Quote :

"hooksaw: Don't like it when somebody continually pops up and fucks with you? That's ANNOYING, isn't it, troll?"

I post on TWW a lot, and you say a buncha shit I object to. I'm not trolling; that would mean you're special or something.

Quote :

"moron: Ummm... The whole deal with Republicans being anti-gay and anti-abortion is mostly to "trick" the religious people in the country to like them. If they were really anti those things, they would have really tried to pass legislation at some point in the past 6 years where they were in control to "fix" those issues. Then you have made-up issues like the war on Christmas, the faux-supporting for Creationism/ID (they don't seriously try to push these things through, but they superficially support them to make people think they are religious). And the whole Terri Schiavo issues, and the term "culture of life" itself is an appeal to the religious right. Then there was all the "controversy" about the 10 commandments, which was a tiny, tiny issue that got a lot of attention, because it gave the politicians more face time with religious stuff. And you have Bush's casual statements about how God told him to do what he does, etc. You'd pretty much have to be looking the other way to NOT see how politicians use religion superficially, to further their cause, and garner support."

Yeah, I understand that. None of that supports the original statement I challenged you on:

Quote :

"moron: They use religion to rally their base, just like our people use religion to rally the country together, but religion is not the reason that those organizations exist."

You're still not getting it.

And that "saddens me." LOL

[Edited on January 4, 2007 at 6:38 AM. Reason : ...]

1/4/2007 6:37:24 AM

Your original question was "who uses religion to rally us" and the answer, if you couldn't glean it from that post, is "politicians."

Your second question was "when" and that was directly addressed in my previous post.

Is there anything else I can explain for you? Breathing, chewing, pooping, maybe?

1/4/2007 4:47:42 PM

^I asked the question in response to this:

Quote :

"moron: Bin Laden didn't attack us for religious reasons, the Iraqis didn't attack us for religious reasons, the Iranians, NKs, and the Taliban don't hate us for religious reasons (not primarily, at least). They use religion to rally their base, just like our people use religion to rally the country together, but religion is not the reason that those organizations exist."

Since you're still being obnoxious, I'll be super duper clear for you...

Who uses religion to rally us together as a country just like Bin Laden uses religion to rally his base?

You can keep saying shit I already know and understand, but you're not saving any face. It's completely obvious that you were blabbing when you made the post I quoted. Just admit it.

1/4/2007 5:50:39 PM

I honest to god don't know what you mean by "blabbing." The dictionary I have defines blabbing as revealing secrets, and I don't think what I am doing is revealing any secrets.

If you're asking who specifically uses religion, then the answer would be literally any politician that successfully campaigns on the national level. This would include Bush and Kerry, but also includes a lot of others.

edit:

I think you may be trying to point out in your own little way that Bin Laden and our people use religion in different ways, which is true to a point, but I would counter that it is not different in a meaningful way, and they are very similar in the contexts of the systems they are used in.



[Edited on January 4, 2007 at 6:03 PM. Reason : jeez, GrumpyGOP pegged you well]

1/4/2007 6:00:54 PM

Quote :

"moron: I honest to god don't know what you mean by "blabbing." The dictionary I have defines blabbing as revealing secrets, and I don't think what I am doing is revealing any secrets."

On the first page I said "blabbering." I left out the -er on this page. I meant "blabbering."

Quote :

"moron: If you're asking who specifically uses religion, then the answer would be literally any politician that successfully campaigns on the national level. This would include Bush and Kerry, but also includes a lot of others. edit: I think you may be trying to point out in your own little way that Bin Laden and our people use religion in different ways, which is true to a point, but I would counter that it is not different in a meaningful way, and they are very similar in the contexts of the systems they are used in."

No. No. No. I'll explain why I think this is blabbering:

Quote :

"moron: Bin Laden didn't attack us for religious reasons, the Iraqis didn't attack us for religious reasons, the Iranians, NKs, and the Taliban don't hate us for religious reasons (not primarily, at least). They use religion to rally their base, just like our people use religion to rally the country together, but religion is not the reason that those organizations exist."

1. In the years that I can remember (14 years?), "our people" haven't used religion to "rally the country together." We rallied together for like a second out of anger over 9-11. Bush tried to rally us with fear, but we never got together on that.
2. You should not use the words "just like" to compare the USA to Iran or North Korea.
3. You were blabbering. You were chattering idly on without stopping to think about what the fuck you were saying.
4. You're a fucking prick for being such a fucking bitch to me.

[Edited on January 4, 2007 at 8:27 PM. Reason : sss]

1/4/2007 8:26:49 PM

1. I said rally the "base" as in the voting base, as in the people who elect politicians (you know, those people who run the country?). And religion has been used continuously since 9/11 (with America being a Christian nation and all) to support the war on terror. Does this not count for your definition?
2. What word should I use? Do countries not have things in common with other countries?
3. See item 1.
4. Haha, I said I was saddened GrumpyGOP had to explain a simple concept (which you already admitted was simple), which is FAR, FAR nicer than insults thrown your way by less genial posters than myself on here. And you continued to egg me on (with this whole "blabbering" thing), so I replied in kind. And now out of nowhere, you're calling me a prick for being a bitch to you, when at the very least, you were equally as bitchy and prickly (or is it pricky?).

1/4/2007 8:44:08 PM

1. No, the country has not rallied together around Christianity. So quit saying that it has.
2. "Like" works, but "just like" doesn't since NO, THE US IS NOT JUST LIKE IRAN IN THIS RELIGIOUS RALLYING. To draw comparisons between them in the first place achieves nothing since the "comparisons" are really just pointing out minor similarities between things that exist in almost every society.
3. You were blabbering. Just admit it.
4. I came out of the blue? You told me I saddened you and offered to explain to me how to poop. I get insulted a lot on here, but it's normally from people when I'm wrong. I'm not wrong. This is bullshit:

Quote :

"moron: Bin Laden didn't attack us for religious reasons, the Iraqis didn't attack us for religious reasons, the Iranians, NKs, and the Taliban don't hate us for religious reasons (not primarily, at least). They use religion to rally their base, just like our people use religion to rally the country together, but religion is not the reason that those organizations exist."

1/4/2007 10:02:10 PM

You are wrong.

I offered to explain to you how to poop AFTER you accused me of blabbering.

And I can't tell if you're trying to make another one of your "subtle" points, but obviously when I saw "rally the country" I don't mean every single person in the country, literally. I mean enough people to make a difference, politically. And religion underlies every aspect of gov. except for economical issues.

Fact: Most Americans consider themselves Christians
Fact: A plurality of Americans go to church regularly

1/4/2007 11:21:45 PM

^^
did you hear all the bullshit about the muslim who is in congress?
do you remember the shit for 3 years about a war on christmas?
do you pay attention to the stories about how Bush went through a month long study of a single book of the bible, yet John Kerry cant decide whether he is Christian or Jewish or nothing?

I wont say that we are like Iran. I dont think the analogy is accurate, but its definetly more than valid to talk about shit like that. Equating the Christian Right with the crazies in Iran is good because it allows one to see how religious fervor can be used to destroy a government.

1/4/2007 11:50:30 PM

^I got most of that; I've had all that since before this thread. I'm glad you agree with me that the comparison isn't accurate. I agree with you that it's good to discuss the impact of religion on society and government.

^^You said "rally the country together." Of course, I didn't think you meant every single person. But, besides coming together for a second after 9-11, we haven't been together on shit. Pretty much 50-50...that is not rallied together. There's no way you can twist the words or the facts to make yourself right here.

The only reason I'm still arguing with you is because you were so condescending on page one, talking about how I saddened you and shit. I was aware of pretty much all the examples of rallying through religion that have been given so far, but I didn't and still don't see how any of that is 1) rallying the country together or 2) "just like" Iran or the Taliban. Explain it to me and don't start the explanation with "obviously when I say..." That's for pussies.

Or you could just admit you were blabbering.

1/5/2007 5:49:09 AM

Quote :

"1. No, the country has not rallied together around Christianity. So quit saying that it has."

One of the largest and most influential voting blocks in the country has, and in a democracy, those are damned close to being the same thing. You don't have to get everybody, you have to get one more than half of everybody that votes. In short, you're trying to church up "rallying" a bit much, and, for that matter, you're taking this "just like" thing a bit far as well.

1/5/2007 10:37:35 AM

^^ Fine, maybe not "just like" but similar enough to be scary. Does that suit you?

Also, I was not blabbering, and you continue to sadden me.

1/6/2007 12:15:50 AM

1/10/2007 3:17:59 PM

1/10/2007 3:30:46 PM

does anybody know where i can get a nice islamofascism sandwhich?

1/11/2007 1:42:06 PM

bump

4/26/2010 8:23:30 AM

ITT I argue with four-year-old posts.

Quote :

"Bin Laden didn't attack us for religious reasons"

False. Al Qaeda's main beef with the U.S. is its military presence on so-called Muslim holy land.

Quote :

"The Iraqis didn't attack us for religious reasons"

False. The violence in Iraq is almost entirely religious.

Quote :

"the Iranians, NKs, and the Taliban don't hate us for religious reasons (not primarily, at least)."

I'll give you North Korea, even though that regime is essentially one gigantic religious cult. However, the Iranian theocracy absolutely hates the West because of its secular culture, and the Taliban exists for the sole purpose of establishing an Islamic state in Afghanistan.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ]

4/26/2010 9:46:40 AM

Quote :

"False. The violence in Iraq is almost entirely religious."

Yeah, it has nothing to do with an occupying imperialistic force in their country for the past decade.

4/26/2010 9:49:19 AM

That's why the Sunnis are blowing up the Shia, and vice versa?

The United States has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives overthrowing a genocidal dictator and trying to establish an environment where freedom and prosperity can take root. That's some interesting style of imperialism.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 10:06 AM. Reason : ]

4/26/2010 10:02:38 AM

Quote :

"Suicide bombing comes from desperation and force disparity, not religion. "

well it happens under the guise of martyrdom, which is religious...and is basically the whole point. Bin Laden and his ilk conveniently interpret Islamic religious texts in ways to rally their base...a largely uneducated, deeply faithful people against a highly visible scapegoat (US).

so we are fighting against a "religion" but only because that religion has been perverted for purposes of Jihad.

4/26/2010 10:08:07 AM

Quote :

"Suicide bombing comes from desperation and force disparity, not religion."

If that's the case, then why is the suicide bombing community almost entirely Muslim? They are certainly not the only group to face desperation or force disparity in the era of high explosives. Not that I agree that desperation has much, if anything, to do with it. Desperate to get to paradise, maybe.

"Woe is me, I'm oppressed by the Great American Satan, I guess the best way to improve my situation is to blow myself up in front of a little girls' school."

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 10:44 AM. Reason : ]

4/26/2010 10:39:40 AM

Quote :

"The United States has spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives overthrowing a genocidal dictator and trying to establish an environment where freedom and prosperity can take root. That's some interesting style of imperialism."

What kool-aid are you drinking? Do share with the rest of us...

4/26/2010 10:47:56 AM

^ If he's talking about Iraq, then I'd guess that Kool-Aid is comprised of mostly blood.

4/26/2010 11:04:32 AM

He was talking about Iraq.

He basically just posted what the government is SELLING us not what they're actually doing.

4/26/2010 11:47:11 AM

Quote :

"well it happens under the guise of martyrdom, which is religious...and is basically the whole point."

Quote :

"If that's the case, then why is the suicide bombing community almost entirely Muslim?"

The first modern suicide bombing was carried out by a Russian anarchist to kill Czar Alexander II. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a secular movement without any Muslims to speak of, were largely responsible for popularizing suicide bombing. In fact:

Quote :

"They're not a group that most of the listeners will have heard too much about because even though they're actually the world leader in suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2003, carrying out more suicide attacks than Hamas or Islamic Jihad, they're not attacking us and they're not attacking our allies...But they are not religious. They're not Islamic. They're a Hindu group. They're a Marxist group. They're actually anti-religious. They are building the concept of martyrdom around a secular idea of individuals essentially altruistically sacrificing for the good of the local community."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104391493

All you need for suicide bombing to become a tactic is a desperate situation and an ideology. You're not going to convince somebody with tanks and jets at their disposal to blow themselves up without trying the tanks or the jets first, and you're not going to convince someone who is mercenary rather than ideological to blow themselves up at all.

It doesn't particularly matter what your ideology is. People just have to believe it enough to be willing to sacrifice their lives for it. Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, Communism, Fascism, whatever. Right now, it just happens that Christians and Jews have it pretty good, and several Muslim populations have it pretty shitty.

Quote :

"That's why the Sunnis are blowing up the Shia, and vice versa?"

Those two groups are blowing each other up not so much because of doctrinal differences, but much more so because the minority group ruled over the majority group through Saddam Hussein, who was a prick. Saddam leaves, and the Sunnis want to hold onto their power and the Shia want to get back at them for being such pricks.

You can see this plenty of other places. When Tito died and the grip of communist rule left Yugoslavia, it broke down into factions that all started killing each other. The Serbs didn't hate Croats because Croats were Catholic instead of Orthodox, they hated Croats because the Croats had sided with the Nazis to help try to kill Serbs. Likewise the Croats hated the Serbs because under Tito they had dominated the country, not because of some doctrinal split between their religions.

4/26/2010 12:58:13 PM

I'm well aware of the history of suicide bombing. The fact remains that the suicide bombing community is almost entirely Muslim, and the moral and political justifications given for it are entirely religious.

And the difference between Sunnis and Shias is also fully religious; it has nothing to do with ethnicity or culture. It is the religion that divides them. Blaming contemporary historical events, instead of the fundamental religious divides, is putting the cart before the horse.

Quote :

"If he's talking about Iraq, then I'd guess that Kool-Aid is comprised of mostly blood."

Aren't you so edgy.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/26/2010 2:58:54 PM

I wasnt saying that Jihadists invented suicide attacks...I was simply pointing out that the poor schmucks who are brainwashed into carrying out the attacks do so under religious direction and promises of paradise.

4/26/2010 2:59:31 PM

Quote :

"The fact remains that the suicide bombing community is almost entirely Muslim, and the moral and political justifications given for it are entirely religious. "

I don't understand how either of these are a "fact" given that I just showed you evidence that the Tamils did more suicide bombing than prominent Muslim groups, and that they used moral and political justifications that were not religious.

Quote :

"And the difference between Sunnis and Shias is also fully religious; it has nothing to do with ethnicity or culture."

Meanwhile the Kurds are mostly Sunni, with some Shia and others, and they as a group hate (and are hated by) both the other groups. Religion is clearly not the only thing to blame here. Yes, there are divisions based on religion, but it is the existence of that division and its history -- rather than the nature of either group -- that gives you this fighting.

There have been experience in classrooms where the children are divided into groups at random, and then one of the groups is given special treatment for no reason. The two groups end up fighting. Nobody had to convert them to Islam first.

Quote :

"I was simply pointing out that the poor schmucks who are brainwashed into carrying out the attacks do so under religious direction and promises of paradise."

Those poor schmucks are angry and without opportunities. You could just as easily brainwash them into doing it like the Tamils, by appealing to their sense of community and the prospect that they could help their downtrodden brothers.

4/26/2010 3:32:13 PM

Quote :

"False. Al Qaeda's main beef with the U.S. is its military presence on so-called Muslim holy land."

Bin Laden is involved in the gun trade and was also being paid off by some rich and less-than-US-friendly Saudis.

A jihad makes him a lot of money, and spinning it towards religion is an effective way to get more gullible people to work for him.

The public face of Al Qaeda says it's all about religion, but Bin Laden is in it for money and fame (which leads to more money, etc).

4/26/2010 5:14:59 PM

^lol?

4/26/2010 5:18:47 PM

^Obviously he didn't expect to get forced into hiding for years due to US retaliation for attacking us... you don't honestly believe that OBL is just in it because the sky daddy tells him to, do you?

4/26/2010 5:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, it has nothing to do with an occupying imperialistic force in their country for the past decade."

You have got to be shitting me.


and as far as the violence in Iraq being "almost entirely religious", I'd say that's probably oversimplifying things a little...it's also pretty political--it's just that the politics mirror the religious divides in a lot of cases.

4/26/2010 5:51:14 PM

Yeah, I'm sure the American presence in Iraq has nothing to do with the violence.

4/26/2010 6:02:07 PM

Quote :

"^Obviously he didn't expect to get forced into hiding for years due to US retaliation for attacking us... you don't honestly believe that OBL is just in it because the sky daddy tells him to, do you?"

You have 0 understanding of what goes on there, what drives these people, the culture, religion, etc. But I don't blame you because the media here, and the vast majority of the population don't either. *shrug*


Too many people in this thread don't understand the culture over there. Which makes perfect sense because everyone thought democracy would work there too.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 6:11 PM. Reason : .]

4/26/2010 6:09:53 PM

you should enlighten us all then, instead of spouting off sweeping generalizations

4/26/2010 7:09:08 PM

You can't begin to explain or sum up an entire culture on a message board in any number of posts.

4/26/2010 7:11:15 PM

yeah, but you could try

4/26/2010 8:44:06 PM

Quote :

"it's just that the politics mirror the religious divides in a lot of cases."

The politics in Iraq, with the exception of the Kurds, are the religious divides. And that's before mentioning the influx of foreign jihadis fighting their war of religious imperialism.

Quote :

"I don't understand how either of these are a "fact" given that I just showed you evidence that the Tamils did more suicide bombing than prominent Muslim groups, and that they used moral and political justifications that were not religious."

The suicide bombing community, over the last ten years, has been almost entirely Muslim. That was mostly the case before that, too, with the possible exception of the Tamil Tigers, who were engaged in a heated, quasi-secular civil war. But to act like the case of the Tamil Tigers somehow proves Islamist suicide bombing to be a secular phenomenon is totally fatuous. It is overtly religious, conducted with the express consent of the Koran, with the ultimate aim of defeating the perceived enemies of Islam so that secular and democratic governments can be replaced with Islamic ones. If you don't know this, you don't know anything.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ]

4/26/2010 10:13:18 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I'm sure the American presence in Iraq has nothing to do with the violence."

While I'd say the American presence is part of it, the larger issue is the power vacuum left in Saddam's wake. We were the immediate impetus for that vacuum, but not our continued presence there.

Quote :

"Which makes perfect sense because everyone thought democracy would work there too."

I have trouble with the idea that democracy can't work there, or even couldn't work there if we'd gone in with a better plan to begin with.

Quote :

"But to act like the case of the Tamil Tigers somehow proves Islamist suicide bombing to be a secular phenomenon is totally fatuous."

This is not what I'm doing. Obviously in this case religion is involved in the rhetoric used to justify the attacks and to convince people to carry them out. But Islam -- or religion in general -- is not necessary or sufficient for suicide bombing to be adopted as a tactic. The case of the Tamils proves that -- suicide bombing can arise and become common in a secular context.

Give me any two distinct groups and I can create a situation where sooner or later one of them will be suicide bombing the other. It just so happens that, at the moment, circumstances encourage it within the Muslim world, within which religion is a convenient way to motivate people.

---

The question you have to ask yourself is this: If the Muslim world was at an American standard of living, with reasonable employment opportunities, income, and chances for political participation, would they be suicide bombing anybody? Of course the fuck not. Which means that clearly religion is not the defining issue here.

[Edited on April 26, 2010 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

4/26/2010 10:30:56 PM

WTF?

Most pointless bump ever.

4/26/2010 10:36:15 PM

wow i was really a dick to B-SPK back then

4/26/2010 10:39:21 PM

Seriously, this whole thread is us being obnoxious to each other.

I don't see how this could possibly be valuable to anybody--except people who just want to laugh at me.

4/26/2010 10:54:48 PM

Quote :

"I have trouble with the idea that democracy can't work there, or even couldn't work there if we'd gone in with a better plan to begin with."

Because you also have trouble understanding their culture, mentality, and so on.

4/26/2010 10:59:00 PM

Quote :

"suicide bombing can arise and become common in a secular context."

I'd say it's far less likely to arise without at least some form of religious inducement, but fine, I never really disputed this. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's suicide bombings have been justified and motivated by Islam and its holy texts.

4/26/2010 11:01:28 PM

Quote :

"Because you also have trouble understanding their culture, mentality, and so on."

Just so I understand you correctly -- and I hope I don't -- you're saying that an Arab-dominated state can't become a democracy? Or is it just Iraqi Arabs in particular? Or Muslims rather than Arabs?

Quote :

"It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's suicide bombings have been justified and motivated by Islam and its holy texts."

Again, I'm not sure how you get this from "The Tamils suicide bombed the most people" during a very big part of suicide bombing's history.

More importantly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. It looks like you're saying that Muslims are automatically predisposed to suicide bombing. This has been the major point against which I've been arguing.

4/26/2010 11:57:53 PM

Quote :

"Just so I understand you correctly -- and I hope I don't -- you're saying that an Arab-dominated state can't become a democracy? Or is it just Iraqi Arabs in particular? Or Muslims rather than Arabs?"

An outsider who has no understanding of the culture or the people cannot come in and expect to change their form of government. (i'm looking at the US government here in general)

Also, 'freedom' isn't exactly a part of the culture and not just because of a lack of democracy. Its a part of their upbringing and religion.

In my own home country, for example, I wouldn't want a 'real' democracy because the crazies (aka the brotherhood) are fighting for power. Certain bans on their political activity would be deemed unconstitutional if we had the same form of government and constitution as the United States. These bans are preventing them from a total takeover. Not to mention that the country has been going downhill since the revolution and the so called 'republic'.

There are countless news stories that don't ever make it to the American public unless you watch Arab sat simply because nobody gives a shit over here. Why do we care about local news in another country? So the picture you see over here isn't exactly what life is like in the region...unless its a news story that directly relates to Americans.

Also, the uneducated poor population is too great in numbers that giving them a voice and opportunity to freely vote is dangerous. Sure this is a just cause on paper but religion plays a huge part and they are too easily influenced by fanatics.


At the end of the day, the fact is that Iraq was never a just cause, nor a liberation of its people, or a serious attempt to bring Democracy to the Middle East. It was simply a powerful family dynasty tying loose ends and strategic placement of US military presence in the Arab world. Iran is pretty much surrounded by US presence on all borders now.

4/27/2010 12:17:08 AM

Quote :

"More importantly, I'm not sure where you're going with this. It looks like you're saying that Muslims are automatically predisposed to suicide bombing. This has been the major point against which I've been arguing."

The assertion was made that suicide bombing does not come from religion. But in the case of Muslim suicide bombing, which constitutes the world's vast majority of suicide bombings, the justification and motivation is overtly religious. This is the point I am arguing, and the point you seem to take issue with.

4/27/2010 12:34:15 AM

Quote :

"In my own home country, for example, I wouldn't want a 'real' democracy because the crazies (aka the brotherhood) are fighting for power. Certain bans on their political activity would be deemed unconstitutional if we had the same form of government and constitution as the United States."

Overall your post has several good points but here I am confused. If your home country (Egypt?) had the same form and constitution as the U.S., and it were respected to the point of permitting the "crazies" to have political activity and take power, presumably it would also have to be respected to the point that they couldn't do too much damage.

But like I said, I take your point. Similar statements were made about Vietnam, how if you actually had a national vote the communists would win and then get rid of voting. I'm guessing you're saying roughly the same about crazies in your own home country.

But I don't think Iraq is definitely a lost cause. At this point it's luck of the draw, near about. With the right set of initial leaders after the U.S. pull-out (such as it is) is done with, there is a remote chance of success.

Failing that, we took out a nasty regime that wanted nasty weapons to do nasty things to people, and it'll be a while before they get to that point again. I prefer an undemocratic Iraq that's busy blowing itself up to an undemocratic Iraq that can even fantasize about real power. If that's the choice we end up with, I won't be happy, but I'll be able to live with it.

4/27/2010 1:09:02 AM

Quote :

"the uneducated poor population is too great in numbers that giving them a voice and opportunity to freely vote is dangerous. Sure this is a just cause on paper but religion plays a huge part and they are too easily influenced by fanatics."

In which environment do you think religious fanaticism is best incubated, an authoritarian dictatorship, or a constitutional democracy?

4/27/2010 9:34:11 AM

Quote :

"Overall your post has several good points but here I am confused. If your home country (Egypt?) had the same form and constitution as the U.S., and it were respected to the point of permitting the "crazies" to have political activity and take power, presumably it would also have to be respected to the point that they couldn't do too much damage."

Another part of the problem is that the Christian population would suffer greatly under the brotherhood (they already do in some parts of Egypt). They also don't have the same voice as the Muslim population. So while in theory having the same constitution as the United States would open up opportunities for Christians to be more involved in government and run for office, in reality they wouldn't stand a chance.

Another huge factor is corruption. Last I checked a few years ago, Egypt was ranked the 3rd most corrupt government in the world (or there about). Even with such a constitution, who's even going to uphold it? Even now the current president is trying to amend the current constitution to allow his son to take over.

The country isn't what it once was after the monarchy was run out.

4/27/2010 2:40:44 PM