who claim religious motivation. As I pointed out, we have Christians who do that, too. It doesn't reach violence in America right now, as we're actually doing very well here. So we see Trump and Cruz gather the angry and we see some abortion doctors killed, but we're doing far to well for things to escalate in violence.

The reason ISIS exists in Iraq and Syria is that in both cases the governments have created a many years long record of using lethal government force against a civilian population while denying them participation in government and in the civil service jobs that are critical sources of employment. Also, Syria had a many years drought that drove millions to the cities where Assad failed to find adequate response.

When ISIS demanded to help those being slaughtered by the Iraqi government, it really wasn't (and isn't) possible for those civilians to defend themselves against both their own government and the terrorists. And, that is especially true given that America has consistently helped the Iraqi government in their slaughter and disenfranchisement of the Sunni population. On the other hand, if you go back to the "Sunni awakening" you find Sunnis fighting at great peril against the AQI terrorists, side by side with American forces - at a time when Sunnis thought they would be represented in the Iraqi government. During that period, great progress was made against AQI. We then installed Maliki, who turned on Sunnis in a fully lethal assault - leaving Sunnis with few choices.

Also remember that today ISIS offers an alternative that the central government has consistently denied - participation in government. Americans should know the importance of the difference disenfranchisement makes, as it is why our own revolution took place. So, today in Iraq we have Sunnis in civil service positions and in government office - in the proto-government set up by ISIS. This is opportunity that Iraq denies these people.

Yet, today we have people trying to wrap this up in simplistic anti-Islam nonsense that simply does not explain what has happened - either in terms of events or in terms of motivations.

By ignoring what is going on, any response by us is just as likely to make things worse. And, blaming it all on Islam is one of the most powerful examples of how America can go about making things worse.

 

that is a lie.

most news in Russia is government owned.

 

I'm just sayig that it's very funny that you claim muslims have no problems with other religions, when there are many examples of them going after specifically non-muslim minorities. You say muslims are secure and don't mind other religions, but it sure doesn't look like it.

Yes, Islam itself is the problem, the muslim community is a problem, because there are way too many people who use islam to justify terrorism. I don't care about theological arguments about wheter islamic terrorists are "real" muslims. That's pointless, and quite frankly, you have as little authority as i have to determine who is a real muslim. All that matters is that a distrubingly large percentage of the muslim community supports terrorism to some degree. Clearly, this is religiously motivated somehow, and clearly muslims have some big problems they need to sort out.

I know what jizya is, I know what millets are, i know what devshirme is, etc.. I know these things, don't worry. I don't whine. I actually think that -by medieval standards- it's a rather good system, and a relatively tolerant one.

Isn't that the same as what you're saying? You have said that modern muslims have forgotten islam, and that they should go back to how it was during the islamic golden age. ISIS are saying the same thing, but more extreme. They say go back to how it was when muhammad and his direct successors lived.

Maybe ISIS thinks that exceptional circumstances such as the ones they face right now, means its okay to have slaves. Anyhow, the point is that islam allows for slavery.

Are you saying that Islam doesn't permit killing of "enemies, infidels who refuse to submit, sinners who refuse to repent, criminals guilty of major violations"?

No, I don't are about that muslims conquered. I think the arabs were excellent empire builders, very impressive. BUT the point is that you said that ISIS thrives on hatred and discord, and this goes against what muhammed said. But the arabs conquered an empire from spain to kazakhstan, and I think there was a very large amount of hatred and discord involved in that. Or do you think people didn't mind being conquered? Regarding war, ISIS is just doing what the first caliphate did, so clearly ISIS isn't going against islam.

Okay, this is what I have to say about this..

There is a difference between a someone doing something because of their religion, and someone who does something and happens to be religious. There are terrorists who are christians, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are religiously motivated. Same thing with muslims of course.. So, one has to go look for signs wheter they are religiously motivated. Islamic terrorists cite religion all the time, and ISIS is trying to build a caliphate. To me, that looks very religious.

ISIS may be regarded as apostates by other muslims, but a theological debate about who is a real muslim, is a pointless debate. ISIS of course thinks other muslims are apostates also.. Everyone makes their own interpretation, and ISIS has just a valid interpretation as any other group in islam. What matters is that ISIS justify themselves with Islam.

There are some crazy christians too, but what is important is the proportions.. There is a larger proportion of muslims who are religiously motivated terrorists, and who support terrorism to varying degrees, than is the case with christians. This is an important difference.

And finally, people may be driven to join ISIS for many reasons other than a purely religious motivation, but this doesn't change the fact that ISIS as an organisation is religious. Also, the causes which contributed to the rise of ISIS may have been the failure of governments, people seeking safety, feeling marginalised, and so on, but this also doesn't change the fact that ISIS is religious.

 

What he said was

I know around the 'arab spring' some political theorists, I am thinking particularly of John Keane, were writing that we should be open to Arab countries bringing Islam into their beginning democracies. Not only does he believe that Islam possibly was the first democracy but for any system to meet the requirements of its people it needs to be one which the people recognise, not as the Pope correctly says, one imposed by outside. It would be extremely questionable whether it was possible to impose democracy. The extent to which Western Democracy is even democracy is of course another important point to be taken into the equation. Keane points out the part that Christianity had in the beginning of Democracy in the West and suggested that a genuine movement towards democracy in Muslims countries would be likely to have the influence of Islam integrated within it as they worked towards a system of democracy which evolved naturally to meet the needs of the people - possibly though not necessarily bit by bit leaving Islam on the outside.

I do not think what the Pope said was a suggestion that what the people of the ME needed was more repression.

 

The federal government was originally setup with very limited powers and designed to operate slowly and deliberately - limited powers executed slowly and deliberately minimizes the chance of abuse.

The federal system was also arranged so that power was distributed widely, and people were expected to jealously guard their power. The state legislators originally appointed Senators to Congress, that made Senators accountable to their state legislators who would yank them out of office of the Senator tried to shift power from the state legislator to the federal government.

In turn, state legislators were accountable to their neighbors, who would yank them out of office if the legislator tried to shift power from the local community to the state.

Direct election (democracy) destroyed those checks and balances. When combined with the income tax (which gave the feds money to essentially do favors and buy votes), the system was ruined.

In the Federalist Papers, the USA was warned of these very issues. The Founders hated a federal income tax, a federal standing army, and direct election of officials.

 

Yes, this is true. However, "spreading of democracy" helps to make cracks in political landscape and change regimes by using not so democratic methods. For example, our Nobel Peace Prize winner Barak Obama is using the worst after Hitler regime (ISIS or DAISH) as an instrument for his leadership of the world.

 

And this statement is coming from the head of a cult who have a track record of replacing an indigenous peoples' beliefs with their own, stealing their gold and killing anyone who would not convert.

 

There are almost zero ISIS in the world right now - few enough that one of the major problems is simply finding them.

Yes, ISIS declares themselves to be religious. We DO need to note that.

But, suggesting that they represent any part of the rest of Islam is ridiculous. ISIS is a miniscule faction that is radicalized and criminal. They are recognized as apostate by Islam.

For you to believe that it says ANYTHING about the religion of Islam is a gigantic blunder. We need to be smarter than that, or we will pay for it by failing to meet the challenge.

And, yes, ISIS is born of a political situation, NOT a religious situation.

 

No.. You don't understand.. There is no single islam. There are many interpretations of islam, and they are all equally valid. Some muslims call ISIS apostates, and ISIS calls them apostates in return. Who is right? Which is the real islam? We don't know, and it doesn't even matter. Trying to establish what kind of islam is the "real islam" is pointless and impossible. it's as pointless as asking which of catholics, protestants, and orthodox are the real christians. Rather than saying "these are not muslim/christian" one can only say that they follow a different interpretation.

ISIS does represent part of islam. Of course it does. ISIS are muslim, and muslims represent muslims. ISIS doesn't represent ALL of islam, but neither does moderate muslims. Each represents a part of muslims. And the problem is that the part of muslims which support terrorism is quite large. Polls show that up to 40% are sympathetic.

 

The Catholic church ain't a Democracy. But they do have a wall.

 

Pope gets elected though... (just kind of in the same way as in China)

 

ISIS does NOT REPRESENT ISLAM. They are a bunch of criminals that break basic tenets of the faith. This is well recognized by all those who know Islam.

Suggesting there is no way to tell the difference between Islam and ISIS is just a matter of not having a clue about Islam. You don't even have to know anything about ISIS!

No, Lutherans and Catholics are NOT differentiated by one being apostate criminals and the other being OK. Good lord! If you want a comparison it would have to include some virulent and violent white supremacist group that wraps their criminal political direction in a bastardized version of Christianity. We don't have that today, but we also don't have Obama using the US military to slaughter Christian Fundamentalist civilians, either.

There terrorism in the ME has been motivated by the despotic and criminal leadership of several of the countries there. Iraq became open to ISIS only after the government WE installed decided to drive Sunnis out of government, to deny them employment in the civil service jobs that are so important in that country, and to use its own military in lethal assaults on Sunnis to drive them from the cities where they were living. The US didn't agree with that policy, but we had already made Iraq independent and had no way of opposing Maliki's criminal acts.

In Syria, Assad has spent more than a decade of military assaults on civilians in order to retain power. Those who oppose Assad can't afford to also fight ISIS. So, there becomes an opening there, too.

In both countries, ISIS success has come due to a political situation. Trying to blame it on religion is absurd.

We have to learn to separate these issues and recognize root causes. If we don't, our solutions are going to be STUPID, and fail.

 

If you took a poll asking in the US asking if they approve nuclear bombing civilians to achieve your military victory, than you would see they overwhelmingly support terrorism.

 

it seems that you either don't read what I write, or that you don't understand it. if we're going to have a discussion about this, you must try to actually understand what I'm saying. I have already adressed some of these points, and you are claiming I said things I did not.

I clearly said that ISIS represents PART of islam, not ALL of islam.

No, violence is not relevant to the comparison. The point I'm making is that just as there are many interpretations of christianity, and all of them equally valid, there are interpretations of islam, and Isis is one among them.

The factors that contribute to ISIS's success, and the ideological motivation of ISIS, are two completely different things. I agree that political factors contribute to their success, but the point I make is that ISIS is religiously motivated. That some people join them for political reasons doesn't change the fact that ISIS's main goal is to establish a world wide caliphate.

 

"Part of Islam" would indicate that it could be detected with a poll or some other such technique - but Islam is too small to detect that way. ISIS is about 0.006% the size of Islam.

"Part" implies that it is large enough to be considered or accommodated. "Part" implies there is a two-way relationship (like the LDS church sees itself as part of Christianity and Christianity recognizes the LDS Church as perhaps wrong, but still part of Christianity). But, Islam rejects ISIS - they do NOT accept ISIS as "part" of them, but declare them apostate

There are lots of people who would like to form a religious state. Look at Israel. They demand that they be recognized as a "Jewish State", NOT as a state.

I don't see any advantage at all in choosing to view ISIS as an Islamic phenomenon. If anything, the fact that Islam sees them as apostate is what we should be noting. After all, without the broad help of Muslims throughout the region (and the world) we're going to have real trouble opposing them. We want to divide ISIS from Islam. Declaring them to be the same is absolutely opposed to our own best interest.

Thank God that Islam considers ISIS apostate! We should agree 100%!

Also, let's note that if there were to be representative government in Syria or Iraq it would include NO members of ISIS - there aren't enough of them to find representation any more than the KKK finds representation in the USA. So, a direction of good government is a key.

On the other hand, lets note that we really have no way of opposing ISIS militarily to the point of ISIS being gone. Not even our full "surge" point in occupied Iraq could eliminate AQI. So, the US military v. ISIS can not possibly be more than a holding pattern.

I know we aren't necessarily talking about strategy v. ISIS (whether it should be military or whatever) BUT, the fact of ISIS NOT being Islam is very clearly a key element of ANY strategy we would choose.

So, again, no. I reject you association of ISIS and Islam. I see it as not just wrong, but detrimental to America.