The Death of Westernism

[Sir Rhetor]

Exactly, these corrupt unions will ultimately be the death of this country.

Sparked a thought of mine. If something were to take down Westernism, what would it be? Half a century ago it was almost certainly communist states, which the US and others set themselves in opposition to. Now, communism is just a memory for the most part. On a similar, but maybe unrelated note, what today is the single biggest threat to Westernism?

[WinePusher]

Sparked a thought of mine. If something were to take down Westernism, what would it be? Half a century ago it was almost certainly communist states, which the US and others set themselves in opposition to. Now, communism is just a memory for the most part. On a similar, but maybe unrelated note, what today is the single biggest threat to Westernism?

Well, the first threat to "westernism" would be communism, as you said. But the threat of communism as somewhat subsided, cept for a few believes in academia. Now, I would say the threat facing the west is Islamic extremism and Muslim Fanaticism, who clearly hate the west and what we stand for.

[DeBunkem]

You'd have to define "Westernism." Is it corporate rule, religiosity, and militarism, as is increasingly the case in the US?
Or is it the finest traditions of the West in its art and science, its Enlightenment love of liberal thought and rationality? It includes rule of law instead of "might makes right," and democracy over rule of the rich aristocracy. In that case, the biggest threat to "Westernism" is the religiose, imperialistic, and dumbed-down elements in our own society. As for Islam, they are the ones whose culture is being threatened by "Western" and Zionist military occupation and unrelenting slaughter.

[Sir Rhetor]

You'd have to define "Westernism."

Sorry, fatal error of mine.

I mean western values and freedoms, like free press and speech.

Countries of the Western world are generally considered to share certain fundamental political ideologies, including those of liberal democracy, the rule of law, human rights and a high degree of gender equality (although there are notable exceptions, especially in foreign policy). Additionally countries with strong political and/or military ties to Western Europe, NATO and/or the United States, such as Japan, Israel, and South Korea can be said to be Western in a political sense at least.

As such, this definition of the term "Western" is not necessarily tied to the geographic sense of the word. A geographically Western nation such as Cuba is sometimes not considered politically Western due to its general rejection of liberal democracy, freedom of the press, and personal liberty.[citation needed] Conversely, some Eastern nations, for example, Japan, India, Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea, could be considered politically Western, due to their adoption of indigenous liberal democratic political institutions similar in structure to those of the traditionally Western nations.

Well, the first threat to "westernism" would be communism, as you said. But the threat of communism as somewhat subsided, cept for a few believes in academia. Now, I would say the threat facing the west is Islamic extremism and Muslim Fanaticism, who clearly hate the west and what we stand for.

I said it was a threat in the past. I agree that Islam is somewhat of a threat, but militarily, they have nothing on the US. I would submit what DeBunkem hinted at, the "religiose, imperialistic, and dumbed-down elements in our own society". I see the biggest threat as coming from indoctrinated children like we can see in the documentary "Jesus Camp". They are told that America is supposed to be Christian, and anything else is a problem which needs fixing. Considering that, I now understand why (and the film also stated this) folks would elect someone with the intellectual zeal of the latter Bush. Not to make this thread all about presidents, but politicians are a reflection on those who elected them.

[East of Eden]

You'd have to define "Westernism."

Sorry, fatal error of mine.

I mean western values and freedoms, like free press and speech.

Countries of the Western world are generally considered to share certain fundamental political ideologies, including those of liberal democracy, the rule of law, human rights and a high degree of gender equality (although there are notable exceptions, especially in foreign policy). Additionally countries with strong political and/or military ties to Western Europe, NATO and/or the United States, such as Japan, Israel, and South Korea can be said to be Western in a political sense at least.

As such, this definition of the term "Western" is not necessarily tied to the geographic sense of the word. A geographically Western nation such as Cuba is sometimes not considered politically Western due to its general rejection of liberal democracy, freedom of the press, and personal liberty.[citation needed] Conversely, some Eastern nations, for example, Japan, India, Israel, Taiwan, and South Korea, could be considered politically Western, due to their adoption of indigenous liberal democratic political institutions similar in structure to those of the traditionally Western nations.

Well, the first threat to "westernism" would be communism, as you said. But the threat of communism as somewhat subsided, cept for a few believes in academia. Now, I would say the threat facing the west is Islamic extremism and Muslim Fanaticism, who clearly hate the west and what we stand for.

I said it was a threat in the past. I agree that Islam is somewhat of a threat, but militarily, they have nothing on the US. I would submit what DeBunkem hinted at, the "religiose, imperialistic, and dumbed-down elements in our own society". I see the biggest threat as coming from indoctrinated children like we can see in the documentary "Jesus Camp". They are told that America is supposed to be Christian, and anything else is a problem which needs fixing. Considering that, I now understand why (and the film also stated this) folks would elect someone with the intellectual zeal of the latter Bush. Not to make this thread all about presidents, but politicians are a reflection on those who elected them.

Certainly the election of Obama would be an argument for the dumbing down of America.

Islam may not be a military threat to us, but look at Europe, where at some point Muslims may be the majority. What do you do when 51% vote for Sharia law?

Have the 'Jesus Camp' kids harmed anyone? Yes, they want to convince others of their position, as you do. What's the problem?

[East of Eden]

As for Islam, they are the ones whose culture is being threatened by "Western" and Zionist military occupation and unrelenting slaughter.

No offense, but you sound like a mouthpiece for the Islamofascists.

Do you think Israel has a right to exist?

[Goat]

Certainly the election of Obama would be an argument for the dumbing down of America.

That was proven by the election of Bush.. At least, Obama can enunciate properly, and create coherent sentences.

[WinePusher]

Certainly the election of Obama would be an argument for the dumbing down of America.

That was proven by the election of Bush.. At least, Obama can enunciate properly, and create coherent sentences.

Yep, Obama has a talent with reading from a teleprompter.

[WinePusher]

As for Islam, they are the ones whose culture is being threatened by "Western" and Zionist military occupation and unrelenting slaughter.

This is a rather misinformed statement to make. Did we invade Iraq and Afganistan before or after 9/11? Are we the ones launching suicide bombings and terrorist attacks on London Subway systems, American Buildings, and Indian Hotels? Do you attempt to justify these attacks by making it seem as if the west is the enemy? Are you sympathetic with their cause?

[Goat]

Certainly the election of Obama would be an argument for the dumbing down of America.

That was proven by the election of Bush.. At least, Obama can enunciate properly, and create coherent sentences.

Yep, Obama has a talent with reading from a teleprompter.

Yes , bush did too.. Obama also can think on his feet, something that bush lacked. The criteria he uses to appoint people tend to be an attempt at putting a competent person in place, rather that someone that fits ideologically with him... unlike Bush.