Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

What's Wrong?

Entry 662, on 2007-12-28 at 21:14:32 (Rating 3, Politics)

Earlier today I was wondering what's wrong with a country where politicians are murdered because of their beliefs. I'm talking about the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto of course. But then I thought about the history of political assassinations and attempted assassinations in the US. Its was only 25 years ago that there was an attempt on Ronald Reagan's life, so is Pakistan really any worse than other countries?

In some ways it is worse because the US assassins were deranged lunatics acting on their own behalf (unless you believe the conspiracy theories of course) and the Pakistani one was part of an organised political faction (at least he presumably was - since the perpetrators haven't been identified it is possible that he was a lone individual as well).

And what about the resulting riots with the burning vehicles, gunfire, etc? Would that happen in other countries as well? Of course it has in the past and still does today.

So the outrage from western leaders seems a bit fake. I don't think the violence of Islamic extremists is really that unique. Many countries might be more "civilised" now but there is a fine line between the peaceful existence in most of the western world and the chaos in other countries.

Comment 1 (1010) by Jim on 2008-01-10 at 13:20:05:

Surely you can see that the Islamic world is more dangerous and extreme than the rest of the world, can't you? Well maybe apart from some African and South American countries anyway.

Comment 2 (1011) by OJB on 2008-01-10 at 13:22:51:

Well to an extent I agree with you. Some countries are a bit more dangerous and others are less dangerous. My point was that there isn't a fundamental difference between the attitudes of people in unstable Islamic countries and some of the more "civilised" western counties, like the US. The difference is more in the extent and detail of the violence, not its basic presence or absence.

Comment 3 (1047) by SBFL on 2008-01-29 at 02:05:35:

Jim - what South American country is dangerous? There's a power-hungry greedy lefty in Venezuela, but he's all talk and no substance. Even his people who he believes are behind him all the way - with all his anti-US rhetoric and the like - voted down a new constitution that would give him sweeping powers. Heh - another blow for a fascist socialist.

OJB - you epitomise lefties who hate the US with this post. I am neither here nor there on the US, prefer to take a moderate, more objective view of issues and events as they arise - but equating Islamist extremism in todays world with previous assassination attempts in the civilised world is just bizarre. no fundamental difference? You said it yourself - one is a movement, the other just a nutter on the loose.

Comment 4 (1054) by OJB on 2008-01-29 at 14:43:13:

I don't think I hate the US and I don't think I would categorise myself as a "lefty" either. Actually, I take that back. I recently did an on-line survey and I am a bit to the left (most intellectuals and free thinkers are).

The only thing I dislike about the US is their current president (and some of his supporters) and the brainless attitude many of them have to the world. It boggles the mind to think that about half of the US population think the Earth is 6000 years old! I don't hate the people though, I hate the elements in society which lead to that sort of thing (especially fundamentalist churches).

Comment 5 (1071) by SBFL on 2008-01-30 at 01:01:50:

OK, technically I didn't say you hated the US. But the post sent a strong message.

Anyway - do you seriously not consider yourself left wing? Seriously? I'm sorry but from what I've read on your blog from time to time, you are quintessentially a lefty. Quite frankly - you name an issue, and I can almost certainly accurately predict your stance - such is the clarity of your position on the political spectrum. And by the way, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it.

Funny how it only people who consider themselves "intellectuals" actually refer to themselves as "intellectuals". As for "free thinkers" - great spin for those anti-religionists. I accept that it is at least a recognised movement/philosophy, so people who adhere to that have every right to call themselves such without ridicule!

Not sure about the 50% - not every voter of the GOP is a fundamentalist Christian.
Actually I'm no fan of Bush either. Internationally, he has been a disappointment.

Comment 6 (1074) by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 10:11:15:

You said I epitomise lefties who hate the US - that's close enough to saying I actually hate the US (which I don't). Well, in a way I both love and hate the US. I really dislike the close minded attitude of the fundamentalist part of the population, and those who would vote for someone like Bush. But I really like a lot of the innovative, practical spirit of many Americans. Maybe I've been lucky, but all the Americans I've met have been great people. Some of the ones I've debated with on the 'net though, were not so great!

In the second part of the first paragraph I said I really am a "lefty". Most people see themselves as more moderate than they really are. Do you think of yourself as part of the "rabid right"? :)

I didn't actually refer to myself as an intellectual or a free thinker - I just said those were the type of people who tend to the left politically. Actually, I did *suggest* I was both of those, and I would like to think I value those qualities more highly than most others.

There has been a survey indicating about 50% belief in young-Earth creationism in the US. I will see if I can find a reference to it.

Comment 7 (1090) by SBFL on 2008-01-31 at 00:07:32:

Wouldn't say you've been lucky in the American's you've met. We all develop opinions on national foreign govts and often that rubs off on our view of their population... when in fact they are just like us. I am sure the fundamentalists are nice people even if their views are diametrically opposite to your (and mine) on various topics. In the end we all have a lot more in common than we don't. Hell, I am pretty sure you are a nice guy too!

No, I don't classify myself as 'rabid right'... do you think I am? My comments speak for themselves, and I have always made it clear I am not (for the most part) in agreement with Christian Fundamentalists (often referred to as the 'rabid right'). In fact taking religion out of the equation, I have don't have much in common with the classical liberals of the right either!

Re 50% ID - Well I will have a good look at that link if you can find one, and of course I will scrutinize its accuracy!! Cheers.

Comment 8 (1099) by OJB on 2008-01-31 at 11:51:58:

Some of the fundamentalist sure didn't sound like nice people on some of the discussion forums I was on! Whether I'm nice or not depends. I do sometimes indulge in a bit of sarcasm and ridicule but that's about the limit, so I guess that's not too bad!

The survey about creationist beliefs was from a 2004 Gallup poll. The question involved choosing between 3 answers regarding the origin of humans. This answer: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." was chosen by about 45%.

Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief. Surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN Gallup poll put it at just over 50%.

Comment 9 (1200) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 01:55:20:

Yes, well there are some not-so-nice people in all society's groupings!

Any links? Where did they survey? The bible belt?!!

Comment 10 (1206) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 11:48:07:

At the Gallup site I found these: belief in creationism over 25 years and more analysis of that belief.

Comment 11 (1219) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 22:34:50:

Thanks. So summarizing, man developed over millions of years = 52%, man created in present form in last 10,000 years = 43%.

Agree that 43% is quite high, even for the US. Strong influence from Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity maybe?

Comment 12 (1225) by Anonymous on 2008-03-01 at 04:40:58:

You can't trust these numbers because people will say anything on a survey.

Comment 13 (1229) by OJB on 2008-03-01 at 11:20:04:

The numbers are surprisingly high. I'm not sure why this is such a problem in the US. Inbreeding in the southern states maybe?

I think the numbers are reliable. They have stayed fairly steady for many years and fit in with known church membership and beliefs. They are also from a fairly respected source.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.