Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

goldomark said:

Not sure I'd put Kennedy on the same pedestal as Mandela.

Click to expand...

In terms of civil rights? Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Martin Luther King, Jr. called President Kennedy's civil rights proposals, "the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president." He went on to predict the legislation would, "take the Nation a long, long way toward the realization of the ideals of freedom and justice for all people".

And King was right about that. It isn't perfection, but it can reasonably be considered to have been the largest step forward since the 14th Amendment. And while it was passed only after his death, his role in making it real isn't questionable. There wasn't anyone else in government at the time or soon after that had the will and ability to make it happen. If he didn't do it, its like may not have come for decades.

His personal virtue, or lack thereof (the man was *not* a saint), isn't really relevant.

Umbran said:

In terms of civil rights? Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Martin Luther King, Jr. called President Kennedy's civil rights proposals, "the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president." He went on to predict the legislation would, "take the Nation a long, long way toward the realization of the ideals of freedom and justice for all people".

And King was right about that. It isn't perfection, but it can reasonably be considered to have been the largest step forward since the 14th Amendment. And while it was passed only after his death, his role in making it real isn't questionable. There wasn't anyone else in government at the time or soon after that had the will and ability to make it happen. If he didn't do it, its like may not have come for decades.

His personal virtue, or lack thereof (the man was *not* a saint), isn't really relevant.

Click to expand...

Sure, he deserves due credit for proposing the Civil Rights Act, but would he have even done it without the protests, particularly the Birmingham campaign? His administration had been pretty much shielding him from the issue until that point. Aside from some thorny foreign policy issues that he was stuck with from the Eisenhower administration (Cuba and stupid CIA operations all over the place), Kennedy often needed to be prodded into showing spine - a common issue with first term presidents fretting getting a second term.

Dannyalcatraz said:

NOT a good idea.

While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.

There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. The military is oriented against outward threats to the state and its people. You don't want to put them in domestic policing roles or pretty soon the people start to be viewed as enemies of the state.

billd91 said:

Sure, he deserves due credit for proposing the Civil Rights Act, but would he have even done it without the protests, particularly the Birmingham campaign?

Click to expand...

Sometimes, people do the right thing for less-than-noble purposes. LBJ signed the CRA; Lincoln freed the slaves. But if you look at the personal lives of each president, neither was what you'd call a real friend of black people. Nonetheless, each made decisions putting them on the "right side of history."

(JFK's rhetoric was also influential in the American space program's success.)

billd91 said:

Sure, he deserves due credit for proposing the Civil Rights Act, but would he have even done it without the protests, particularly the Birmingham campaign?

Click to expand...

No. But, do we only give credit for things that come out of the blue, without cause? Did Mandela not also have a world filled with public notice of the issues around him?

Kennedy was a man of privilege, sheltered from much of what was going on around him. How many, when faced with reality, retreat? Or offer minor changes that don't really help? This was a major departure from what pretty much any other politician of the day would have done, taken on at no small personal risk.

I am not saying that he was some end-all, be-all of administrators. I merely give credit where i think it was due.

If you don't think this deserves credit... well, consider that you get the leadership your own attitudes deserve. If you will not give credit and support when someone does the right thing, why on Earth should anyone with any ideals at all try to serve your country?

And that's all I have to say on the matter.

Umbran said:

In terms of civil rights? Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Martin Luther King, Jr. called President Kennedy's civil rights proposals, "the most sweeping and forthright ever presented by an American president." He went on to predict the legislation would, "take the Nation a long, long way toward the realization of the ideals of freedom and justice for all people".

And King was right about that. It isn't perfection, but it can reasonably be considered to have been the largest step forward since the 14th Amendment. And while it was passed only after his death, his role in making it real isn't questionable. There wasn't anyone else in government at the time or soon after that had the will and ability to make it happen. If he didn't do it, its like may not have come for decades.

His personal virtue, or lack thereof (the man was *not* a saint), isn't really relevant.

Click to expand...

All the three men you mentioned were adulterers, not that it matters, but Kennedy's greateness is blow out of proportion.

I'm talking about scope of the caracters and the impact on their societies and the world. Mandela not only helped end apartheid, but he also help build a nation, went the way of reconciliation rather than punishement and fought racial stereotypes. Kennedy started the ball roling for the civil rights act, which is great, but is it the same in terms of scope? I think like his virtues, that is blow out of proportion because of his assassination.

Dannyalcatraz said:

I just want to respond to this and this alone:
NOT a good idea.

While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, I freely admit I'm no expert on this. Although when you have time google the Marikana incident in South Africa (our police can be very deadly)

There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.

Click to expand...

I think I may be missing your point here. Are you saying the soldiers didn't possess the skills to monitor and prevent instances such as these?

goldomark said:

Like I said, it isn't that there is no will to condemn, just that it is a situation that is complex and that condemnation won't solve the problems of South Africa.

Click to expand...

Sure, but condemnation is a good start. I mean when a country or person does something bad - the rest of the governments (for good PR) condemn the bad/poor actions of said country or person.

But even then, if lack of education is so problematic, what will prevent the next president from having a lack of education? The problem seems systemic.

Click to expand...

Do we have a lack of education/training in SA? Sure we do. Does that mean all people of colour never receive the opportunity. Not at all.

On a side note, education can only go so far and intelligence is another thing. There is not always a correlation between the two. I'd say that being able to become president shows intelligence. At least social intelligence to a minimum, but I'd say more is required. A lot more. Judgement is another matter...

Click to expand...

Agreed, it goes without saying.

Corporal punishment, the army doing some policing, severe punishement for vandalism, putting a filter in place that excludes some people from the presidency, using criminals (who would be mostly black) as c"heap labor", to use a euthemism.

Click to expand...

Okay here is the thing - enough people suffered corporal punishment (including myself) and we all were fine. I don't pander to the over protective PC crowd who doesn't lift a finger to kids. IMO, that is new age crap which has led somewhat to the deterioration of our society.

Severe punishment for vandalism? Exactly how many cases of "excrement throwing" students do you expect to encounter in a year? More so than the 8000 Asian students which were expelled last year from the USA?
Also please go google reasons for expulsion from universities - vandalism is listed as one of the criteria.

Filter in place of presidency? Do you realise that the majority of nurses in South Africa are people of colour and one of their requirements is a grade 12 schooling certificate. Are you really calling it a filter or are you disguising another agenda here with me?

Using criminals period, because the systems employed currently in the USA or South Africa really rehabilitates criminals? This is not about a black or white thing, despite you trying very hard to make it one. This is about utilising the money tax payers pay in a productive way for the benefit of all.

There is an authoritarian vibe here.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you feel that way.

Umbran said:

Ron Paul, and his son Rand, have some ideas... that are somewhat divorced from reality. These guys are not the equivalent of a Mandela, or a Kennedy

Click to expand...

I never said they were equal. As for Rand Paul, I think he is very different to his father. What I would classify as divorced from reality is anyone buying into the lucozade mainstream ideas of the current and previous USA presidents. In this, it looks like we certainly disagree.

Yes, now, find an "independent" organization within your own government structure that is not tainted or influenced by the same politics and/or corruption that you're trying to prosecute. Getting a fair trial in such a situation is extremely difficult.

Click to expand...

Actually we did have an independent organization called the "Scorpians" under the NPA which was largely a successful idea and reality. It was sadly disbanded as soon as it started becoming a real threat to the cronies I have been talking about for the last couple of pages....
They (the cronies) then re-established/rebranded the organisation as the Hawks under the Police - and therefore ensuring its lack of independence to ensure that government could control/manipulate said organisation.

goldomark said:

All the three men you mentioned were adulterers, not that it matters...(snip)

Click to expand...

But you went that way anyways...

I'm talking about scope of the caracters and the impact on their societies and the world. Mandela not only helped end apartheid, but he also help build a nation, went the way of reconciliation rather than punishement and fought racial stereotypes. Kennedy started the ball roling for the civil rights act, which is great, but is it the same in terms of scope? I think like his virtues, that is blow out of proportion because of his assassination.

Click to expand...

My feeling is that if JFK had not gone down that route WHEN he did, Mandela might have died in prison and South Africa's history might have been bloodier or at least messier. So in answering your question in terms of impact on their societies and the world, I would say JFK had a much larger role to play being the President of the USA.

That is not to say I'm taking anything away from Nelson Mandela.

Dannyalcatraz said:

I just want to respond to this and this alone:

Use the military to crack down on gangs and crime. We are not at war so our military is largely underused, despite sending some of the forces for peace-keeping missions in the rest of Africa.

Click to expand...

NOT a good idea.

While there is some overlap between military and police equipment and training, in all honesty, military personnel & tools are generally very bad for policing duties. Police get trained in a much wider variety of less-than-lethal techniques, equipment, and de-escalation strategies than do their military counterparts.

There's a reason why Iraqi museums got looted under the very noses of the Coalition forces in Desert Storm.

Click to expand...

billd91 said:

I totally agree. The military is oriented against outward threats to the state and its people. You don't want to put them in domestic policing roles or pretty soon the people start to be viewed as enemies of the state.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. This is why we have the Posse Comitatus Act.

Sadras said:

I think I may be missing you point here. Are you saying the soldiers didn't possess the skills to monitor and prevent instances such as these?

Click to expand...

I won't speak for Danny, but speaking for myself and with my own military experience: Yes, soldiers - or at least the majority of soldiers - do not possess the training or skills for such things.

With the exception of soldiers trained for Law Enforcement - law enforcement within the military, not outside the military - the necessary skills are just not part of military training. Security Forces trained military personnel (including Law Enforcement trained personnel) are a relatively small percentage of the military. There are simply not enough of them to replace the Police Forces of an entire nation, and even then they aren't trained the same way as civilian Police Forces (Laws and Rights are a little different within the military as opposed to the nation at large - and even more different when you start dealing with foreign countries and cultures).

Soldiers are primarily trained not in defusing situations, enforcing laws, or protecting things and people, but instead trained to locate, identify, fight, and eliminate threats - the very opposite of what a Police Force does (or at least should do).

Thanks for the explanation. Coming from an area of complete naivety I've always wondered why crime/gang lords and their organisations can so easily embed themselves in our societies and governments appear (at least to me) incapable of routing them out when they have the entire army as their resource.
Just send in a battalion of Vic Mackeys to deal with the problem (have been watching too much of The Shield of late)!