The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Australian Democrats and the politics of peace > Comments

The Australian Democrats and the politics of peace : Comments

By James Page, published 14/11/2007

In a time of war and crisis a voice of peace and moderation is more relevant than ever.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Cheryl,

The Democrats passing the native title bill is what I mean. The bill put to parliament was negotiated and agreed to by the "A" team. The bill with more substance and broader indigenous support - the "B" team would have required the Democrats to use the balance of power to ammend. But they cut the B team out of negotiations instead. This was bureacratic administration from the middle ground, not conflict resolution.
Posted by King Canute, Thursday, 15 November 2007 4:28:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Canute said:

"Non-violent conflict resolution has nothing to do with the middle ground. It is dialectical in that the outcome is new and fresh, not a compromise between the thesis and antithesis."

WORKABLE FRAMEWORK

Canute...I suggest that such a process is only possible when the framework allows it. i.e. when the point of reference for the opposing sides is not connected to 'unchangable divine mandates which dictate violence as a very workable solution'

PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS
In this connection, I can see wide scope for non violent conflict resolution as in the Civil Rights movement, because they followed the example of Jesus, who never said to solve conflict by violence, rather by love. When he said "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" he was referring to the swords drawn against those who embrace the kingdom of God, not the other way around.

VIOLENT SOLUTIONS
By contrast, many of the commandments in the Quran are specifically violent.
One situation addressed there is "fight against those who have turned you out of your houses", which on the surface seems fair enough, but if you apply this say to Spain, where the 'your houses' are in fact the houses of Christians taken by the Invading Muslims.. they will still apply such a verse as a mandate for violent response. There are theological reasons for this concerning the idea of "Muslim lands". Any land invaded and taken by force is thereafter an "Islamic Waqf"..this can be legitimately defended against those who, strangely enough, want their property BACK.

I'd be very interested in how you see the idea of 'peaceful conflict resolution' working in such scenarios.. any thoughts?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 15 November 2007 7:38:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You sound to have not been around much, Runner. I said the Avante Guarde has always been composed of a few scallywags, and as many of their leaders were philosophers, nearly every beneficial turn in history was begun by them.

Also as I said before, Jesus was also the friend of fishermen, and because I often boozed with such at Jurien Bay when younger well west of where our farm still is, did find them a bit rough-natured but always ready to stop and help a person when broken down on a country road.

Wouldn't say that about all I've come across?

Cheers - BB, WA
Posted by bushbred, Thursday, 15 November 2007 5:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boaz David,

As I see it the non violent path requires the abandonment of prejudice and adversarial modes. Your juxtaposition of Christianity and Islam is an example of the sort of prejudice that obstructs non violent solutions.

Ghandi was a follower of Jesus. For Ghandi this meant transcending religious and cultural barriers and finding a common humanity, not just between Hindus, Moslems and Christians but also between Indians and British.

Non violence is the negotiating process amongst opponents, not the preaching of fine principles.

It seems to me that the only people capable of creating peace are those engaged in or with the capacity to engage in war. Peace is, by simplistic definition the absense of war. The only people who can stop war are those who are actually doing it.

Non violence requires open mindedness and a willingness to put aside preconcieved expectations and assumptions about who is right and wrong. If, like you BD, you have a religious and cultural position that is absolute and that absolute is the starting point for dialogue then you will walk straight into the adversarial mode which is the essense of war.

In terms of non violence, spirituality is that which causes a warmonger to transcend prejudice and consider nonviolent solutions. If spirituality (or more accurately religion) is that which entrenches the opinion of an adversary then it is an obstacle to peace, a pillar of the conflict.
Posted by King Canute, Saturday, 17 November 2007 2:35:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given his silence, I guess we can take it that runner has no "evidence that 'Democrats and Greens supporters' have ever 'thrown urine and abuse at anyone that disagrees with their opinions' at any kind of demonstration".

Just another fundamentalist Christian liar who has no compunction about telling porkies in order to try and defame those of whom he doesn't approve. There's a few of those around here, aren't there?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 18 November 2007 8:45:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The extinction of he Democrats is well deserved.

Once they had relevance, when they meant to 'keep the bastards hones'. Then I was a Democrat voter.

What they became was a self-righteous vehicle for middle-class moral status display, and the backbone came to be made up of watermelon peaceniks, those 'useful idiots' of totalitarian states. This put them at existential risk.

Their doom was sealed by the formation of the Green party, which co-opted their re-defined constituency.
Posted by ChrisPer, Friday, 23 November 2007 1:10:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy