In answering questions about his policy towards Israel if he were to be President, Texas governor Rick Perry had this to say.
Well, obviously, Israel is our oldest and most stable democratic ally in that region. That is what this is about. I also as a Christian have a clear directive to support Israel. So from my perspective, it's pretty easy. Both as an American and as a Christian, I am going to stand with Israel.
(Start at about 1:45 in the video below.)
We need to combine this with the fact that Perry seems to think that the 1967 borders for Israel are "new borders" being imposed on that country. Concerning Obama's claim (and former President Bush's claim) that the 1967 borders is a starting point to negotiation, Perry said in starting his campaign for President:
He seeks to dictate new borders for the Middle East and the oldest democracy there, Israel...
(See Text of Gov. Rick Perry’s Presidential Announcement Remarks
Combined, these two policy statements seem to suggest that Perry's foreign policy is to establish and defend Israel's biblical borders - perhaps (as some Christians believe) as a way of triggering Armageddon and the second coming of Christ.
Two quick things to say about this.
First, Mr. Perry, the American military and its soldiers do not exist as a tool for you to use in some fool religious crusade.
Second, this clip and this quote is going to make a wonderful recruiting tool by Muslim extermists who want to portray American actions as anti-Muslim and who want to claim that they are in need of soldiers to defend Islam.
4 comments:
On August 17th you wrote:
A person who actually cared about making a meaningful contribution to the debate would take a different path. That person would say, "I am not going to use stupid arguments like this to defend my position. If my position actually makes sense, then there should be reasonable and logical arguments I can make to defend it. If I cannot find a decent argument to defend my position, I am [not] going to substitute foolish arguments such as this. I will, instead, use it as reason to believe my position is not as defensible as I thought it was.
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2011/08/fools-argument-for-debt-issue.html
It seems to me that the last paragraph of this post offers the sort of foolish argument that you condemned:
this clip and this quote is going to make a wonderful recruiting tool by Muslim extermists who want to portray American actions as anti-Muslim and who want to claim that they are in need of soldiers to defend Islam.
First: the notion that Muslim extremists will find their recruiting tools in the campaign announcements of American politicians, at a time when American troops continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight, seems implausible to say the least.
Second: if you think that Governor Perry should refrain from saying anything that might be used as a recruiting tool by Muslim extremists, to imply that American actions are anti-Muslim or suggest that Islam might need defending, what does that imply about your own post on April 4th?
We are, in fact, dealing with a group of thugs in a culture of thugs in a backwards and primitive part of the world - a part that still lives in the 1500s in terms of science, culture, and morality. They are clearly a threat to decent human beings - some of whom they murdered.
It would be worth the while of civilized populations to call their experts together and determine the best strategy for bringing these people up to the 21st century - or at least the up to the mid 18th century, the century in which such principles as representative democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion actually started to take hold.
Jesse Reeve
First: the notion that Muslim extremists will find their recruiting tools in the campaign announcements of American politicians, at a time when American troops continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan with no end in sight, seems implausible to say the least.
I disagree.
The question to be asked and answered is "Why are those troops there?"
America has troops in a number of countries - Germany (50,000), Japan (30,000), South Korea (30,000), England (10,000), Italy (10,000). Yet in none of these countries are extremists capable of using this fact in recruitment.
On the other hand, have a President of the United States declare that he sees a religious obligation to use its military against the people of these countries and I suspect the situation will be much different.
If your argument is that A -> B, then a sufficiently large list of "A and not-B" should serve to disprove that claim.
Second: if you think that Governor Perry should refrain from saying anything that might be used as a recruiting tool by Muslim extremists, to imply that American actions are anti-Muslim or suggest that Islam might need defending, what does that imply about your own post on April 4th?
It says the following:
(1) You took my statement out of context - and thus changed its meaning. The "thugs" I spoke of in the previous post was not Muslims, but a small group of extremists. Indeed, you left out the line in that April 4 post where I explicitly said, I want to point out . . . these thugs are a small portion of the overall Muslim community..
(2) I do not object to political candidates saying things that, taken out of context, could be a useful recruiting tool. In fact, when it comes to lying as a form of recruitment, there is nothing Perry or anybody else can do to avoid this - so trying to do so is a waste of time.
(3) As a private citizen, I have a liberty to say things that the President is not at liberty to say - because my obligations and the President's obligations are not the same. Being diplomatic, forming alliances, and working to help ensure that Americans are not killed en masse, are a part of America's job. One could say that they are a part of my job, too, but I am certain that nothing that I can say in this position could possibly breech any of those obligations. If I were President, that would not be the case.
In Perry's case, I would say that as a private citizen - or even as a governor - his words are relatively harmless. But they are not fit for the President of the United States, and thus serve to support the conclusion that he is not fit to fill that role.
America has troops in a number of countries - Germany (50,000), Japan (30,000), South Korea (30,000), England (10,000), Italy (10,000). Yet in none of these countries are extremists capable of using this fact in recruitment.
The American troops in Europe, Japan, and South Korea do not represent an occupying force in any of those countries. For example, they don't exchange fire with insurgents, operate military prisons, or enforce regime change. And if they did, I expect that extremists in those countries would use that fact for recruitment.
As to the numbered list of points:
First, I don't think I took your statement far enough out of context to change the meaning. Both the April quote and the quote from this post have the same referent-- not Muslims as a whole, but only violent Muslim extremists. In the case of your quote from April, the extremists who rioted in response to a Koran-burning; in this post, the extremists who recruit for terrorist organizations. I didn't intend to misrepresent you and I apologize if it came across that way.
Of course, you might argue (and I, and many Muslims, might agree) that the April quote is not "anti-Muslim" because the thugs are a minority of Muslims. But the thugs don't agree; they see their version of Islam as the "one true" version. And without granting them that, the quote is certainly opposed to the existence of their "culture of thugs."
As to the second point, I agree with you about statements taken out of context. But what about statements (or actions) taken in context? In context, Perry's quoted statement is a straightforward declaration of support for Israel. Should the POTUS and other politicians refrain from making statements in support of Israel, as Perry did, strictly because anti-Israeli Muslim extremists might correctly interpret them?
With respect to the third point -- that "[Perry's] words... are not fit for the President of the United States" -- that criticism seems to be directed not at Perry's words, but at your interpretation of them. Certainly, if Governor Perry said that his foreign policy would be to bring about the Biblical apocalypse, that would be unfit for the POTUS. And his words may conceal exactly that position-- in which case, we had better hope he isn't elected. But his actual words taken at face value are, at most, slightly creepy.
Jesse Reeve
The American troops in Europe, Japan, and South Korea do not represent an occupying force in any of those countries. For example, they don't exchange fire with insurgents, operate military prisons, or enforce regime change. And if they did, I expect that extremists in those countries would use that fact for recruitment.
I hasten to remind you of World War II. After the war, the American armies in Germany, Italy, and Japan were very much an occupying force that exchanged fire with insurgents, operated military prisons, and enforced regime change. Yet, there was very little recruitment into terrorist groups. So, as I stated, these provide counter-examples against the hypothesis that in the presence of these things there can be no other thing that could serve as a cause for recruitment to terrorism that a President should be concerned about.
Such as positioning American involvement as an intent to realize particular biblical prophesies.
In context, Perry's quoted statement is a straightforward declaration of support for Israel. Should the POTUS and other politicians refrain from making statements in support of Israel, as Perry did, strictly because anti-Israeli Muslim extremists might correctly interpret them?
My objection is not about support for Israel. It is about using American military and political force to realize a foreign policy religious objective - which appears to be consistent to restoring Israel to its biblical borders.
Certainly, if Governor Perry said that his foreign policy would be to bring about the Biblical apocalypse, that would be unfit for the POTUS. And his words may conceal exactly that position-- in which case, we had better hope he isn't elected. But his actual words taken at face value are, at most, slightly creepy.
His actual words, taken at face value, says that he is willing to direct American foreign policy and use its military to obtain religious objectives. This is more than "slightly creepy". A candidate with this philosophy should not be President. The American government is not a place for waging a religious crusade. This goes from entirely inappropriate to downright dangerous where the religious crusade aims to restore Israel to its biblical borders.
Post a Comment