Religions > Atheism > =?big5?B?RGVtb2NyYWN5IGxlYWRzIHRvIGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsaXNtIFJlOiCl1a+7s/ipX6TlpkC94KFHpcGlRL/vpVikRqqvurUgfn6x56XfpEg=?=
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2006 03:50:26 PM |
| Object: |
=?big5?B?RGVtb2NyYWN5IGxlYWRzIHRvIGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsaXNtIFJlOiCl1a+7s/ipX6TlpkC94KFHpcGlRL/vpVikRqqvurUgfn6x56XfpEg=?= |
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=B4=D2=ABH=
=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.) Fundamentalist politics
lead to lousy leaders.
At present, it is the rule rather than the exeception.
Hence American intellectual Cornel West's lament
"As I've traveled across the country giving speeches and attending
gatherings for the past thirty years, I've always been impressed by
the intelligence, imagination, creativity, and humor of the American
people, then found myself wondering how we end up with such
mediocre and malquetoast leaders in public office."
(DEMOCRACY MATTERS by Cornel West)
If anyone wants to know why, I recommand the following two books.
"DEFENDERS OF GOD" by Bruce B. Lawrence and
"THE POLITICS OF MASS SOCIETY" by William Kornhauser
.
|
|
| User: "=?gb2312?B?0cWy3779?=" |
|
| Title: =?gb2312?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogsNe324jzxubOxLmy2XCjusPx1vffeLP2wcu5t9DcIH5+wbrBosjL?= |
17 Jan 2007 06:52:15 AM |
|
|
"ltlee1@hotmail.com =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA
"
kin wrote:
=C3=F1=D6=F7=DFx=B3=F6=C1=CB=B9=B7=D0=DC
=C4=E3=CC=E1=D0=D1=B8=DB=C8=CB=A1=A2=A8=D2W=D3=D0=B0=E5=ED=FB=A1=A2=EF=
=88=B9=F7=D0=C5=DF=ED=DF^
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.) Fundamentalist politics
lead to lousy leaders.
At present, it is the rule rather than the exeception.
Hence American intellectual Cornel West's lament
"As I've traveled across the country giving speeches and attending
gatherings for the past thirty years, I've always been impressed by
the intelligence, imagination, creativity, and humor of the American
people, then found myself wondering how we end up with such
mediocre and malquetoast leaders in public office."
(DEMOCRACY MATTERS by Cornel West)
If anyone wants to know why, I recommand the following two books.
"DEFENDERS OF GOD" by Bruce B. Lawrence and
"THE POLITICS OF MASS SOCIETY" by William Kornhauser
luck chen shui bian . luck his mother.TaiWAN . haha .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
31 Dec 2006 06:29:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=B4=D2=
=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a myth.
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
And democracy does not lead to religious fundamentalism. On the
contrary, Europe became Christian because the Roman Emperor converted
to Christianity and everybody was forced to follow suit or die.
Likewise, for Muslim fundamentalism: even today, Muslims are threatened
with death if they convert to other religions. So, I'm sorry, but your
subject line has things backwards: tyranny has brought about religious
fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is, itself, a form of
tyranny. Thank you.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
31 Dec 2006 07:58:01 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=B4=D2=
=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a myth.
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
And democracy does not lead to religious fundamentalism. On the
contrary, Europe became Christian because the Roman Emperor converted
to Christianity and everybody was forced to follow suit or die.
Likewise, for Muslim fundamentalism: even today, Muslims are threatened
with death if they convert to other religions. So, I'm sorry, but your
subject line has things backwards: tyranny has brought about religious
fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is, itself, a form of
tyranny. Thank you.
=20
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ltlee1" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
31 Dec 2006 07:57:43 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=B4=D2=
=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a myth.
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
TI fundamentalism, not Christian fundamentalism in Taiwan.
And democracy does not lead to religious fundamentalism. On the
contrary, Europe became Christian because the Roman Emperor converted
to Christianity and everybody was forced to follow suit or die.
Likewise, for Muslim fundamentalism: even today, Muslims are threatened
with death if they convert to other religions. So, I'm sorry, but your
subject line has things backwards: tyranny has brought about religious
fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is, itself, a form of
tyranny. Thank you.
May be you mix up theology with religious fundamentalism. Theology is
believing
in this or that god. Fundamentalism is an ideology involving aggressive
advocacy.
Fundamentalists are not only believers of this or that god. In
addition, they don't
want any kind of doubt or challenge. Hence, they want the society to
affirm and
accept their belief.
Western individualims based democracy is always tittering on becoming a
mass
society. Changes and uncertainty is the hot bed giving rise to
fundamentalism.
Changes and uncertainty cause anomie. Fundamentalism then become
attractive
because it offers absolute standard.
Tyranny is actually the antedote of fundamentalism. For example,
fundamentalism
cannot thrive in the absence of free press.
=20
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
01 Jan 2007 05:18:12 AM |
|
|
ltlee1 wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=B4=
=D2=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a myth.
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
TI fundamentalism, not Christian fundamentalism in Taiwan.
I apologize. TI is what? A Buddist sect? If I google "TI Taiwan" I
get "Texas Instruments Taiwan".
In that case, my point still stands. Most young people in Taiwan
believe in ghosts and hence might actually proscribe to the notion that
their ancesters look after them. But belief alone is not
fundamentalism and most young people in Taiwan apparently don't even
consider themselves to be religious.
And democracy does not lead to religious fundamentalism. On the
contrary, Europe became Christian because the Roman Emperor converted
to Christianity and everybody was forced to follow suit or die.
Likewise, for Muslim fundamentalism: even today, Muslims are threatened
with death if they convert to other religions. So, I'm sorry, but your
subject line has things backwards: tyranny has brought about religious
fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is, itself, a form of
tyranny. Thank you.
May be you mix up theology with religious fundamentalism. Theology is
believing
in this or that god. Fundamentalism is an ideology involving aggressive
advocacy.
Actually, I thought that was what you were doing. In a democratic
society, you are free to believe whatever you want. It is only in a
dictatorship that you can force your beliefs on other people.
Fundamentalists are not only believers of this or that god. In
addition, they don't
want any kind of doubt or challenge. Hence, they want the society to
affirm and
accept their belief.
Western individualims based democracy is always tittering on becoming a
mass
society. Changes and uncertainty is the hot bed giving rise to
fundamentalism.
Changes and uncertainty cause anomie. Fundamentalism then become
attractive
because it offers absolute standard.
A true democracy, by definition, does not insist on absolute standards.
The whole point of democracy is that all voices get an opportunity to
be heard.
Tyranny is actually the antedote of fundamentalism. For example,
fundamentalism
cannot thrive in the absence of free press.
It can if the dictator is a fundamentalist, in which case freedom of
the press would be a threat _against_ fundamentalism.
Anyway, you're talking as if fundamentalism were some default, as if
people left to their own devices would naturally become
fundamentalists. If that were the case then you would not have any
non-believers in the world today. Hundreds of years ago, every single
person in the world believed in either God or gods. Nowadays people
are more enlightened. This is as a direct result of people in
democratic societies finally being able to step forward and be heard.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
01 Jan 2007 07:33:54 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=
=B4=D2=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a myt=
h=2E
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
TI fundamentalism, not Christian fundamentalism in Taiwan.
I apologize. TI is what? A Buddist sect? If I google "TI Taiwan" I
get "Texas Instruments Taiwan".
In that case, my point still stands. Most young people in Taiwan
believe in ghosts and hence might actually proscribe to the notion that
their ancesters look after them. But belief alone is not
fundamentalism and most young people in Taiwan apparently don't even
consider themselves to be religious.
And democracy does not lead to religious fundamentalism. On the
contrary, Europe became Christian because the Roman Emperor converted
to Christianity and everybody was forced to follow suit or die.
Likewise, for Muslim fundamentalism: even today, Muslims are threaten=
ed
with death if they convert to other religions. So, I'm sorry, but yo=
ur
subject line has things backwards: tyranny has brought about religious
fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is, itself, a form of
tyranny. Thank you.
May be you mix up theology with religious fundamentalism. Theology is
believing
in this or that god. Fundamentalism is an ideology involving aggressive
advocacy.
Actually, I thought that was what you were doing. In a democratic
society, you are free to believe whatever you want. It is only in a
dictatorship that you can force your beliefs on other people.
Fundamentalists are not only believers of this or that god. In
addition, they don't
want any kind of doubt or challenge. Hence, they want the society to
affirm and
accept their belief.
Western individualims based democracy is always tittering on becoming a
mass
society. Changes and uncertainty is the hot bed giving rise to
fundamentalism.
Changes and uncertainty cause anomie. Fundamentalism then become
attractive
because it offers absolute standard.
A true democracy, by definition, does not insist on absolute standards.
The whole point of democracy is that all voices get an opportunity to
be heard.
Tyranny is actually the antedote of fundamentalism. For example,
fundamentalism
cannot thrive in the absence of free press.
It can if the dictator is a fundamentalist, in which case freedom of
the press would be a threat _against_ fundamentalism.
Anyway, you're talking as if fundamentalism were some default, as if
people left to their own devices would naturally become
fundamentalists. If that were the case then you would not have any
non-believers in the world today. Hundreds of years ago, every single
person in the world believed in either God or gods. Nowadays people
are more enlightened. This is as a direct result of people in
democratic societies finally being able to step forward and be heard.
Martin
China is not a democratic country - I think we all accept that, but not
all Chinese are superstitious or believe in God or gods because of the
absence of democracy. Many religious groups coming from the West are
trying to convert the Chinese into accepting Christianity in the hope
of rousing them to rebel against the government. Why are there so many
fundamental Christians in America, if you consider America to be a
democratic country?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
01 Jan 2007 11:00:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
China is not a democratic country - I think we all accept that, but not
all Chinese are superstitious or believe in God or gods because of the
absence of democracy.
The original poster was claiming that democracy leads to religious
fundamentalism. I disagreed but I was not arguing that tyranny leads
to religious fundamentalism. That being said, tyranny is responsible
for much of today's religion.
First of all, while people in China or North Korea may not believe in
God or gods, you and their leaders are revered _as_ gods or at least
have been: I'm thinking mainly of Mao Zi Dong and Kim Il Sung. In the
past, emperors in China and the West were revered as gods while they
were still alive and continued to be revered after they died: the
Pharoahs of Egypt were revered as gods; the Yellow Emperor was revered
as a god. Of all of the gods of Western or Chinese mythology, I would
guess that more than half could be traced back to real people, people
who were revered while they were alive and then diefied after their
deaths: in the case of China, historical records are complete enough to
actually show that this is true. So tyranny is one impetus for
religion (the other being the desire for people to understand the world
around them). Tyranny can also promote religion, such as in the case
of the Roman empire or Islamic states.
Many religious groups coming from the West are
trying to convert the Chinese into accepting Christianity in the hope
of rousing them to rebel against the government.
Well, in all fairness, I doubt if most Christian missionaries are
thinking that far ahead, really. They may disapprove of the Chinese
government or they may not but what they are interested in is in
converting people to Christianity and not politics. As a general rule,
Christians do promote peace and wouldn't openly tell followers to rebel
against the government!
Why are there so many
fundamental Christians in America, if you consider America to be a
democratic country?
I'm sorry but you have to say "fundamentalist Christians" or "Christian
fundamentalists". "Fundamental" without the "ist" means "basic".
Democracy is a matter of degree. China is not a democracy but if you
and Mr. Lee are asserting your true opinions on the internet without
fear then China is indeed making progress towards democracy (and surely
you think this is a good thing or else you wouldn't be here posting).
On the other hand, the more and more that Christian fundamentalists
assert their will over those who disagree with them, the more and more
democracy is eroded in America. Look at it this way: you may argue
that religious fundamentalism may arise from a democratic society where
there is nothing (other than education) to prevent its spread but that
same religious fundamentalism would be the death of democracy if its
spread weren't contained by education.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTog55m957KJ5aCx5aWH5paH5YWx6LOe77ya5rCR5Li76YG45Ye65LqG54uX54aKIH5+5qKB56uL5Lq6?= |
10 Jan 2007 02:31:45 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
As a general rule,
Christians do promote peace and wouldn't openly tell followers to rebel
against the government!
I don't think they have missionaries in China today, except for a few
people there illegally.
The Christian churches in China that exist legally are run by the
Chinese government.
That being said, it certainly is true that Christianity teaches peace,
or at least Jesus did. However, just because anyone preaching an armed
uprising is behaving in a non-Christian manner, this doesn't mean that
Christianity cannot encourage people to "rebel" against the government,
depending on how one defines the word "rebel".
If rebellion means belonging to an organization that is run by
foreigners rather than by the Chinese government, religion does
encourage that.
If rebellion means not spying on your neighbors, not handing dissidents
over to the secret police, and things like that, then Christianity
positively does encourage rebellion.
The existing government is still threatened by people getting their
ideas of right and wrong from anywhere else but itself. They refuse to
admit that perhaps people in Taiwan - or Tibet - would prefer not to be
at risk of getting caught up in another Cultural Revolution - and that
there is legitimate reason to fear that the existing government of the
mainland is reserving to itself the right to do such things whenever it
feels its power is threatened.
Maybe it is hard to make democracy work in a large and poor country
like China. But the history of the Chinese Communist Party makes it
difficult to believe in them as benevolent autocrats either.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy leads to fundamentalism Re: ??????????????? ~~??? |
10 Jan 2007 03:40:39 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2007 12:31:45 -0800, wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
As a general rule,
Christians do promote peace and wouldn't openly tell followers to rebel
against the government!
I don't think they have missionaries in China today, except for a few
people there illegally.
The Christian churches in China that exist legally are run by the
Chinese government.
So what? It's their country not yours. And they don't want Christian
loonies disrupting their culture.
That being said, it certainly is true that Christianity teaches peace,
or at least Jesus did. However, just because anyone preaching an armed
uprising is behaving in a non-Christian manner, this doesn't mean that
Christianity cannot encourage people to "rebel" against the government,
depending on how one defines the word "rebel".
Dishonest redefinition of Christian.
If rebellion means belonging to an organization that is run by
foreigners rather than by the Chinese government, religion does
encourage that.
Then they deserve whatever punishment is comingto them.
If rebellion means not spying on your neighbors, not handing dissidents
over to the secret police, and things like that, then Christianity
positively does encourage rebellion.
It encourages assholes like you to pushit where is neither wanted nor
needed.
The existing government is still threatened by people getting their
ideas of right and wrong from anywhere else but itself. They refuse to
admit that perhaps people in Taiwan - or Tibet - would prefer not to be
at risk of getting caught up in another Cultural Revolution - and that
there is legitimate reason to fear that the existing government of the
mainland is reserving to itself the right to do such things whenever it
feels its power is threatened.
So what? It's their country not yours.
Maybe it is hard to make democracy work in a large and poor country
like China. But the history of the Chinese Communist Party makes it
difficult to believe in them as benevolent autocrats either.
So what?
John Savard
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Democracy leads to fundamentalism Re: ??????????????? ~~??? |
11 Jan 2007 05:25:43 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
So what? It's their country not yours.
Well, you can rest easy; it is unlikely that Americans would want to go
to war just to force mainland China to live up to their definition of
democracy.
But if you feel that the kind of government they have in China is the
real choice of the Chinese people, how do you explain things like the
Cultural Revolution? I find it hard to believe the Chinese people
really wanted to go through that.
Unless something is badly wrong with the Chinese culture, a few
foreigners with their religions will not 'disrupt' it any more than
India has disrupted the culture of the United States because of the
Hare Krishna chanters. A democratic China would still not be pushed
around like in the days of colonialism.
John Savard
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTog55m957KJ5aCx5aWH5paH5YWx6LOe77ya5rCR5Li76YG45Ye65LqG54uX54aKIH5+5qKB56uL5Lq6?= |
01 Jan 2007 12:03:31 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
chuandetu@hotmail.com wrote:
China is not a democratic country - I think we all accept that, but not
all Chinese are superstitious or believe in God or gods because of the
absence of democracy.
The original poster was claiming that democracy leads to religious
fundamentalism. I disagreed but I was not arguing that tyranny leads
to religious fundamentalism. That being said, tyranny is responsible
for much of today's religion.
First of all, while people in China or North Korea may not believe in
God or gods, you and their leaders are revered _as_ gods or at least
have been: I'm thinking mainly of Mao Zi Dong and Kim Il Sung. In the
past, emperors in China and the West were revered as gods while they
were still alive and continued to be revered after they died: the
Pharoahs of Egypt were revered as gods; the Yellow Emperor was revered
as a god. Of all of the gods of Western or Chinese mythology, I would
guess that more than half could be traced back to real people, people
who were revered while they were alive and then diefied after their
deaths: in the case of China, historical records are complete enough to
actually show that this is true. So tyranny is one impetus for
religion (the other being the desire for people to understand the world
around them). Tyranny can also promote religion, such as in the case
of the Roman empire or Islamic states.
Many religious groups coming from the West are
trying to convert the Chinese into accepting Christianity in the hope
of rousing them to rebel against the government.
Well, in all fairness, I doubt if most Christian missionaries are
thinking that far ahead, really. They may disapprove of the Chinese
government or they may not but what they are interested in is in
converting people to Christianity and not politics. As a general rule,
Christians do promote peace and wouldn't openly tell followers to rebel
against the government!
Why are there so many
fundamental Christians in America, if you consider America to be a
democratic country?
I'm sorry but you have to say "fundamentalist Christians" or "Christian
fundamentalists". "Fundamental" without the "ist" means "basic".
Democracy is a matter of degree. China is not a democracy but if you
and Mr. Lee are asserting your true opinions on the internet without
fear then China is indeed making progress towards democracy (and surely
you think this is a good thing or else you wouldn't be here posting).
On the other hand, the more and more that Christian fundamentalists
assert their will over those who disagree with them, the more and more
democracy is eroded in America. Look at it this way: you may argue
that religious fundamentalism may arise from a democratic society where
there is nothing (other than education) to prevent its spread but that
same religious fundamentalism would be the death of democracy if its
spread weren't contained by education.
Martin
You seem to have studied some Chinese history. You will remember that
the Chinese people were not given access to higher education in the
past. Only after the Liberation did the people begin to have access to
higher education, and even today, that is in no way complete.
Uneducated people need something to lean upon in times of distress, and
the most convenient one is God, or "gods". The Emperor was called
"Heaven below", meaning god on Earth, and the common people worship him
in the hope that he might give them peace and prosperity. This had been
ingrained so deeply in the Chinese psyche that the Chinese somehow need
a "god" to worship, regardless of who it is. Mao was not worshipped as
a god, but as the man who brought peace and unity to China. Not being
god, he made some mistakes that cost many people to lose their lives -
very unfortunate, but true. Look at the number of American lives lost
in the Civil War to justify the preservation of the Union. Christianity
does trigger off certain ideas that eventually turn to violence - look
how Africans were awakened to the hunger of independence and eventually
national conflicts by the priests that inadvertently put these ideas
into their heads. I see you are posting from Taiwan. No matter what you
say, your feelings must be against China in some way or other to concur
with your employers. No, I do not believe that China will ever attain
democracy, but some posters here strongly believe that China will. I
cannot see the advantage of a democratic China other than to please
Westerners that China has copied their form of government.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: =?gb2312?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogsNe324jzxubOxLmy2XCjusPx1vffeLP2wcu5t9DcIH5+wbrBosjL?= |
01 Jan 2007 08:36:59 PM |
|
|
fucking iechergod wrote:
ah !
you has a very clear mind, seldom seen in newsgroup !!!!
really religion is founded on tyranny and is itself anti-democarcy !!!
at present, most Christian missionaries may not be thinking that far ahead
but not so sooner they will find out that to promote their peace cannot be
done without openly telling followers to rebel against the PRC government!
Oh I see. So Mr. Lee is worried about Christians rebelling against the
PRC government. Let me explain to you about Christianity:
Christianity's central figure is a man who was executed for his
beliefs, so persecuting Christians tends to be counter productive
because it is precisely when they are being persecuted that they feel
that they are being the most Christlike and that this will only help
them, they believe, get into heaven. Thus, to do away with
Christianity it is better to let them be while keeping Christian faith
out of the school system. This is largely what the PRC is already
doing by ordaining their own priests against the will of the Catholic
church in Rome. What I don't understand is why they can't take the
same approach with the Fa Long Gong followers.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
01 Jan 2007 10:38:07 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=
=B4=D2=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamentalism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a myt=
h=2E
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
TI fundamentalism, not Christian fundamentalism in Taiwan.
I apologize. TI is what? A Buddist sect? If I google "TI Taiwan" I
get "Texas Instruments Taiwan".
TI =3D Taiwan Independence
TI fundamentalism is the belief that Taiwan independence is the issue
of
utmost importance.
In that case, my point still stands. Most young people in Taiwan
believe in ghosts and hence might actually proscribe to the notion that
their ancesters look after them. But belief alone is not
fundamentalism and most young people in Taiwan apparently don't even
consider themselves to be religious.
And democracy does not lead to religious fundamentalism. On the
contrary, Europe became Christian because the Roman Emperor converted
to Christianity and everybody was forced to follow suit or die.
Likewise, for Muslim fundamentalism: even today, Muslims are threaten=
ed
with death if they convert to other religions. So, I'm sorry, but yo=
ur
subject line has things backwards: tyranny has brought about religious
fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism is, itself, a form of
tyranny. Thank you.
May be you mix up theology with religious fundamentalism. Theology is
believing
in this or that god. Fundamentalism is an ideology involving aggressive
advocacy.
Actually, I thought that was what you were doing. In a democratic
society, you are free to believe whatever you want. It is only in a
dictatorship that you can force your beliefs on other people.
Fundamentalists are not only believers of this or that god. In
addition, they don't
want any kind of doubt or challenge. Hence, they want the society to
affirm and
accept their belief.
Western individualims based democracy is always tittering on becoming a
mass
society. Changes and uncertainty is the hot bed giving rise to
fundamentalism.
Changes and uncertainty cause anomie. Fundamentalism then become
attractive
because it offers absolute standard.
A true democracy, by definition, does not insist on absolute standards.
Just an analogy.
What if the value of "2+2" is to be determined on a daily basis?
It is 4 on some days, and it is 3 or 5 or some other number on other
days.
A true democracy? Of course. But will you think this will breed "2+2=3D4"
kind of fundamentalism?
The whole point of democracy is that all voices get an opportunity to
be heard.
But people are not created equal. People who do know how to count will
not be bothered by "2+2=3D5." Others will.
Tyranny is actually the antedote of fundamentalism. For example,
fundamentalism
cannot thrive in the absence of free press.
It can if the dictator is a fundamentalist, in which case freedom of
the press would be a threat _against_ fundamentalism.
Anyway, you're talking as if fundamentalism were some default, as if
people left to their own devices would naturally become
fundamentalists.
Does everyone has this or that fundamental or ultimate concern that he
or she cannot leave the issue alone? I will say yes. In this sense,
everyone is a fundamentalist at heart waiting for the right moment to
be
this or that fundamentalist.
If that were the case then you would not have any
non-believers in the world today. Hundreds of years ago, every single
person in the world believed in either God or gods. Nowadays people
are more enlightened. This is as a direct result of people in
democratic societies finally being able to step forward and be heard.
Please look at the fact.
GWB is the result of fundamentalist politcs. And he is not the only
politicians=20
thriving on fundamentalism.=20
=20
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: =?big5?B?UmU6IERlbW9jcmFjeSBsZWFkcyB0byBmdW5kYW1lbnRhbGlzbSBSZTogpdWvu7P4qV+k5aZAveChR6XBpUS/76VYpEaqr7q1IH5+seel36RI?= |
01 Jan 2007 11:52:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:
Martin Phipps wrote:
wrote:
kin wrote:
=A5=C1=A5D=BF=EF=A5X=A4F=AA=AF=BA=B5
=A7A=B4=A3=BF=F4=B4=E4=A4H=A1B=A3=A3W=A6=B3=AAO=DA=BB=A1B=B6=BA=
=B4=D2=ABH=AD=F8=B9L
Western democracy leads to fundamentalism. (Christian fundamental=
ism
in American and TI fundamentalism in Taiwan.)
Okay, I'm living in Taiwan and if you think that Christian
fundamentalists are in control here then, I'm sorry, but that's a m=
yth.
I ask teenagers here if they believe in God and they all say no. =
The
only people here who believe in God are old people who attended
missionary schools when they were kids.
TI fundamentalism, not Christian fundamentalism in Taiwan.
I apologize. TI is what? A Buddist sect? If I google "TI Taiwan" I
get "Texas Instruments Taiwan".
TI =3D Taiwan Independence
TI fundamentalism is the belief that Taiwan independence is the issue
of
utmost importance.
I see. You crossposted to alt.atheism so I naturally assumed you were
talking about religious fundamentalism.
Let me explain something about Taiwan politics: the KMT (Guo Ming Dang)
for years were unpopular in Taiwan but there was no obvious
alternative. Chen Shui Bian got elected president the first time six
years ago because he wasn't a member of the KMT, no because people in
Taiwan wanted "independence". Indeed, when Chen Shui Bian asserts his
desire for Taiwanese independence, he does so at the risk of losing
popular support: most people in Taiwan want to adhere to the "status
quo" (or "current situation").
That being said, there is some disagreement between the government of
Mainland China and the people of Taiwan as to what the "status quo" is.
The government of Mainland China insists that Taiwan is part of China
whereas the majority of people in Taiwan can trace their ancestry back
at least 400 years to ancesters in Taiwan and they consider themselves
to be racially Han Chinese but their nationality to be Taiwanese. To
them, Taiwan is already independent from Mainland China and indepence
is _not_ a big issue for them: it would just be a question of the
government of Mainland China recognizing Taiwan for what it already is,
an idependent sovereign state. To them, it is the communists in China
who are the fundamentalists because they insist that Taiwan is part of
China and, to people in Taiwan, this is a stark denial of reality. To
the majority of the people in Taiwan, the KMT was an invading army from
Mainland China that arrived less than a decade after the end of the
fifty year long Japanese occupation. Taiwan hasn't been part of China
at any time during the past one hundred years and, before that, it was
merely a large island off the mainland coast with a large ethnic
Chinese population.
Fundamentalists are not only believers of this or that god. In
addition, they don't
want any kind of doubt or challenge. Hence, they want the society to
affirm and
accept their belief.
Western individualims based democracy is always tittering on becoming=
a
mass
society. Changes and uncertainty is the hot bed giving rise to
fundamentalism.
Chinese culture discourages individuals asserting themselves. There is
the saying "The nail that sticks up is the first one to get hammered
down" and Confucious (Gong Fu Zi) also discouraged anyone from going
beyond passive resistance (which was also the advice of Jesus, Gandhi
and Martin Luthor King funnily enough).
That being said, change in itself is not a bad thing. As time goes by,
the leaders of any dictatorship grow old and can no longer reflect the
will of the people, if they ever did. New leaders always need to come
in or else the people will come to feel disenfranchised and such
feelings can lead to revolution. The gradual change brought about by
democracy is a much healthier one.
Changes and uncertainty cause anomie. Fundamentalism then become
attractive
because it offers absolute standard.
A true democracy, by definition, does not insist on absolute standards.
Just an analogy.
What if the value of "2+2" is to be determined on a daily basis?
It is 4 on some days, and it is 3 or 5 or some other number on other
days.
A true democracy? Of course. But will you think this will breed "2+2=3D4"
kind of fundamentalism?
The difference is that 2+2=3D4 is a true statement whereas religion is
considered false from the point of view of the people on the group from
which I am posting. The truth is nothing to be feared. So what if the
vast majority of people in Taiwan consider Taiwan to be an independent
soveraign state if it happens to be true? Does Taiwan have its own
government independent of Mainland China? It's own army? It's own
currency? Then Taiwan is already independent from Mainland China and
to say this is not fundamentalism but a recognition of reality. The
question, instead, is whether the people of Taiwan will want to
_remain_ independent from Mainland China. There is a definite impetus
to tie the Taiwan economy to that of Mainland China but giving up
Taiwanese sovereignty? Not until China accepts Taiwan's right to
democratically elect its own representatives, which is a right that
provinces in Mainland China do not yet have I'm afraid.
The whole point of democracy is that all voices get an opportunity to
be heard.
But people are not created equal. People who do know how to count will
not be bothered by "2+2=3D5." Others will.
I think you mean "people who don't know how to count". But eduaction
solves that problem quite nicely. :)
Tyranny is actually the antedote of fundamentalism. For example,
fundamentalism
cannot thrive in the absence of free press.
It can if the dictator is a fundamentalist, in which case freedom of
the press would be a threat _against_ fundamentalism.
Anyway, you're talking as if fundamentalism were some default, as if
people left to their own devices would naturally become
fundamentalists.
Does everyone has this or that fundamental or ultimate concern that he
or she cannot leave the issue alone? I will say yes. In this sense,
everyone is a fundamentalist at heart waiting for the right moment to
be
this or that fundamentalist.
If you are going beyond religious fundamentalism to political
fundamentalism then dictators are fundamentalists: they fundamentally
refuse to have opposition parties, free press, free speech, freedom of
travel, freedom of association, etc. Democracy, by comparison, is no
where near as fundamentalist: people are supposed to say what they
think without fear of reprisals. Fundamentalism erodes democracy (as
it does in America) and eventually kills it ( as was the case in Nazi
Germany).
That being said, you've brought up a good point: are we on alt.atheism
atheist fundamentalists because we "insist" there is no God? I would
argue that most of us here are not because we keep an open mind and
would be willing to concede that there is a God if he ever bothered to
show himself. Fundamentalism precludes people having an open mind so,
no, not everybody is fundamentalist. If I thought you were a
fundamentalist in the sense that you didn't have an open mind then I
wouldn't even bother with this exchange because there would be no hope
of changing your mind. Do you see what I mean?
If that were the case then you would not have any
non-believers in the world today. Hundreds of years ago, every single
person in the world believed in either God or gods. Nowadays people
are more enlightened. This is as a direct result of people in
democratic societies finally being able to step forward and be heard.
Please look at the fact.
GWB is the result of fundamentalist politcs. And he is not the only
politicians
thriving on fundamentalism.
Yes, GWB is a religious fundamentalist. He is also a step back for the
United States. To people on alt.atheism, he might as well be a
neanderthal. He may extoll the virues of American democracy but, as a
religious fundamentalist, he doesn't seriously believe in it: he has
been quoted as saying that he didn't think American atheists should
retain their citizenship. That's not a vey democratic attitude. True
democracy is supposed to discourage people like him from gaining power
but a 100% true democracy can not exist in reality because most people
are too busy with their careers and families to worry about politics.
Real democracies are an approximation of true democracy and are the
best we can do under the circumstances. Democracy is "the worst system
in the world, except for all the rest".
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "baldeagle" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
02 Jan 2007 07:09:10 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I see.
That being said, there is some disagreement between the
government of Mainland China and the people of Taiwan
as to what the "status quo" is.
The government of Mainland China insists that Taiwan is
part of China whereas the majority of people in Taiwan can
trace their ancestry back at least 400 years to ancesters in
Taiwan
To them, Taiwan is already independent from Mainland
China and indepence is _not_ a big issue for them:
it would just be a question of the government of Mainland
China recognizing Taiwan for what it already is, an idependent
sovereign state.
Martin
===============================
You are in denial....of FACTS.
Fact No. 1
Read the constitution of ROC. It spells out that Taiwan
is a province in China. This is a simple fact.
Fact No. 2
Taiwan is not a sovereign country. The United Nations
and all major countries in the world recognised that
Taiwan is part of China, NOT a sovereign country.
IF it was a sovereign country, then all nations in the
world would have an embassy in Taipei. Where in
Taipei is the embassy for the USA, UK, France,
Germany....Japan, Korea, India, Pakistan, ....They
are all located in Beijing. NO...Taiwan is NOT
recognised as a sovereign nation. This is a simple fact.
Fact No. 3
Taiwan do not recognised itself as a sovereign
country.
All the presidents, past and present, have NOT
declare Taiwan as a sovereign nation.
The elected peoples' representatives have
not declared Taiwan as independent. This is
a simple fact.
You wild claim that Taiwan is an independent
country is therefore utter nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "enterprise" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
02 Jan 2007 07:30:26 AM |
|
|
It is interesting to note that this person calling himself "Martin
Phipps" continuously refer to "The government of Mainland China" when
referring to China, and yet "the people of Taiwan" when referring to
Taiwan. Does he mean to imply that the people of China have no say on
the matter, and neither does the government of Taiwan?
baldeagle wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I see.
That being said, there is some disagreement between the
government of Mainland China and the people of Taiwan
as to what the "status quo" is.
The government of Mainland China insists that Taiwan is
part of China whereas the majority of people in Taiwan can
trace their ancestry back at least 400 years to ancesters in
Taiwan
To them, Taiwan is already independent from Mainland
China and indepence is _not_ a big issue for them:
it would just be a question of the government of Mainland
China recognizing Taiwan for what it already is, an idependent
sovereign state.
Martin
===============================
You are in denial....of FACTS.
Fact No. 1
Read the constitution of ROC. It spells out that Taiwan
is a province in China. This is a simple fact.
Fact No. 2
Taiwan is not a sovereign country. The United Nations
and all major countries in the world recognised that
Taiwan is part of China, NOT a sovereign country.
IF it was a sovereign country, then all nations in the
world would have an embassy in Taipei. Where in
Taipei is the embassy for the USA, UK, France,
Germany....Japan, Korea, India, Pakistan, ....They
are all located in Beijing. NO...Taiwan is NOT
recognised as a sovereign nation. This is a simple fact.
Fact No. 3
Taiwan do not recognised itself as a sovereign
country.
All the presidents, past and present, have NOT
declare Taiwan as a sovereign nation.
The elected peoples' representatives have
not declared Taiwan as independent. This is
a simple fact.
You wild claim that Taiwan is an independent
country is therefore utter nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobert" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
02 Jan 2007 04:37:51 PM |
|
|
People of China have little say on national matters in China. It is decided by
the people in the Chinese Communist Party.
enterprise wrote:
It is interesting to note that this person calling himself "Martin
Phipps" continuously refer to "The government of Mainland China" when
referring to China, and yet "the people of Taiwan" when referring to
Taiwan. Does he mean to imply that the people of China have no say on
the matter, and neither does the government of Taiwan?
baldeagle wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I see.
That being said, there is some disagreement between the
government of Mainland China and the people of Taiwan
as to what the "status quo" is.
The government of Mainland China insists that Taiwan is
part of China whereas the majority of people in Taiwan can
trace their ancestry back at least 400 years to ancesters in
Taiwan
To them, Taiwan is already independent from Mainland
China and indepence is _not_ a big issue for them:
it would just be a question of the government of Mainland
China recognizing Taiwan for what it already is, an idependent
sovereign state.
Martin
===============================
You are in denial....of FACTS.
Fact No. 1
Read the constitution of ROC. It spells out that Taiwan
is a province in China. This is a simple fact.
Fact No. 2
Taiwan is not a sovereign country. The United Nations
and all major countries in the world recognised that
Taiwan is part of China, NOT a sovereign country.
IF it was a sovereign country, then all nations in the
world would have an embassy in Taipei. Where in
Taipei is the embassy for the USA, UK, France,
Germany....Japan, Korea, India, Pakistan, ....They
are all located in Beijing. NO...Taiwan is NOT
recognised as a sovereign nation. This is a simple fact.
Fact No. 3
Taiwan do not recognised itself as a sovereign
country.
All the presidents, past and present, have NOT
declare Taiwan as a sovereign nation.
The elected peoples' representatives have
not declared Taiwan as independent. This is
a simple fact.
You wild claim that Taiwan is an independent
country is therefore utter nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.Venning" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:08:50 AM |
|
|
"Lobert" <lobert@imh.com> wrote in message =
news:eneice$prt$1@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
People of China have little say on national matters in China. It is =
decided by
the people in the Chinese Communist Party.
You make it sound as if the Chinese Communist Party is some kind of =
foreign occupation government oppressing the whole of China and the =
Chinese people. Are you saying that the Chinese Communist Party is not =
made up of people in China? I say it is. I say that the Chinese =
Communist Party is made up of Chinese people, and represent China as a =
whole. Admittedly, the form of electing the various top posts is not the =
same as what we in the West would recognise as "democratic", but which =
country can you say, has a government that represents 100% of the =
population?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "baldeagle" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 05:49:00 AM |
|
|
"J.Venning" <J.Venning@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:459b72aa$0$1296$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk...
"Lobert" <lobert@imh.com> wrote in message
news:eneice$prt$1@reader01.singnet.com.sg...
You make it sound as if the Chinese Communist Party is some kind of
foreign occupation government oppressing
the whole of China and the Chinese people. Are you saying that the
Chinese Communist Party is not made up of
people in China? I say it is. I say that the Chinese Communist Party is
made up of Chinese people, and
represent China as a whole. Admittedly, the form of electing the various
top posts is not the same as what
we in the West would recognise as "democratic", but which country can you
say, has a government that represents
100% of the population?
J.
In past US presidential elections, less than
35% American voted. The US congress and Senate
elections had not fared much better.
The US president, congressmen and senators
definitely do not represent 100% of Americans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
02 Jan 2007 06:13:20 PM |
|
|
enterprise wrote:
It is interesting to note that this person calling himself "Martin
Phipps" continuously refer to "The government of Mainland China" when
referring to China, and yet "the people of Taiwan" when referring to
Taiwan. Does he mean to imply that the people of China have no say on
the matter, and neither does the government of Taiwan?
When Mainland China becomes a democracy, the government there can
truthfully claim to be representing the views of the people of their
country.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.Venning" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:11:23 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1167783200.024102.281890@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
When Mainland China becomes a democracy, the government there can
truthfully claim to be representing the views of the people of their
country.
Martin
But at the moment, China doesn't boast about practising Democracy. =
Which country would you say represents the views of 100% of the people =
in that country? I would really like to know.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:20:39 AM |
|
|
J.Venning wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167783200.024102.281890@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
When Mainland China becomes a democracy, the government there can
truthfully claim to be representing the views of the people of their
country.
Martin
But at the moment, China doesn't boast about practising Democracy. Which country would you say represents the views of 100% of the people in that country? I would really like to know.
A country can only represent the fraction of its people who can and
actually do vote. (In the United States, children, convicted criminals
and mental patients are not allowed to vote.)
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.Venning" |
|
| Title: Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:48:45 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1167816039.055846.226000@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
A country can only represent the fraction of its people who can and
actually do vote. (In the United States, children, convicted =
criminals
and mental patients are not allowed to vote.)
Martin
And rightly so too. However, since not even 50% of the people in the =
United States came out to vote during the last election, and the results =
were far from being 100% in favour for the elected president, many have =
actually claimed that GWB and the Republicans do not represent the =
people of the USA. That is just an observation - I do not wish to meddle =
in the politics of a country of which I am not a citizen. China does not =
have a tradition of voting for the leader of the country, and it would =
take decades of reshaping the structure of the socio-political machinery =
to achieve the desired results of Democracy. Taiwan has some form of =
Democracy, but that is only because it only had to deal with a very =
small fraction of the Chinese people living there, and Taiwan's =
dependence and obedience to the USA made it the more easy to establish =
the form of democratic elections.
Love, John.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CL" |
|
| Title: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
02 Jan 2007 10:16:39 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
enterprise wrote:
It is interesting to note that this person calling himself "Martin
Phipps" continuously refer to "The government of Mainland China" when
referring to China, and yet "the people of Taiwan" when referring to
Taiwan. Does he mean to imply that the people of China have no say on
the matter, and neither does the government of Taiwan?
When Mainland China becomes a democracy, the government there can
truthfully claim to be representing the views of the people of their
country.
The Confederacy was formed democratically - why is it not a sovereign
country, and Linclon today is priased for "preserving the union" and
"upholding the United States constitution", rather than loathed for
oppressing the Confederates' right to independence?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.Venning" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:14:17 AM |
|
|
"CL" <charles_liu@my-deja.com> wrote in message =
news:1167797799.030951.73650@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Confederacy was formed democratically - why is it not a sovereign
country, and Linclon today is priased for "preserving the union" and
"upholding the United States constitution", rather than loathed for
oppressing the Confederates' right to independence?
Are you absolutely sure that Martin Phipps is acquainted with =
American history? He claims to be German, born in the DDR, and now =
living in Ireland. Don't you think you should give him examples from =
European history instead?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:38:47 AM |
|
|
J.Venning wrote:
"CL" <charles_liu@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1167797799.030951.73650@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Confederacy was formed democratically - why is it not a sovereign
country, and Linclon today is priased for "preserving the union" and
"upholding the United States constitution", rather than loathed for
oppressing the Confederates' right to independence?
Are you absolutely sure that Martin Phipps is acquainted with American history? He claims to be German, born in the DDR, and now living in Ireland. Don't you think you should give him examples from European history instead?
Actually, I am Canadian, born in Canada, and now living in Taiwan.
Where was I supposed to have said I was German?
Anyway, I am now forced to address this question. The best source (as
it is formed by committee) would be wikipedia which says "When the
Civil War began, neither civil rights nor voting rights for blacks were
stated as goals by the North; they became important afterward during
Reconstruction. At first, though there was pressure to do so, not even
the abolition of slavery was stated as a goal. According to
McPherson,[8] while controversy over the morality of slavery could be
contained, it was the issue of the expansion of slavery into the
territories that made the conflict irrepressible. Slavery was at the
root of economic, moral and political differences that led to control
issues, states' rights and secession of seven states. The secession of
four more states was a protest against Lincoln's call to invade (from
the Southern point of view) the South.
"From the North's point of view, Southern secession and formation of
the Confederacy greatly increased the risk of war prior to the opening
of hostilities, as it was regarded as an act of rebellion, treason, and
more importantly, the seizure of national territory. Thus slavery
caused secession which in turn made war likely, irrespective of the
North's stated war aims, which at first addressed strategic military
concerns as opposed to the ultimate political and Constitutional ones.
Initially, the North did not attempt to use military force to put down
the rebellion, and actual hostilities began as an attempt, from the
Northern perspective, to defend the nation after it was attacked at
Fort Sumter. Lincoln's war goals evolved as the war progressed. He did
not emphasize national unity during the 1860 campaign, but brought it
to the front in his March 1861 inaugural address, after seven states
had already declared their secession. At first Lincoln stressed the
Union as a war goal to unite the War Democrats, border states and
Republicans. In 1862 he added emancipation because it permanently
removed the divisive issue that caused secession. In his 1863
Gettysburg Address he tied preserving democracy to emancipation and the
Union as a war goal."
So, basically, the attack at Fort Sumter was the excuse for the North
to launch a full scale invasion of the South.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.Venning" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 03:53:29 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message =
news:1167817127.071133.20360@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Actually, I am Canadian, born in Canada, and now living in Taiwan.
Where was I supposed to have said I was German?
(snip)
My apologies ! My haste in writing these posts resulted in my =
mistaking you for another poster, namely usenet_tr...@yahoo.de.
J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 01:34:43 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
J.Venning wrote:
"CL" <charles_liu@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1167797799.030951.73650@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The Confederacy was formed democratically - why is it not a sovereign
country, and Linclon today is priased for "preserving the union" and
"upholding the United States constitution", rather than loathed for
oppressing the Confederates' right to independence?
Are you absolutely sure that Martin Phipps is acquainted with American history? He claims to be German, born in the DDR, and now living in Ireland. Don't you think you should give him examples from European history instead?
Actually, I am Canadian, born in Canada, and now living in Taiwan.
Where was I supposed to have said I was German?
Anyway, I am now forced to address this question. The best source (as
it is formed by committee) would be wikipedia which says "When the
Civil War began, neither civil rights nor voting rights for blacks were
stated as goals by the North; they became important afterward during
Reconstruction. At first, though there was pressure to do so, not even
the abolition of slavery was stated as a goal. According to
McPherson,[8] while controversy over the morality of slavery could be
contained, it was the issue of the expansion of slavery into the
territories that made the conflict irrepressible. Slavery was at the
root of economic, moral and political differences that led to control
issues, states' rights and secession of seven states. The secession of
four more states was a protest against Lincoln's call to invade (from
the Southern point of view) the South.
"From the North's point of view, Southern secession and formation of
the Confederacy greatly increased the risk of war prior to the opening
of hostilities, as it was regarded as an act of rebellion, treason, and
more importantly, the seizure of national territory. Thus slavery
caused secession which in turn made war likely, irrespective of the
North's stated war aims, which at first addressed strategic military
concerns as opposed to the ultimate political and Constitutional ones.
Initially, the North did not attempt to use military force to put down
the rebellion, and actual hostilities began as an attempt, from the
Northern perspective, to defend the nation after it was attacked at
Fort Sumter. Lincoln's war goals evolved as the war progressed. He did
not emphasize national unity during the 1860 campaign, but brought it
to the front in his March 1861 inaugural address, after seven states
had already declared their secession. At first Lincoln stressed the
Union as a war goal to unite the War Democrats, border states and
Republicans. In 1862 he added emancipation because it permanently
removed the divisive issue that caused secession. In his 1863
Gettysburg Address he tied preserving democracy to emancipation and the
Union as a war goal."
So, basically, the attack at Fort Sumter was the excuse for the North
to launch a full scale invasion of the South.
The Wikipedia entry is concise and simplistic. North and South had been
split for a very long time (going well back into the colonial era),
culturally, economically, politically, and in terms of religion and
history. DeTouqville remarked on the differences between the two
halves of the country as did many other observers.
Northeasterners, especially, had a vision of themselves as being in
tune with the Will of the Creator and thus endowed with a certainty and
righteousness that compelled them to a mission focused on the
emancipation of Southern slaves. The fact that their own history was
not unblemished with slavery and profits from slavery did not dissuade
them. Most true believers can conveniently ignore unpleasant truths.
The antislavery block consistently pressured Lincoln's predecessors,
Lincoln and others for action against the South. Lincoln was, if
anything, more inclined to reconciliation with the South than
punishment, but Congress and the Senate were quite different in their
opinions, and not necessarily in tune with him. Remember one thing
about Lincoln. He was a political amateur, with only one term in the
House at the time he ran for the presidency. It took him time to learn.
To say that Lincoln changed and therefore the world turned -- as if his
mind were the only governing factor in the conduct of both the war and
in legislation -- is absurdly silly. Lincoln, however reluctantly, was
being pushed by political elements steeped in the antislavery movement
(which was largely a religious movement and could be fanatical) that,
despite his reluctance, he could not resist; no one could have resisted
them.
Southerners had their own tragically circumscribed vision of themselves
as victims of the machinations of a central government intent on
destroying their way of life, as upholders of the honor of American
manhood, of Liberty (for Whites, especially Whites with property), as
defenders of their "country" (state or locality), as cavaliers of an
old and fine civilization. They also had legitimate economic
grievances, which Southerners often cite as the "real" reason for
withdrawing from the union, and very good military leadership, at least
for a while. The attack on Ft. Sumpter forced Lincoln to act, which he
did with some reluctance. (What man of conscience would not be
reluctant to unleash his armies against his own citizens?) The
desultory manner in which the Central Government then pursued the war,
the stupidity of the Northern generals, and the inability of Lincoln to
find anyone of military talent and courage to take on the South
effectively, says as much about his attitudes and capabilities as
anything. It seems that Lincoln only got serious when the North itself
was threatened by Lee's incursions into Maryland and by England's
flirtation with the Confederacy.
In any event, the emancipation of slaves was at the core of the reasons
for the war. It provided the political impetus that (1) encouraged the
South to withdraw from the union and commence military action against
the Central Government, and (2) compelled Lincoln finally to
emancipate the slaves held in rebellious territories. When the war
began, Lincoln argued for maintaining the Union as the casus belli
because he thought it more palatable to constituents who were not rabid
anti-slavers. This was fine with the anti-slavers. The anti-slavery
people found any excuse to invade and conquer the South acceptable.
Once the South was down, slaves could be freed. Besides, the ravages of
war have a rather Biblical sense to them, and the South needed to be
punished (at least in the minds of Congregationalist preachers). By
''63, the South's rebellion had cost so many lives and so much money,
that Lincoln could finally afford politically to assuage the NE
contingent and issue the Emancipation Proclamation; it provided moral
impetus and presumably had the added benefit of dividing the South
between slave and master. After the war, when the Northeasterners had
complete control of Government, the 13th and 14th amendments to the
Constitution were quickly passed that freed slaves, made them citizens
and applied the Bill of Rights equally to every citizen in a way that
the States could not legally destroy. In 1870, the 15th was passed,
that outlawed poll taxes, and allowed former slaves to vote.
Just one point -- any comparison of the American Civil War to any event
in China is utter nonsense. In scale, the deaths and disruption of the
American Civil War, although horrible, cannot match anything that
happened in China during the wars that occurred from 1920 through the
death of Mao in 1976. The earthquake in China in the early 70s killed
more than the battle deaths of the American Civil War. The starvation
that occurred in the late 50s-early 60s in China killed more than the
entire population of the United States during the Civil War. It's not
just the numbers dead that makes the comparison absurd. The United
States had, and has, a constitutionally designed strong,
democratic-republican central government. It has never existed with
portions of its territory controlled by foreigners, war lords or other
local despots. The one attempt at cessation had been by a rival
democratic-republican government in the South, not by renegade military
officers or self-anointed kings, leaders or lords, and that attempt was
thoroughly and completely quashed long before the end of the 19th
century. There has never been a period of starvation, or even of gross
need. Even the slaves ate well; they were too valuable to starve. The
conditions that prevailed during the worst of the Great Depression in
the United States would have been considered idyllic by the Chinese who
suffered under Mao.
Mao's insane policies (I could say "misguided" or "mistaken" but they
were more than that. The policies were nuts, crazy, utterly insane.)
that disrupted agriculture, forced the exportation of food and
agricultural items even while people starved, and that killed tens of
millions and disrupted the lives of many more were the willful product
of a sociopathic mind, not the result of hundreds of years of cultural
division and the rather noble purpose of eliminating slavery. His
ruthlessness, aloofness, economic incompetence and festering desire for
destruction and chaos cannot be compared in any way to the American
Civil War or its aftermath. The American Civil War, after all, was a
dispute regarding the way society would be ordered. Mao wanted
disorder, confusion and god-like adoration. He cared nothing for human
life or dignity. The very thought of Civil Rights would have been
considered anathema to him and his followers.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "baldeagle" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 06:36:22 PM |
|
|
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167852883.927543.307360@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Mao's insane policies (I could say "misguided" or "mistaken" but they
were more than that. The policies were nuts, crazy, utterly insane.)
Mao is dead, ...is history. Whatever he had done, he
had done it with good intention.
You have been watching too much TV propaganda ....
about lies to vilify him.
Yes. Mao has made big mistakes but it is NOT important
to the Chinese now.
China survived his mistakes. The Chinese know much better
than you do about his mistakes....what really happened.
The Chinese are NOT blaming him. Instead the Chinese
respected and honoured him.... for keeping China as a united
country, ....for making China STRONG, .......for stopping
Gen Mac Arthur troops from marching across the Yalu river ...
for stopping the USA from invading China .
Of course, Western media have prevented you from
access to such information and truth.
I must congratulate the Western media,...it is a master
indoctrination tool of the US government ...to brainwash
Americans and others,...with lies and half truth. You are
one of the brainless victims who repeated such lies and
propaganda.
Let me tell you the hedious truth about Bush in Iraq. He
killed far more innocent civilians than Mao. He invaded Iraq
for its oil, carpet bombed Iraq, killed 650,000 civilians...
and injured millions of civilians. Is his acts praiseworthy..
Is this honourable ?
He killed many more thousands fold more than 9-11.
Bush is utterly 'sane' and cold blooded......for commiting
MASS murders in Iraq. I can not think of any leader who
had commited worse hedious crime against humanity than
Bush...not even Hitler.
If you are not brainwashed, you should condemned Bush,
a current president, for his MASS killings of civilians...in
worse terms....instead of unjustly condemning a leader
honoured by the Chinese.
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why is the Confederacy not a sovereign country? (Re: Taiwan is not a sovereign country....a simple fact. |
03 Jan 2007 09:02:04 PM |
|
|
baldeagle wrote:
"t1gercat" <wexford1778@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167852883.927543.307360@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Mao's insane policies (I could say "misguided" or "mistaken" but they
were more than that. The policies were nuts, crazy, utterly insane.)
Mao is dead, ...is history. Whatever he had done, he
had done it with good intention.
The Cultural Revolution was well intended???? What an ignorant fool you
are.
You have been watching too much TV propaganda ....
about lies to vilify him.
I have seen nothing about Mao on television. I have been reading
articles and books about him for 30 years, however.
Yes. Mao has made big mistakes but it is NOT important
to the Chinese now.
It should be. A people who are ignorant of the crimes of their leaders
are a deluded people.
China survived his mistakes. The Chinese know much better
than you do about his mistakes....what really happened.
I based my opinions on reading CHINESE writers. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
