Bullying-Pts 4 & 5-World Politics and Religious - Do We Really Want it to Stop? Pts 4&5

Before I start Part 4 I need to comment on the Chick-Fil-A controversy.  There are those in favor of boycotting this business run by a person who has spoken out against equal rights for homosexuals.  He even called homosexuals "arrogant".  That's like the pot calling the kettle black coming from a person who self-righteously speaks as if he is the Voice of God.  Critics of the boycott are trying to spin this controversy as a free speech issue.  That is so senseless.  I have not heard anyone say the head of Chick-Fil-A should not have the right to express his disapproval of homosexuality.  Personally, I'm glad he did.  I like knowing I'm not buying chicken from at least one company whose CEO has a bullying attitude toward homosexuals.  I heard someone quoted as saying I should not take "political action" against  someone whose opinion differs from  my own.  Isn't that what the political process is all about in this country?  As far as I know the head of Chick-Fil-A is not running for any political office anyway.  So what's political about people expressing disapproval of his bullying attitude toward homosexuals?  I have as much right to express my opinion as any CEO does. I should have the right not to work for a bully, not to hire bullies, not to let my money add to  bullies' profits. If you want to know why you should boycott Chick-Fil-A, read the entire "Bullying-Do We Really Want it to Stop?" blog.  If you would prefer your offspring to be bullies, don't bother.

R. Geiger

PART 4

BULLYING AND WORLD POLITICS

The United States armed forces acting as the official bullying power of their country invaded Iraq, changing the political leadership of that country.  Then members of that same bullying force got caught humiliating enemy POWs at Abu-Ghraib.  Why is it that the bullying of POWs was made to seem more offensive than bullying all of Iraq?  Perhaps it depends on how one spins the story.  The invasion of Iraq was supposedly prompted by some one's information that the dictator Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal and by his refusal to destroy said weapons.  We  realize in hindsight that there were no weapons for him to destroy.  Even if there had been, would that have justified an invasion?  Imagine invading every country run by a despot who might possess weapons of mass destruction.  Would that be justified or just senseless and offensive?

Consider the following scenario:

America elects a president who is quite popular but develops clear and obvious signs of mental instability.  The Congress refuses to depose him/her from power.  There is no question that this president has power over enough weapons of mass destruction to wipe out the civilized world.  The United Nations tries negotiating.  When that fails sanctions are imposed against the U.S.  The popular president refuses to give up the office nor the weapons.  Russia and/or China grow impatient demanding immediate disarmament and destruction of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the American arsenal.  They feel the only acceptable alternative is to destroy the weapons themselves.  If the invasion of Iraq was justified, how much more just would the invasion of America in this scenario be?

Until the United Nations outlaws all weapons of mass destruction everywhere on and above this earth, every country should have the right to possess such weapons as long as the weapons are not used against a non-aggressive country and as long as they do not have destructive effects on the rest of the world.  If the world community were to agree that all weapons of mass destruction should be forever banned, then any country, group, or individual would have no right to possess such weapons.  In that case the confiscation of such weapons by legitimate international law enforcement would not be bullying.  In a world without weapons of mass destruction, no country would need such weapons.

Another form of bullying related to the world stage is genocide, the organized attempt to destroy a whole nation or ethnic group.  Sometimes genocide is physical as the Nazis trying to eradicate all European Jews.  Genocide can also be aimed at a culture as the U.S. government's attempt to integrate native Americans into white society and culture and the present Chinese attempt to destroy the culture of the Tibetan people.  Whenever organized attempts at physical or cultural genocide exist, there is a bully behind it and bullies doing the killing, raping, property destruction, etc.

In a separate section of this blog, I mentioned that I would like the power to bully all active bullies into stopping.  It occurred to me how similar that seems to this month's (Nov. 2012) Middle East conflict between Israel and Hammas of the West Bank.  Israel has more power.  Hammas would like to wipe Israel off the map.  Hammas perceives Israel as the Big Bully and the fact that they dare to taunt the Big Bully with mortars and missiles, indicates their desire to overcome or out bully the bully.

PART 5

RELIGIOUS BULLYING

 There is probably no religion in this world that has not experienced bullying in the form of discrimination and/or persecution.  It is difficult to understand why religious denominations, once they reach a stage where they possess any power and influence in a society, sometimes take their turn frightening and tyrannizing non-believers.  The early Christians were persecuted by the Romans.  The Christian church survived and eventually ended up dominating the Holy Roman Empire.  Christians are remembered for killing witches and torturing native Americans in the process of "converting" them.  In the United States the doctrine of separation of church and state was instituted to protect religious freedom of all citizens and to prevent the government from being taken over by any specific group that would use their power to force their religious beliefs and practices on all Americans.  There are people of the religious Christian right who would force all Americans to live according to their beliefs and values through legislation if they had that power.  I believe they are actively trying to attain that power.  There is little difference in mindset between the "Christian" religious fanatics in this country and those in the Middle East who believe whole countries should be run according to Islamic law and customs.  They are bullies with similar agendas.  Just as infidels top the black list of  fanatic Islamists, atheists and certain types of unrepentant sinners top the black list of fanatic Christians.  The goal of each fanatical group is to control people's behavior. This is bullying.

The "Christians" who bomb abortion clinics and attempt to kill doctors who perform abortions are the same type of bullies as the "Islamists" who planned and carried out the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11.  Christians is in parentheses because the word literally means a follower of Christ.  Remember him?  Stripped, beaten, whipped, nailed to a cross?  DEFINITELY NOT A BULLY!  In fact, perhaps the most famous victim of bullying in human history.  How is it that people who purport to believe in him, can have such bullying attitudes?