The user and all related content has been deleted.
Islamic states with Christian churches and generally peaceful relations: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran (600+ churches), Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Malaysia, Morocco, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (no official churches, but Christians are allowed to hold gatherings), Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Other nations that declare Islam to the official state religion also do have Christian churches, but there is a higher and/or more recent prevalence of religious violence. Among all other Muslim-majority nations Christians are free to practice their faith. Notably, most of these nations are experiencing violence for reasons other than religion--most often political or racial turmoil.
Islamic people do not "hate us from the deepness of their hearts". I've lived in Asia for ten years now and have interacted with people of dozens of backgrounds and faiths. NONE stood out as being any more or less aggressive, biased or hateful. The common denominator in human violence should be obvious: humans.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
You evidently don't know much about the early 20th century British Empire. They were not into sunshine, rainbows, lollipops and tolerance. Google "Amritsar Massacre" or "Qissa Khwani Bazaar Massacre" if you don't believe me. Mohandas Gandhi was a brave man because he had the courage to stand against violence peacefully, he discouraged violence in others and was willing to go to jail for his beliefs.
Most Muslims tend to want what everyone else wants: To be left in peace, to have the security to raise a family and the freedom to make their own choices and believe whatever they want. About a quarter of my classmates at school were Muslim, and they didn't hate anything in particular. One of my best mates' dad is a non-practicing Muslim and you could not hope to meet a nicer, more decent man. Villifying millions of ordinary Muslims for the actions of a few is about as nonsensical as hating all Norwegians because of Anders Brevik.
Any killing of peaceful unarmed protesters is vile, regardless of numbers.
Every country has crazy people who justify their beliefs by religious or political means. Anders Brevik, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and so on are lone nuts, the only difference between them and the cult at Waco or the 9/11 hijackers is that one lot have joined a group.
The real danger of responding to terrorist threats with violence is that you make them a sympathetic cause, especially if you cause civilian casualties in doing so. Pre-emptive lethal force is a tool of terror, regardless of which direction it's being pointed.
The harder way is to arrest and try terrorists in an open court. Justice should be done, and be seen to be done. That, surely, is one of the cornerstones that defines a free country? It is not easy, but it is right.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Turkey
Turkey is being tolerant because they want to join Ue to get an economical boost, not because they share the cultural values Christians got - and you can easily guess this by the fact that they do not acknowledge the genocide of kurds.
I'm confused I thought it was "no way to talk to these people" and yet clearly we have a country that is 99.8% muslim in which we are talking to and is (at least in my countries case given its in NATO) an ally.
The latest constitution in Turkey, which guarantees religious freedom, was written in 1982. A decade before the Maastricht Treaty. If this was part of an elaborate conspiracy on their part to join the EU then frankly (given its been over 30 years since their constitution was ratified) they kind of suck at it.
Not really sure what you mean by not acknowledging the genocide of kurds. In the link you provided above on this topic all the events that are discussed (at least the ones involving government forces) happened 80+ years ago under an entirely different government than what turkey has today. If you are talking about Turkish treatment of the PKK then that is a different as many countries consider it to be a terrorist organization. At the end of the day though recognising a genocide doesn't make it fine that it was done in the first place and actually taking part in one is a far more significantly immoral action (and there are predominately christian countries, like Rwanda, that have also engaged in genocide).
The user and all related content has been deleted.
You made a simple claim: that no Islamic nation has Christian churches. I provided several examples demonstrating that to be entirely incorrect. Rather than accept that you were wrong, you altered your stance, focusing on violence against Christians in only three of the fifteen countries I listed (again, though, that was not the point you made in the first place).
Is there violence against Christians in some of the countries I listed? Yes, but I didn't say there wasn't, nor was I the one who claimed it to be evidence of tolerance. I specified, quite clearly, "generally peaceful relations". Based on your reaction, you appear to be interpreting even a single incident of violence against Christians to be evidence that ALL Muslims are intolerant.
That was in fact your main premise ("Islamic people hate us from the deepness of their hearts...even those we call 'moderate' are not."), but that is a completely fallacious argument. By that same logic, all adherents of other religions are also intolerant extremists, because some of them are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims.
You're arguing an extreme position that simply needs one contrary piece of evidence to prove it wrong. I already provided that with the list of Islamic countries that permit Christians to worship. Violence against those Christians--even if present in every one of those countries--still does not prove that all Muslims are violent and anti-Christian, nor that they are all intolerant.
A second point of evidence can be seen in the ecumenical work that Christian priests and pastors, Jewish rabbis, and Islamic imams have carried out in interfaith efforts over the past few decades. This is often bolstered by work with organizations that engage members of differing faiths in dialogue to promote peace. One of my good friends from high school is the founder of one of those organizations, and he works closely with Muslims in Israel and other areas in the Middle East in promoting peace: http://globalimmerse.org.
On a more personal note, I've traveled in Egypt, Malaysia and several other Islamic nations. At no time did I experience any animosity from Muslims. Again, having lived outside the US for years now (in Korea and Thailand), I have friends and colleagues who are atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh. The Muslims are exactly the same as the others; they do not harbor any animosity toward me or those of other faiths, nor are they intolerant.
In short, you have produced absolutely no evidence to demonstrate your original claims: that Islamic people hate us and that they are intolerant. Frankly, based on your posts here and the way you wrote about your feelings toward women in another thread, you appear to harbor an immense amount of hostility toward others. If you want to know where hate originates, look first in the mirror.
@Sergio - I disagree with you completely and on almost every point. I am borderline offended by many of your views. Reading your posts actually makes me feel sad. I'm well aware of the Lee Rigby murder. It was tragic and terrible. It was two bad men dressing up their violence as piety (and no less "crazy" than any of the other murders I listed), and a failure of the security services who had been aware of at least one of them before it happened.
"There is no right and wrong, especially when people's lives are in danger" - This is exactly when right and wrong are critical. If you only consider right and wrong when it's convenient then you end up doing wrong whenever it matters. As we're on a forum for a computer game where right/wrong choice are commonplace, think about what happens when you ignore morality in that sort of decision. I know my country's government has tended to to do the easy thing instead of the right thing a lot lately.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Except that based on your own link the majority of academics don't view it as a genocide. Also the article is lacking sources and has a broken link in the section where this particular academic (Desmond Fernandes) breaks down the reasons this should be considered a genocide. So if you are going to say that Turkey should be judged for a genocide of the kurds I think you need a bit more than what you provided. Especially since it seems like former policies mentioned in it (like banning the kurdish language from being used) haven't been in place for over 20 years.
Again, you made the claim that all Muslims are intolerant and hateful toward those of other faiths, or more specifically Christianity. You base this on the fact that A) there are Muslim extremists who commit acts of violence, and that Muslims commit acts of violence and/or intolerance against others, even in Islamic countries in which Christians are present.
The point you seem to be missing is that this argument can then be utilized for every other faith. If even one act of violence or intolerance is committed against Muslims by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs, all members of those faiths are intolerant. Well...
You call for the conversation to be frank. I'll be frank. You appear to coming at this from a very narrow worldview that I would guess is based on a limited spectrum of experiences. You're in your early twenties and still in university, and (this is merely an assumption) have likely traveled very little to non-Western countries.
To give you an idea of why I, and many others here, do not share your view, you need to understand that our experiences are radically different--and far more diverse I would guess. I was raised by evangelical Christian parents in a small town in Wisconsin, where the white population was approximately 99%. I was relatively conservative growing up, but I began to travel a bit during university.
I'll be turning 35 this year. I have lived in four countries on three continents and have traveled (usually alone) in over twenty. I'm still a practicing Christian and am married to a Thai Buddhist. My best friend is an Indian atheist. I work as an administrator in one of Thailand's largest international schools, where over 1,500 children of 50 nationalities work side-by-side on a daily basis. The city I live in is one of the largest and most diverse in the world, and people of all faiths and creeds interact with one another peacefully. The world for me is an astoundingly diverse place in which every individual is simply trying to find happiness.
Are there extremists who disagree with that? Yes. Do I think the world will reach a wonderful utopia in which we all get along? Absolutely not. But my life and the lives of many others demonstrate how wrong you are every day.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
I don't think you need to apologize for holding to particular views; it's just healthy to always question why you have them. When I interact with many of the people I knew in the US, their simplistic views of other countries and people become glaringly obvious simply because they are basing them on limited experiences. Factual knowledge has its limits, and experience can strongly alter perspectives.
In respect to your views on women, just keep the same principle in mind. I was your opposite at your age. I didn't date anyone until I was 22 and harbored some animosity as a result, choosing to believe that I would be eternally friend-zoned. Only after focusing on other pursuits did I finally have better luck. Just as is the case with men, there are good women and bad women--not absolutes.
It's okay, Sergio, you're young and it takes a lot of guts to apologise. As for Universities, I'd suggest as big a University in as big a City as you can find. From a life standpoint they've usually got the best parties, and from an academic standpoint they usually do well. They also tend to be culturally diverse, and you might meet some normal Muslim people who challenge some of your ideas.
The Armenian Genocide was indeed real, and incredibly violent. Deniers in academia are usually beholden to political correctness while deniers in politics were simply too afraid to anger an incredibly important ally against the Soviets to call the murderous campaign for what it was.
However, to judge modern Turkey (which underwent a HUGE cultural revolution in the 80s where they were encouraged by American influences to modernize and liberalize) by the actions of its now extinct (seems to be a pattern here) government in 1915 is in my opinion as silly as forming your opinion on modern Germany and Japan for "their" actions during the second world war.
The country of my heritage has also had its problems with Turkey in the past, yet today conflicts between the two nations have subsided significantly. To quote the loveable yet obstinate father in a successful classic Canadian-American independent film: "the Greeks and Turks are friends now"
@Isandir speaking of Thailand and politics... what is really going on over there?
I have a friend who traveled there just last week, and I thought he was crazy to go in the middle of a coup. Are there really curfews and checkpoints and the like?
There are violent extremists from every group of people, from every worldview, etc. These extremists tend to make the news far more often than anyone else from their group. It's important to keep that in mind before you condemn a group of people.
Wow. That ended, surprisingly nicely. I'm impressed. Impressed with @Sergio, with the forum as a community being able to deal with such a touchy topic so evenly, and with @Isandir, @Elminister, and @Corvino for handling that. Kudos.
@Isandir speaking of Thailand and politics... what is really going on over there?
I have a friend who traveled there just last week, and I thought he was crazy to go in the middle of a coup. Are there really curfews and checkpoints and the like?
It's absolutely safe to travel here--perhaps even safer than before--despite the military rule. There has been no significant change in daily life, and we certainly don't feel that we have any less freedom than we did before. The curfew ended several weeks ago (though you could still travel in the evenings regardless provided you could show evidence as to why), and checkpoints were only temporarily set up at specific high-traffic locations (and typically consisted of the soldiers simply looking in cars). The reaction of media was simply due to the fact that most Western governments are obligated to denounce anything that runs contrary to the "democracy equals freedom" argument.
Most people here, Thais and foreigners alike, have welcomed the coup as a necessary step in bringing about more permanent change. To understand why, you just have to look at the past decade of Thai politics. I've lived here since 2008, and in that time four prime ministers and two interim prime ministers have come into power. Only one finished his designated term. Every other one was removed after protests and/or political opposition, which often included violence worse than any over the past two months.
The two main political parties, commonly referred to as the red shirts (drawing from rural, poor voters for its base) and the yellow shirts (drawing primarily from the wealthy elite) have traded power back and forth, padding their own pockets and rewarding their cronies, while the rest of the country has received the short end of the stick. As just a single example, my wife and I were supposed to receive a $2,500 subsidy for a car purchase (by a yellow shirt government). We've received nothing and likely never will. Yet our situation doesn't even begin to approach the issues others have had, including the farmers who were promised payment for their rice (by a red shirt government) and received nothing.
The level of corruption in politics here is incredible, far beyond what I've experienced in almost any other country, and it's often openly recognized and accepted. Stopped by police? Pay 500 baht (or 200 if you're Thai) and go on your way. Arrested for a serious charge? Have your family pay 20 or 30 thousand baht and watch the charges dissipate. A government official is known to be taking bribes? Well, he's doing a good job anyway, so let's just entirely ignore it.
When the head of the military declared that he was taking over, it was after sitting in yet another meeting with the heads of the political parties, both of whom refused to agree on even the slightest compromise. Basically, he was as fed up as the rest of us and treated them like the children they were. Since then, we've all been a lot happier, and the military government has been making several positive changes.
In short, don't trust the news media on this one; a military coup leading to positive change just doesn't fit the modern Western paradigm. Though I still firmly believe that democracy is comparatively the most effective form of government, I certainly don't equate it to freedom, and believe that other political approaches and situations can still create conditions that allow freedom to flourish.
A much more balanced assessment of the issue can be seen in an open letter written by billionaire Bill Heinecke, who has lived in Thailand for 50 years.
I'll comment on a some of this other stuff very soon after work. For now I just got sent this video. It's interesting to hear from the other side of the whole asylum seeker situation, not just government rhetoric.
*Gets increasingly unconcered at the "escalation" in this thread and prepares to put on mod hat... keeps reading and sees an incredibly mature and sensible conclusion.*
I am so proud of this community. In 99% of circumstances in other places on the interwebz, this would have become a raging flame war. lol
Incidentally, an interesting BBC article on the phenomenon of Islamic Fundamentalism. I think it simplifies the issue a little, but it does make very interesting points.
That's a very interesting article, @Heindrich, and made me reread a bit on historic Islamic Caliphates. Naturally, as with any ancient or medieval civilization it's not all sunshine and rainbows, but they were by and large nothing like the Jihadis of today. There's a very good documentary called "Science and Islam" that I watched a few years back. While much of Europe was locked in the Dark Ages of the 7th and 8th Centuries North Africa and the Middle East were centres of learning, and avid colectors of knowledge. Much of what we know of Ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians is from Arabic translations, and they made significant mathematical and scientific advances too. Many words we use today, like algebra or algorithm, are Arabic words (or derived from the names of their discoverers). While expansionist, these ancient states were broadly tolerant for their time period, with Jews living in these states permitted more rights than in European states, and prosperous Jewish communities existing in places like Al-Andalus under Islamic rule.
It is sad and strange that rather than seeking to emulate a time of prosperity, knowledge and tolerance, Jihadis would rather rule through violence and fear.
This has been a common theme through modern times though. Granted we are no strangers to harsh and tyrannical rule. But the Islamic faith was by far one of the more enlightened of ancient times as far as its attitude towards science goes. If I was born in the middle ages then Cordoba would have been a great place to live.
A lot of people like the blame the Crusades for Jihad when in actuality, Jihad was around before the Christian Crusades. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/blaming-the-crusades-for-jihad-2/) Is it to much to ask that religions just leave each other alone? Is there no enough space for two major faiths on Earth? Was there, even then, to many people on Earth?
Maybe I'm just a soul born out of time, but I look at the world today and I don't really like what I see. Maybe it's just because of my history, because of the things I've seen and done in the name of my country and government that makes me so cynical. I don't know. Nor do I know what can be done to make the world a better place.
Change is naturally scary to humans, we don't like things changing. To share one of my favorite quotes:
" The past tempts us, the present confuses us and the future frightens us. "
Comments
Islamic states with Christian churches and generally peaceful relations: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran (600+ churches), Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Malaysia, Morocco, Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia (no official churches, but Christians are allowed to hold gatherings), Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Other nations that declare Islam to the official state religion also do have Christian churches, but there is a higher and/or more recent prevalence of religious violence. Among all other Muslim-majority nations Christians are free to practice their faith. Notably, most of these nations are experiencing violence for reasons other than religion--most often political or racial turmoil.
Islamic people do not "hate us from the deepness of their hearts". I've lived in Asia for ten years now and have interacted with people of dozens of backgrounds and faiths. NONE stood out as being any more or less aggressive, biased or hateful. The common denominator in human violence should be obvious: humans.
Most Muslims tend to want what everyone else wants: To be left in peace, to have the security to raise a family and the freedom to make their own choices and believe whatever they want. About a quarter of my classmates at school were Muslim, and they didn't hate anything in particular. One of my best mates' dad is a non-practicing Muslim and you could not hope to meet a nicer, more decent man. Villifying millions of ordinary Muslims for the actions of a few is about as nonsensical as hating all Norwegians because of Anders Brevik.
Every country has crazy people who justify their beliefs by religious or political means. Anders Brevik, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and so on are lone nuts, the only difference between them and the cult at Waco or the 9/11 hijackers is that one lot have joined a group.
The real danger of responding to terrorist threats with violence is that you make them a sympathetic cause, especially if you cause civilian casualties in doing so. Pre-emptive lethal force is a tool of terror, regardless of which direction it's being pointed.
The harder way is to arrest and try terrorists in an open court. Justice should be done, and be seen to be done. That, surely, is one of the cornerstones that defines a free country? It is not easy, but it is right.
Turkey is being tolerant because they want to join Ue to get an economical boost, not because they share the cultural values Christians got - and you can easily guess this by the fact that they do not acknowledge the genocide of kurds.
I'm confused I thought it was "no way to talk to these people" and yet clearly we have a country that is 99.8% muslim in which we are talking to and is (at least in my countries case given its in NATO) an ally.
The latest constitution in Turkey, which guarantees religious freedom, was written in 1982. A decade before the Maastricht Treaty. If this was part of an elaborate conspiracy on their part to join the EU then frankly (given its been over 30 years since their constitution was ratified) they kind of suck at it.
Not really sure what you mean by not acknowledging the genocide of kurds. In the link you provided above on this topic all the events that are discussed (at least the ones involving government forces) happened 80+ years ago under an entirely different government than what turkey has today. If you are talking about Turkish treatment of the PKK then that is a different as many countries consider it to be a terrorist organization. At the end of the day though recognising a genocide doesn't make it fine that it was done in the first place and actually taking part in one is a far more significantly immoral action (and there are predominately christian countries, like Rwanda, that have also engaged in genocide).
You made a simple claim: that no Islamic nation has Christian churches. I provided several examples demonstrating that to be entirely incorrect. Rather than accept that you were wrong, you altered your stance, focusing on violence against Christians in only three of the fifteen countries I listed (again, though, that was not the point you made in the first place).
Is there violence against Christians in some of the countries I listed? Yes, but I didn't say there wasn't, nor was I the one who claimed it to be evidence of tolerance. I specified, quite clearly, "generally peaceful relations". Based on your reaction, you appear to be interpreting even a single incident of violence against Christians to be evidence that ALL Muslims are intolerant.
That was in fact your main premise ("Islamic people hate us from the deepness of their hearts...even those we call 'moderate' are not."), but that is a completely fallacious argument. By that same logic, all adherents of other religions are also intolerant extremists, because some of them are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims.
You're arguing an extreme position that simply needs one contrary piece of evidence to prove it wrong. I already provided that with the list of Islamic countries that permit Christians to worship. Violence against those Christians--even if present in every one of those countries--still does not prove that all Muslims are violent and anti-Christian, nor that they are all intolerant.
A second point of evidence can be seen in the ecumenical work that Christian priests and pastors, Jewish rabbis, and Islamic imams have carried out in interfaith efforts over the past few decades. This is often bolstered by work with organizations that engage members of differing faiths in dialogue to promote peace. One of my good friends from high school is the founder of one of those organizations, and he works closely with Muslims in Israel and other areas in the Middle East in promoting peace: http://globalimmerse.org.
On a more personal note, I've traveled in Egypt, Malaysia and several other Islamic nations. At no time did I experience any animosity from Muslims. Again, having lived outside the US for years now (in Korea and Thailand), I have friends and colleagues who are atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh. The Muslims are exactly the same as the others; they do not harbor any animosity toward me or those of other faiths, nor are they intolerant.
In short, you have produced absolutely no evidence to demonstrate your original claims: that Islamic people hate us and that they are intolerant. Frankly, based on your posts here and the way you wrote about your feelings toward women in another thread, you appear to harbor an immense amount of hostility toward others. If you want to know where hate originates, look first in the mirror.
"There is no right and wrong, especially when people's lives are in danger" - This is exactly when right and wrong are critical. If you only consider right and wrong when it's convenient then you end up doing wrong whenever it matters. As we're on a forum for a computer game where right/wrong choice are commonplace, think about what happens when you ignore morality in that sort of decision. I know my country's government has tended to to do the easy thing instead of the right thing a lot lately.
The point you seem to be missing is that this argument can then be utilized for every other faith. If even one act of violence or intolerance is committed against Muslims by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs, all members of those faiths are intolerant. Well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125312/religious-prejudice-stronger-against-muslims.aspx (before 9/11!)
http://www.amnesty.eu/content/assets/REPORT.pdf
http://tandis.odihr.pl/?p=ki-mu
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/unspeakable-violence-against-muslims-in-burma/2014/04/03/fce8b3de-b466-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2012/08/19/a-quiet-campaign-of-violence-against-american-muslims.html
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/02/11/violence-muslims-soars-central-african-republic/
You call for the conversation to be frank. I'll be frank. You appear to coming at this from a very narrow worldview that I would guess is based on a limited spectrum of experiences. You're in your early twenties and still in university, and (this is merely an assumption) have likely traveled very little to non-Western countries.
To give you an idea of why I, and many others here, do not share your view, you need to understand that our experiences are radically different--and far more diverse I would guess. I was raised by evangelical Christian parents in a small town in Wisconsin, where the white population was approximately 99%. I was relatively conservative growing up, but I began to travel a bit during university.
I'll be turning 35 this year. I have lived in four countries on three continents and have traveled (usually alone) in over twenty. I'm still a practicing Christian and am married to a Thai Buddhist. My best friend is an Indian atheist. I work as an administrator in one of Thailand's largest international schools, where over 1,500 children of 50 nationalities work side-by-side on a daily basis. The city I live in is one of the largest and most diverse in the world, and people of all faiths and creeds interact with one another peacefully. The world for me is an astoundingly diverse place in which every individual is simply trying to find happiness.
Are there extremists who disagree with that? Yes. Do I think the world will reach a wonderful utopia in which we all get along? Absolutely not. But my life and the lives of many others demonstrate how wrong you are every day.
In respect to your views on women, just keep the same principle in mind. I was your opposite at your age. I didn't date anyone until I was 22 and harbored some animosity as a result, choosing to believe that I would be eternally friend-zoned. Only after focusing on other pursuits did I finally have better luck. Just as is the case with men, there are good women and bad women--not absolutes.
However, to judge modern Turkey (which underwent a HUGE cultural revolution in the 80s where they were encouraged by American influences to modernize and liberalize) by the actions of its now extinct (seems to be a pattern here) government in 1915 is in my opinion as silly as forming your opinion on modern Germany and Japan for "their" actions during the second world war.
The country of my heritage has also had its problems with Turkey in the past, yet today conflicts between the two nations have subsided significantly. To quote the loveable yet obstinate father in a successful classic Canadian-American independent film: "the Greeks and Turks are friends now"
I have a friend who traveled there just last week, and I thought he was crazy to go in the middle of a coup. Are there really curfews and checkpoints and the like?
Kudos.
Most people here, Thais and foreigners alike, have welcomed the coup as a necessary step in bringing about more permanent change. To understand why, you just have to look at the past decade of Thai politics. I've lived here since 2008, and in that time four prime ministers and two interim prime ministers have come into power. Only one finished his designated term. Every other one was removed after protests and/or political opposition, which often included violence worse than any over the past two months.
The two main political parties, commonly referred to as the red shirts (drawing from rural, poor voters for its base) and the yellow shirts (drawing primarily from the wealthy elite) have traded power back and forth, padding their own pockets and rewarding their cronies, while the rest of the country has received the short end of the stick. As just a single example, my wife and I were supposed to receive a $2,500 subsidy for a car purchase (by a yellow shirt government). We've received nothing and likely never will. Yet our situation doesn't even begin to approach the issues others have had, including the farmers who were promised payment for their rice (by a red shirt government) and received nothing.
The level of corruption in politics here is incredible, far beyond what I've experienced in almost any other country, and it's often openly recognized and accepted. Stopped by police? Pay 500 baht (or 200 if you're Thai) and go on your way. Arrested for a serious charge? Have your family pay 20 or 30 thousand baht and watch the charges dissipate. A government official is known to be taking bribes? Well, he's doing a good job anyway, so let's just entirely ignore it.
When the head of the military declared that he was taking over, it was after sitting in yet another meeting with the heads of the political parties, both of whom refused to agree on even the slightest compromise. Basically, he was as fed up as the rest of us and treated them like the children they were. Since then, we've all been a lot happier, and the military government has been making several positive changes.
In short, don't trust the news media on this one; a military coup leading to positive change just doesn't fit the modern Western paradigm. Though I still firmly believe that democracy is comparatively the most effective form of government, I certainly don't equate it to freedom, and believe that other political approaches and situations can still create conditions that allow freedom to flourish.
A much more balanced assessment of the issue can be seen in an open letter written by billionaire Bill Heinecke, who has lived in Thailand for 50 years.
http://anggos.com.au/blogs/phillip-b/2014-07-12/johns-story-getup
I am so proud of this community. In 99% of circumstances in other places on the interwebz, this would have become a raging flame war. lol
Incidentally, an interesting BBC article on the phenomenon of Islamic Fundamentalism. I think it simplifies the issue a little, but it does make very interesting points.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28246732
It is sad and strange that rather than seeking to emulate a time of prosperity, knowledge and tolerance, Jihadis would rather rule through violence and fear.
A lot of people like the blame the Crusades for Jihad when in actuality, Jihad was around before the Christian Crusades. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/blaming-the-crusades-for-jihad-2/) Is it to much to ask that religions just leave each other alone? Is there no enough space for two major faiths on Earth? Was there, even then, to many people on Earth?
Maybe I'm just a soul born out of time, but I look at the world today and I don't really like what I see. Maybe it's just because of my history, because of the things I've seen and done in the name of my country and government that makes me so cynical. I don't know. Nor do I know what can be done to make the world a better place.
Change is naturally scary to humans, we don't like things changing. To share one of my favorite quotes:
" The past tempts us, the present confuses us and the future frightens us. "
There is a certain poetic truth in that. . .