Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vsp
To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.
|
The difference is that in the ME the extremists are in charge, whilst here even they must respect the rule of law which puts enormous power in the hands of the people.
Consider, for example: the #1 issue to all evangelical extremists is abortion, yet abortion remains legal. Why?
Because in order to wield that political power, it's important that it remain legal.
Weird little problem; if abortion were made illegal it would permit the opposition to wield a much larger, much more powerful group, and one that terrifies the righty extremists.
What we've done here is to construct a government that has to respect the will of the majority whilst remaining a representative republic. So in order for the evangelicals to really gain power, they would have to convince a majority of the American public that they are correct. Do you think they can do that? Because it's not going well for them, as their numbers are down.
Now contrast Iran. In Iran, the mulllahs have absolute power over the country. They decide who will go on the ballot to be their puppet President. They make the rulings that govern the country. Iran is going to have nukes soon.
So which one is more dangerous again?