It is
interesting to note that the Labor Party of Australia expected the new
young voters to vote overwhelmingly for them. But that did not happen
either. The election result demonstrated that the vast majority of the
first-time voters--many of them university ‘freshies’—a Labor
vote-bank abandoned the Labor Party; instead, they voted either the
Liberals or the Greens, a small ‘environmental’ party. This deprived
the Labor the victory that they were almost certain.
Many
irreligious persons, atheists, secularists, leftists, socialists,
communists voted for the Liberals too, knowing very well John Howard’s
support for the Church and the Christian schools. Previously, they could
have never thought of voting for a ‘dullard’ and a ‘dross’,
Johnny--to put it mildly.
It is not
surprising that same pattern of voting was reflected in the
US
election.
As mentioned at
the beginning of this essay that the result of the Presidential election
in the
USA
has divided not only the
US
society but also the world. It is no wonder to witness this division in
many cyber forums like MM, Vinnomot, FFI just to name a few. Some members
of such forums openly supported John Kerry (or George Bush) and
transformed their website as an election propaganda platform. When the
Republicans won the election many members in the opposite camp were
disappointed, hurt and angry. Some of them even suggested that the
re-election of George Bush will encourage more terrorism, more Islamic
fundamentalism. This translates into more bloodshed and mayhem—according
to them. Some of them even suggest that President George Bush has turned
himself into a Christian fundamentalist waging Crusade against the
Muslims. While I guess most Americans are religious, still
America
is the most staunchly secular country in the world. Same goes for
Australia
. Though the vast majority of the Australians are Christians and quite
religious, the secular nature of
Australia
, including all its secular laws remain intact no matter which party is in
power. No party can change this status of
Australia
—not even John Howard, even though he had a very good support from many
Church based parties.
I think
America
stands exactly in the same position. The secular nature of
America
can never change—not even in a few centuries. Therefore, the thought of
Christian fundamentalism and Crusade are simply far-fetched and
ill-motivated. George Bush and John Howard are doing simply their duties
to their citizen—protect them at any cost—fight fire with fire, if
need be.
I must say that
if anyone is responsible for the perceived rise of Christian
fundamentalism it is actually due to the ascent of Islamic fundamentalism
for the last few decades. When the Christians, the Hindus, the Buddhists
find that they are being attacked, killed, burned and tortured by the
Islamic Terrorists they have no choice but to turn to the parties that
promise complete security to them. Ordinary people cannot depend upon the
incomprehensible hypothesis of the liberals and the philosophical
doctrines of the leftists. They need to protect themselves first—even if
that means to resort to the use of force. That is why we see the rise of
the Hindu fundamentalists in
India
in BJP and the rise of the extreme rightists in other countries, such as
Austria
, the
Netherlands
…etc. Violence begets violence—it is as simple as this. And it is
Islamic Terrorism that started it all.
Remove Islamic
Terrorism from the face of the earth and you will find no other religious
fundamentalism/terrorism. Christian, Hindu or Budddhist fundamentalisms
are the reaction of Islamic Terrorism perpetrated by the Muslim
fundamentalists-- let’s face this truth. Islamic Terrorism cannot be
removed through dialogue or negotiation. These terrorists do not believe
in give-and-take--the very fundamental of any negotiation process. In
fact, the terrorists consider an offer of negotiation as a sign of
weakness—a time for a brief respite—a good opportunity to re-plan and
execute further genocide and mayhem to establish Islamic Paradises in
world. Anyone who offers an olive branch to the terrorists is simply
drawing more Trojan Horses into his backyard.
Finally, I
would like to stress the importance of maintaining a bystander’s
attitude in a cyber forum. It is unwise for an Internet forum to be
brazenly partisan. A forum is not a political party. Members of these
forums come from diverse backgrounds and they are spread around the globe.
Just because they are in agreement with a few policies/ideas/philosophy
does not mean that all of them must agree with the political, cultural and
domestic issues of any or all countries. As an example: During the next
Singapore
election which political party should MM or Vinnomot support—PAP
(People’s Action Party) or the opposition Workers Party? Surely, this is
a contentious issue and it will be imprudent and childish to openly
advertise for any one party. If a certain member writes anything about any
party let that be only his personal opinion. The moderators and the key
members of the group should, as far as possible, keep silence on the
election issue. This, I think, should be a wise approach. It will prevent
the unnecessary, hurt feeling, anger, frustration and jealousy in the
forum.
Back
< 1 2
3 |