www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Christian and Muslim clerics stand tall as brothers for a common cause

Dear Theophilos,

Yes, excellent points.

Iraq's overall success will depend on how well it integrates tradition with democratic values, the latter cannot stand on their own.

Iraq has a centuries old culture and religion that informs the way of life of its people. In my own view, a number of these Middle Eastern countries that were formerly monarchies had established a good solid "marriage" of tradition and modernity.

It is also important to point out that while the U.S. is fighting dictators such as Saddam Hussein et al., it is no secret that the U.S. itself was formerly complicit in helping to create such.

U.S. foreign policy really "stinks" as it is based on a profound ignorance of cultures other than its own. The U.S. seems to imitate the anthropologists of the 19th century who saw the cave-man as essentially a Victorian man with similar desires and ambitions, but without the requisite means needed to attain them as yet.

The U.S. should really give up any notions that the rest of the world would be better off without traditional religion, culture or even political frameworks, including monarchies.

Had the U.S. given overt support to the monarchies of the Middle East when they needed it, I, for one, don't believe that it would have had to face the Ayatollahs, Husseins and terrorists that it is obliged to today.

The restoration of the King of Afghanistan was, at least, an admission of previous ignorance by the U.S. in this respect.

The Middle East can use its former Kingdoms that can help bring in democracy within a traditional system of religious, cultural and political values that will reestablish, rather than upset, the needed national equilibrium required for true advancement and stability in that entire region.

Alex

I wonder how many Christians of the Levant--the few that remain--would welcome the revival of the Islamic Caliphate?

Not many, I would think.

The King of Afghanistan? A mere figurehead of a ruler. It is the tribal warlords who rule Afghanistan, as they always have.

And one can't escape the fact that the last monarch of Iran was almost universally despised by his own people, including--at the time of his exile--the majority of the younger generation.

Now Morocco and Jordan, here we have excellent examples of Islamic monarachies at their very--and rare--best.

Sonny

Dear Sonny,

Yes, constitutional monarchies are best, as always!

And many would see the U.S. itself being run very much like an imperial power - which it most certainly is.

As for the "young" despising that ruler - we must be VERY careful here.

Many self-styled "progressive" movements have acted in the name of the people, without ever having asked those same people if they wished to be represented by them.

As for Christians under monarchs, I've met with very loyal Orthodox and Greek Catholics to the King of Jordan and to the King of Morocco.

I've met with young people who were formerly under the Shah of Iran - and who cried tears of sorrow when they remembered him.

The King of Afghanistan is like any other King of Europe when it came to the barons. That is no argument for not having him, or for leaving hope that his role as a constitutional monarch will grow over time - give them some time.

Monarchs as figureheads? I've heard that before and I live in a constitutional monarchy. The Crown in Canada is visible everywhere and though we may often take it for granted, our legislative, legal and executive functions of our government are completely intertwined with it.

The U.S. is used to having a flag as its shared national symbol. That's to be respected, but most countries of the world until recently have had living persons as their shared symbols of unity and national pride.

Again, the U.S. must be careful not to impose its own unique historical context on other countries.

Whenever it has done so, trouble has usually followed.

And Christians have fared much better by far under Muslim sovereigns than under Muslim republican heads of state.

As for previous times when religious/cultural homogeneity was the rule of thumb, as it still is in many places, that cannot be blamed on kings but on conditions.

Even Christians of other traditions suffered persecution under Christian kings.

Alex

My dear Canadian Monarchist friend,

Your comments reflect a subtle but sarcastic joy in the economic woes of other people. Am I correct?

Yes. One can learn many lessons from the imperialist English and their defunct monarchial kingdom.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Me sarcastic? We haven't even had lunch together yet, and you are so quick to pass judgement . . .

All I meant was that we Canadians have been sucking on the American economic teat for so long that when your economy gets a cold, ours gets pneumonia!

And I wish everyone the "curse" of American capitalistic success!!

There, are you satisfied . . .?

Alex

Alex,

As an employee of a Canadian-based division (not for long) owned by a German-based company (probably for only a little while), I can testify that what you say is correct.

The economic and labor domino effect is heading your way.

Like the ISO9000 fad that caught on in Europe and then the U.S., Canada if finally discovering that it is basically useless long after we already been there, done that. In labor, there are already threats of organizing that may go on. Seems that many Canadian manufacturing firms have been enjoying work due to their currency value. How long that will go on will be interesting. Already, German companies are shipping much of their manufacturing to either Poland or Slovakia.

In both the U.S. and Canada, firms are really concerned about China. Even Mexican firms have closed their doors and shipped business overseas. This will affect us all as the Chinese learn to enjoy capitalistic success.

All of this is what Alvin Toffler once called the Third Wave. I highly recommend this book. He offers a paradigm of agricultural-industrial-technological change that may be interesting to sociologists like you.

Meet you at the bottom.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

Yes, it is so defunct that your political system is a carbon copy of it minus the Crown.

But then again you surround your President with quite the right royal air of reverence.

All empires come to an end eventually or else become transformed.

That happened with the Roman Empire - whose culture and other influences are still with us.

The British rule of law etc. - not a bad achievement, would you say?

And who is your main ally today if not Britain? Which free, republican-style nation is running to the support of the U.S.?

The U.S. has always been spiritually connected to the English Commonwealth, whether Americans wish to acknowledge that or not.

The majority of your Presidents have also tended to be descendants of British royalty, or so I understand . . .

But you are baiting my monarchist views - which is fine, but I'd engage you on another day that would have not so much sunshine outside .

I just repeat my main point which is that the U.S. foreign policy needs to transcend its own historic limitations in understanding the rest of the world.

We can joke about it - but ultimately if the U.S. refuses to take these issues seriously, it is looking for problems.

Alex

Alex,

I love it when you talk dirty.

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I find a greater propensity in myself to talk dirty when I am fasting . . . .

Yes, Alvin Toffler is very good!

Alex

I hope you were being just a little sarcastic here?

One thing we Americans have been darned good at is living and dying for our ideals - in our own defense and in the defense of others. We're not the least bit shy about it. As I've mentioned before, I get to leave lotsa flowers at Arlington Cemetery next week for my family members (including my father) who served well and honorably in several wars and conflicts.

But your caveman analogy is not too far off the mark, with some corrections that change its meaning:

The American tendency is, I think, to view "all men as created equal." Why? Because human rights come directly from God in our view and not from us. When we see any human being from any society in any state, we see an individual inherently equal in the most meaningful of ways. Americans are often mistaken for being paternalistic, but really most of us feel empathy. We think people deserve better than oppressive regimes.

The American tendency is also to view all government -yes, even our own government! - with some degree of suspicion. You wouldn't bother writing out your Bill of Rights if you didn't want a constant reminder of it. Why are we so suspicious? Because government comes from imperfect man and not from perfect God. Imperfect man sometimes has his own less-than-good motives. God Creates with a big "C," and man when he tries to do God's will still only creates with a small "c." We recognize that. It doesn't make our government perfect, but it makes us try for higher things. Participatory government is, at the very least, better because no one man muscles in and subjects everyone to his will.

So, yes, as an American I look at all human beings as beautiful, in the image of God, and endowed by him with rights that I want them to be free and able to exercise and choose to do good with. If they are in a society that leaves them without the freedom to realize the gifts that God gave them, then yes, I see that particular society as, well, bad.

Our Battle Hymn of the Republic pretty much says it: "As He [Christ] died to make men holy; Let us die to make them free." There were a lot of causes for the American Civil War, from which that tune derives, but you can't tell us New England Yankees that it wasn't about those lofty ideals. We all wipe a tear every time we pass the State House in Boston and look at St. Gaudins' 54th MA Memorial and think of those words penned in honor of their idealistic, abolishinist colonel: "So nigh is grandeur to our dust, so near is God to man, when duty whispers low 'thou must,' the youth replies 'I can.'" That just says it.

I'll get off my soap box now. Really. But I'll keep grasping my Cross in one hand and waving Old Glory with the other. :-)

Dear Annie,

Thank you for defending our country against the foreign slanderers and the domestic opponents of "Liberty and Justice for All". You go, girl!

We Americans know very well the limitations and shortcomings of our government and its leaders. One of the truest things ever said was by Pesident Jimmy Carter, "America needs a government as good as its people." So do all the other nations in this world.

One of the things not mentioned here is that the "Nation" of Iraq was a construction of the British and their Allies in the process of dismembering the Ottoman Empire after the Great War of 1914-1918. The national aspirations of the Kurds and others were ignored in the drawing of the boundaries. The monarchs of the area were put in power by the colonial masters.

I question whether it is wise to maintain the existing boundaries and unity of Iraq if it is true that the various ethnic groups cannot get along. The former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union come to mind as parallels.


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

John,

If boundaries were dependent on actual tribal rivalries in Iraq, the geo-political layout/borders would look like a pre-unified Germany with hundreds of principalities.

As for the wisdom of Jimmy Carter ... oh boy!

Dear Joe,

This is true of most boundaries around the world, but some countries make a go of it with multi-ethnic states, and some don't. The world of the 20th Century got a lot of trouble out of a unified Germany, perhaps a Europe of small states would have worked better.

Sometimes big is good, sometimes small is good. Respect and Justice for neighbors is essential.

As for President Carter, even a peanut farmer comes up with occasional wisdom. My view is that the American people are generous and helpful to those in need. Our government should be as good as those people.

I hope that you are not suggesting a government "superior" to the people, being considered as either the source of human rights or as the rightful controller of persons. Nor a government organized based on immorality, such as a kleptocracy.

Our government should operate on the basis of helping to meet needs and help people, and not strictly on the basis of "the letter of the law". Nor should they be responsive primarily to the lobbyists and campaign contributors seeking special provisions in law or pork barrel projects.
This is what I mean by "a government as good as the people".

I think this is what President Carter meant also. If I have misinterpreted him, he is welcome to the Byzantine Forum to explain himself. I'm sure Mr. Esteemed Administrator would allow a former President to post here.

-------------------------------

To quote President Abraham Lincoln:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

(2nd Inaugural Address, March 1865, about one month before the war ended)

---------------------------------

"Government of the people,
BY the people,
FOR THE PEOPLE."

(Gettysburg, PA, November 1863)
(emphasis mine)

---------------------------------------

May the Lord grant that this be the guidance for all the world's governments.


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

John,

Is the government superior to the people? No. Anytime one has someone else representing others there is potential for trouble. This goes for all institutions and organizations, even the Church.

No governmnet is the source of rights. If that was the case, then rights can easily come and go depending on those in control. Here, one day; gone the next. Our country's founders made sure to make the point that those rights were "inalienable."

My point about the geo-political layout of Iraq (being akin to a pre-unified Germany) is just that; I was simply making a point. The Iraqi people have to decide what is best and what works for them.

What makes you think I would advocate an immoral government? Have I stated or implied in anything that I post that being 'immoral' should be a feature of any government?

Joe