Oh well, time to stop getting all weepy and nostalgic for younger days, and get back to work.
bbell, if I were to object to what you’re espousing on the grounds that promulgating such views is counterproductive to LDS missionary efforts, would that be the kind of starting point that might allow us constructively engage?]]>
They were mortified when I finally turned around and addressed them in fairly fluent Japanese. I spotted some of the other early morning commuters quietly grinning though.]]>
Later, as was so often the case, we’d find ourselves at the appointed hour clapping in front of an empty house.
We knew the house wasn’t really empty, but as I called in the air support, I’d always smile to myself. CIA? Yeah, right. CTR, baby, CTR. 3rd Division, Dunk or Die.
I also object that he didn’t begin with a joke and how he came to be blogging here today.]]>
Chino this is an LDS site. My espousing an LDS view on Missionary work and how it relates to conversion and the 2nd coming should be at some point anticipated.
IF any LDS posters have a doctrinal objection to my comments in conversion/2nd comiong relating to LDS ideas let me know]]>
bbell, the whole “Islamic question” is, go figure, also a serious one for many Muslims.
You come awfully close to sounding like a Crusader here. What’s the equivalent word for Caliphate in our tradition? Whatever it is, you seem to be describing it.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for spreading the good news of your faith, but I’d suggest caution that you don’t inadvertently create linkages in the minds of your intended devotees that will shut more doors than you might otherwise open.]]>
Likewise, I’ll take your answers as fact. As to your questions …
I see two options here:
1) Adopt the position that democratic development should be allowed to take its course, wherever that may lead. We would actively support moderate players, but ultimately, allow the electoral process (such as it is) to determine outcomes. Accept that in the near-term, we may find ourselves dealing with multiple Irans. Expect that we can successfully integrate such states into the international order, albeit at the risk of unexpected disappointments, since we’d be operating from the basis of negotiating our interests with governments beholden to their electorate rather than to our interests.
2) Adopt realpolitik. We all know what it is, nuff said.
I’m nowhere near being a State department Middle east guru, so I won’t suggest which option serves us better in the region.
I would only suggest that if we choose Option #2, that we should also, at the very least, decide to finally give up our penchant for bemoaning the lack of appreciation shown us by the masses of people affected by our choice. In other words, if you’re going to subscribe to realpolitik, then get real about what that means to the unrepresented masses affected by our real policy and stop accusing your fellow Americans of “blaming America” whenever one of your compatriots makes the point that choices have consequences.
Personally, I’m not such a fragile thing. The thought of exercising American power does not send me into a faint. What annoys me are the folks who want to talk realpolitik but then play innocent when the chickens come home to roost.]]>
That would require a reformation similar to what the christian world exp a few hundred years ago. This takes many decades and a few generations to accomplish.
I guess the question to be asked is a reformation occurring right now? It could be.
Actually if I really think about it. The reformation has to occur eventually if you are orthodox LDS. There needs to be LDS missionaries in these countries.
Sharia law would have to modified in order for Muslims not to face a death sentence for conversion.
The whole Islamic question is a serious one for us LDS. It has to be reformed to allow for conversion and freedom of religion just like Communism in the East had to fall.
Some of you may know that in 1993 I was involved in the conversion of a South African family from Islam to LDS. They were targeted for death by their Imam and eventually sought and recieved refuge in the US. An attempt was literally made on their lives. Needless to say we were from that point on forbidden to teach muslims.]]>
The Mosaic law also states that an adultress should be stoned, yet somehow modern Israel seems to have moved beyond that.
Is there any reason that Sharia law can’t progress in a similar fashion? We founded democracies from Christian principles. Is there any reason the Muslims can’t do the same from Islamic principles?]]>
Lets accept you poll data as fact….
Why is it then that if the majority seem to accept liberal democracy principles in the 4 largest Muslim countries then why in fact do the Governments not practice these principles?
1. Strongman type totalitarian regimes are in charge propped up by western aid and support
2. There is no tradition of liberal democracy or a western concept of human rights in Islamic countries.
3. Western style marketplace of religion is forbidden in the Koran. Non islamic religions and peoples get “Dhimmi” status
What would replace say the Mubarek regime in Egypt if an election was held? Would a liberal pro democracy party tolerant of the Coptic Church win or would an Islamic fundy party with links to the Muslim Brotherhood win?
I personally think that the fundy party would have decent shot at winning.
If there was a new census in Lebanon and we got proportional representation in the country who would win the next election and form the new government? My opinion is that Hezbollah would win anybody disagree?
So then we get to realpolitik. Should the US support open and free election is say Egypt and risk an Islamist gov or continue to support a marginally secular Mubarek regime?
Hamas just won after all.
Turkey seems on the verge of an eventual Fundy takeover as well. Turkish secular military stands in the way… (classic demographic case, like Lebanon)
Anybody want to be the State department Middle east guru?]]>