-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What If Your Country Becomes Islamic
- Thread starter dave_
- Start date
Woodrow LI
IB Ambassador
Not very probable without the majority being Muslim and of the same flavor and texture. The US Muslim population is very diverse and independent in their religious views. In addition many such as myself find the current laws of the US to be acceptable and do not hinder the practice of Islam. I doubt if many Muslims see any need to gain political control of the US.
While virtually all Muslims desire for the whole world to accept Islam nearly all of us want it to be by free choice. (this is not any different from the Christian View)
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Think about it.......that we need no guns means that we are tougher - not weaker. Besides, arms would not be necessary to overthrow the government here - it is a representational govt.
But based upon the OP, it would seem that an oppressive flavor of Islam just took over Ozistan. This means that you would be the under-represented & subjugated minority.
Btw, don't bring a boomerang to a gun fight. (That would be a didgeridon't.)
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Why not? Ya big chicken. Bullets don't come back!
I am a coward. Whatever gives me an advantage, I'll take it. (I'm too pretty to get hurt.)
Some bullets though....
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Revoltingest
More seriously - there is a vast difference between the US and Aus. The paranoia about a government opposing the people, and this state of tension between govt and populace does not exist here as such.
It is not the US model where the govt is imposed upon the populace, in Aus to a far greater extent the govt is the populace. It is us, rather than being something imposed upon us.
More seriously - there is a vast difference between the US and Aus. The paranoia about a government opposing the people, and this state of tension between govt and populace does not exist here as such.
It is not the US model where the govt is imposed upon the populace, in Aus to a far greater extent the govt is the populace. It is us, rather than being something imposed upon us.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Guns dont make for peace, one day hopefully the US will finally figure that out.
Well, they sure served us well in WW2. This illustrates that if the other side has them, & doesn't plan to give them up, unilateral disarmament would mean certain defeat. Is peace under an oppressive government better than violent revolution? The answer differs for many of us.
What you would call "paranoia", I'd call healthy skepticism.
They served the other participating countries well, too. Predictably enough, all of them seem to agree that the conflict was not peaceful.
War, quite simply, is not peace and is not conductive to peace. Neither are weapons.
Such thinking amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Worse still, it allows for no resolution to that snowball.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That is exactly the sort of paranoia and seperation I was referring to. You see the govt as a potential enemy - I as an Australian do not.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
My point exactly.
Sometimes, war makes more sense than peace. Defeating Nazi Germany & Japan was a good outcome, I'd say. Without guns, it would've been less than optimum (for us).
They are conducive to winning a war though. And if the other side is armed, & bent on war, then you have 2 choices:
1) The peaceful approach: Surrender, & let them do as they will.
2) The violent approach: Win the war against them.
I pick the 2nd option.
Suppose the allies unilaterally disarmed at the beginning of WW2.
What do you think would've happened? Would it have been better?
Is your complacency better than my paranoia?
I recall long ago, a conversation with a Jewish friend about WW2. He explained that German Jews just didn't anticipate that their government could possibly turn upon them as it did. I know, I know...it's an extreme analogy. But history is all about people being surprised about a future which they didn't expect. A little paranoia now is better than a lot of carnage later.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
How so? American industrialists like WR Herst funded the NAZI party. It was the US depression that led to the economic collapse in Europe that precipitated the war. Millions were slaughtered on all sides, it was a disgusting, shameful tragedy that acheived nothing. Arms did not serve us well, they never do - they exist only to kill.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What complacency? Everyone votes in Australia.
Your willingness to be disarmed.
And the only reason you all vote is because your government will fine you if you don't. (And to think New Zealand is called the land of sheep.)
That is why mental health is important.
You are taking the war as a given, though, and that contaminates the whole perspective.
"Solving" a war by allowing it to develop fully in the first place is a suicidal's approach to problems.
World War 2 was not the zombie apocalypse, which can only be treated by packing fabulous amounts of heat and being willing to shoot quite a lot. It was the painful result of decades of ill handling of conflicts and tensions. It could and should have been avoided in far too many ways for such an egocentrical confort to be available.
It wasn't even truly solved. Many of the military dilemmas we face these days are basically the aftermath of the 20th century world wars. And lo and behold, we just keep spending ever more obscene amounts of money in ever more cowardly designed weapons.
So no, I don't see how anyone can honestly say there was a good outcome from WW2. It was a disaster for the Axis. It was a slightly lesser disaster for everyone else. And its consequences keep on shaming us all.
Thinking that way is way too self-defeating, you know.
Come to think of it, maybe it would. Hard to know for sure, of course.