by frog
President Bush is at it again, beating the war drums. This time the boogey-man is Iran, and in his speech today he said Iran threatened the security of all nations and should be confronted “before it’s too late”.
It’s an interesting dilemma. First, no-one would like to see more countries get a hold of nuclear weapons. That’s why we have a non-proliferation treaty. But wait! The USA is also signatory to the 1974 IEA agreement, which says that member nations (including NZ) need to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power and uranium enrichment. I don’t think Bush really cares whether Iran’s ambitions are peaceful or not, he just wants an excuse to pursue his skewed version of the foreign policy doctrine laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard. (Even though Brzezinski has condemned Bush’s war on terror.)
The real question is: Would John Key answer Bush’s call and send troops to Iran? He flip-flopped on Iraq based on the polls rather than deciding based on his convictions. Could Helen resist such a call during an election year? What about Winston, Peter or Rodney? The Maori Party? But as Key is currently the darling of the polls, I would really like to hear from him.
Would he agree that Iran was “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror”? Many would say that the US was, citing their financial and technical support for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein prior to turning against them. I appreciate that this is inflamatory stuff and is likely to start a flame war. However, the National Party has been the least consistent of all the parties on support for Bush and his policies. As we start down another road to madness in the Middle East, I’d like to know where the National Party really stands this time.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Parliament | Society & Culture by frog on Mon, January 14th, 2008
Tags: bush, iran, john, Key, middle-east, national party, terrorism, war
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Personally I think the man (Key) is gutless and is leading a party I once belonged to down the sickening Labour lite path but he has been consistent on issues like this.
I would send troops and I would have troops in Iraq as well but that is not the point, posts like this (usually written by Russel) are boring and shows a desperation that one does not normally associated with the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, not initially but i would not rule it out if circumstances demanded, the first to be conscripted would be the long term unemployed (those that were fit and able)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Has he been asked this question and has he actually SAID “No”?
I don’t know the answer to that question. Not sure if Key knows either, because he doesn’t know what the US Government might offer in return for such a thing.
This is a problem when dealing with parties that have few real principles… Labour and National being two such parties.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting point of view, I would love to know what Russel’s real plans are for the future of Nandoor yet he refuses to tell us.
Perhaps you (and Frog) should spend a bit more time asking the hard questions of your own party than spreading innuendo and rumour about the Nat’s.
The Greens are hardly the party of principle they once were, I may not have agreed with everything they stood for but at least you knew what their policy was on 99% of the issues, that is not the case today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you want to just post a link for now I am sure it will get through. Looking forward to what you came up with.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a past Green voter I thought that I had the right to ask Russel what is going on with Nandor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ihope he does get into some straight answers this year. If he is to be our next PM we deserve to know what we are voting for, or against as the case maybe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Iraq was a war without a war declaration, it was rushed into without any international agreement at all, there was no immediate hostility, nobody was invited by the people of the country to invade in any sense, and the whole pretext for the war was complete exaggeration. It certainly doesn’t help either that the USA stood to gain a lot by potentially stabilising the oil supply, and that they had funded many of the leaders who caused the very situations they were bemoaning.
If someone threatens any free or peaceful nation, I’d be more than happy to see New Zealand join in a defence, and perhaps I would even fight myself. That is fundamentally different to completely making a mess of a whole region with an unjustified and unsanctioned invasion, and I expect no better will come of any similar attempt with Iran, which is at least pretending democracy, and has been goaded into making their power station a big deal, instead of a straightforwardly peaceful matter.
I don’t trust Iran with nuclear weapons any less than I trust the USA, anyway. They have a right to peacefully advance science and engineering in their country, and Nuclear power is comparatively clean. I don’t even see why we got into this foreign policy mess in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Our international outlook means New Zealand is committed to being part of the group of nations that have long been at the forefront of international security. These include our traditional partners, Britain, Canada and the United States. New Zealand will continue to make contributions appropriate to our capabilities to secure international peace and security.” (pp 12,13)
Sounds much like “where Uncle Sam goes, we go” to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you are basically saying that you are against (irrationally as it happens) anything that might pair us with the Yanks.
Don’t you think the voters of NZ deserve to know this pre election?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree, we should do things we think are right however that is not the feeling one gets from the Greens, it would not matter what the Yanks stood for or proposed the Greens would be against it based on their (not all Greens but a vast majority) dislike of capitalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, what I am saying is exactly what BeShakey said.
I also don’t think the US has been at the “forefront of international security” since the 1950s.
The Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, invasion of Grenada, support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and then the war on their Taliban successors, support for the Saddam Hussein regime and then its subsequent overthow and occupation in Iraq, and the threatened war against Iran would all indicate that the US is at the forefront of international insecurity, pursuing US global economic interests by military means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Green Party Policy is NOT “anti-US”. It follows Green principles. To the extent that the US acts contrary to our principles we will not support those acts.
Toad … I would not regard the Cold war or the Korean war as promoting insecurity. The US didn’t really go completely sour until Vietnam.
Since then invasions and overreach have been pretty much the rule, but I think you err in including those two.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As for where Key stands I hope it is by our true Allies, the United States of America (land of the free and the home of the brave, not an Islamic dictatorship). Helen has done everything possible to alienate us from America but thank God they still want to associate with us, we really dont deserve it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Green principals:
1) We hate the United States
2) My enemys enemy is my friend, so America hates Iran, Greens hate America so Greens support Iran.
Almost anything the Greens have to say about foriegn policy is anti-American, and yet you expect us to believe that you dont bear some sort of grudge towards America, get real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whereas the Greens have always been so completely against the sending of troops to occupy Iraq that they supported this government on supply before, during and after it sent troops to occupy Iraq.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm, I thought some of the strongest things the Greens said over the past three years have been anti the Chinese Government (Human Rights, Tibet, environmental degradation), and the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe (human rights) – hardly American client states!
And there is a difference between being anti-American (which I’m not) and anti the foreign policy of the Bush administration (which I am, and am proud the Greens are).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would you greens send troops to my local beach if we were ever invaded ?
I doubt it, as we all live in utopia eh ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1) We hate the United States
2) My enemys enemy is my friend, so America hates Iran, Greens hate America so Greens support Iran.
Thank you SO much for clarifying what WE think. We are all SO confused that we don’t know ourselves. (/sarcasm)
Aside from displaying your lack of courtesy, your lack of education and your lack of actual knowledge about the Greens, have you accomplished anything at all?
Right.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nick, Iran is no more a dictatorship than the United States is. Actually, they both purport to be democratic and go through the motions of elections.
But Iran is a theocracy, with “Islamic scholarship” being the first criterion in the Iranian Constitution for election of the Supreme Leader by the publicly elected Assembly of Experts.
The United States, by contrast, is a plutocracy, with the best elections and legislation that money can buy.
So in both countries, despite the trimmings of so-called “democratic” elections, the real power continues to be held by an elite. In Iran it is the religiously elite, in the US the financially elite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You lose all credibility when you have a crack at the Yanks for the Cold war and the Korean War.
Despite your protestations your stance is clearly anti American, do you not think that the public deserve to know that the Greens think this way?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While Nick’s comment might be made with tongue firmly in cheek it is the way that many see the Green party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ’s already pulled me up on that one, and in hindsight think I agree with him on it. But I stand by what I said about the more recent military ventures the US has embarked upon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am afraid I couldn’t see Nick’s tongue in his cheek there. Maybe I need to look harder.
What I saw was a very typical mis-characterization of Green policy that contributes to the very fact you put forward. A lot of people perceive us that way.
It IS the way many people see the Green party and it isn’t our policy or what we say ( usually, but hoof-in-mouth seems to be a common political disease ) that gets us perceived that way. It is stuff like what Nick just said. A self-reinforcing chorus of misrepresentation.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You see, thats how us mere mortals get confused. Even if you have an explanation for such an outrageous statement, it makes you look like you think Capitalism=dictatorship. You make it look like you think free market and the ability to spend your own money any way you want is equal to Islamic law. You can come out with statements like “Bush was never elected President because the Florida vote was rigged”. Or indeed you can say: “The United States, is a plutocracy, with the best elections and legislation that money can buy.” But you just come across as cynical and lose credibility.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a difference between supporting the soldiers and supporting the position the New Zealand Government takes on foreign policy. I won’t condemn the soldiers, wherever they may serve, even if they are serving in a war or conflict that I think is totally unjustifiable. I’m one of the stauchest supporters of Vietnam vets you’ll find, even though they should never have been there in the first place.
Nick C said: You make it look like you think free market and the ability to spend your own money any way you want is equal to Islamic law.
The outcome is the same, Nick – an elite minority with vested interests having policy implemented to further their interests while the needs of the majority are ignored.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
More rubbish, your credibility is crashing and burning. Making one off general statements like that cannot hide the blindingly obvious: America is much more free and democratic then Iran. Believe it or not America is not like 19th century Russia where 95% of the population are peasents. In America you have much more Liberty as you can freely choose your own religion. Religion is not imposed on anyone and the law is not based on a the Koran or the bible for that matter. The most powerful person is George Bush who was elected where as the most powerful person in Iran is religiously appointed. Money does not buy elections in America, it buys T.V. adds (Romney spent 20x as much as Huckabee in Iowa) and making such a statement just makes you look cynical.
If you cannot see the clear diferences between America and Iran by now then you never will. And please dont just make another sweeping generalisation. It doesnt help your arguement at all. The reality is that America is much better then Iran but the left are selective with their moral outrage choosing to attack the US almost exclusivly, God knows why.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Can you justify why American actions in the cold war preventing the spread of communism was bad. I am sure a lot of Europe would have loved comrade stalin as their leader. Maybe you can outline why the Americans (and the UN for that matter) were to wrong to oppose/defend the North Korean invasion whcih led to the Korean War. Unless of course there is something we all dont know about the Korean war which you can elaborate on. But i guess i can see why the americans guaranteeing south korea’s security has been bad – the north koreans enjoy such better lives than their brothers in the south.
maybe you can also outline why the americans were wrong to oppose the Soviet invasion of afghanistan or were wrong to overthrow the Taleban?
YOu can dress it up all you like, but opposing Americans oppositino to invasions and tyranny is nothign more than anti -americanism. At least you can have the heart to say that
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It IS the way many people see the Green party and it isn’t our policy or what we say ( usually, but hoof-in-mouth seems to be a common political disease ) that gets us perceived that way. It is stuff like what Nick just said. A self-reinforcing chorus of misrepresentation”
While I accept what you say at face value (you have never lied to me in the past so I fail to see why you would start now) your case is not helped by the likes of Keith Locke who seems to go into melt down mode whenever he gets the chance to have a crack at the Yanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A party just enough better than the next-best.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yet if if I venture anywhere outside the urban zones of the Northeast or California and let it be known that I am an Atheist, I am a target for all manner of bigotry. If I stand up for my right to disbelieve I can quite easily be shot.
Still, I am “FREE” to do it. The government won’t stop it and it might even catch my killers.
Overall however, the freedom of individuals in the USA is indeed greater than the freedom of individuals in Iran. That’s just the nature of religious dictatorships vs wage slavery. The difficulties that the US in its currently incarnated administration poses for the WORLD however, are little different to the ones that Iran offers, and the US has more power to make things go ugly.
The problem is that the individual freedoms in the US do not translate into actual control of government or foreign policy. Nor do those freedoms provide any controls to prevent the wealth party from doing pretty much ANYTHING it wants to do to future generations and other nations. In that regard Iran and the USA are VERY similar. Just substitute the word religious for the word wealth.
The most powerful man in the USA? Bush? Bush can’t even talk unless Cheney moves his fingers.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair enough bj.
What’s your policy on the Labour Party then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Im going to assume this is tounge and cheak, please tell me if i’m wrong. However what it does show is that you have a very eliteist attitude. Clearly you believe that Americans who live in rural areas are somehow inferior to those who live in urban areas. Perhaps its for their political or religious beliefs or maybe their lifestyle but deep down you are an eliteist.
You then proceed to go into a Marxist rant about how the proletariat are nothing but the playthings of the rich upper-class. I would like to remind you at this point that everyone has one vote in America, its superior to Communism in that regard. I will also remind you the everyone has the oppourtunity to get wealthy and become a filthy rich prick through the free market. Your attitude of tall poppy syndrome however means that you see rich people not a successful men and women to whom we should aspire but as but as socially unacceptable demons. You will deny this of course but I assure you its in everything you type, just like the anti-Americanism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
he does? really? can you provide an example? a quote?
personally I would imagine that keith having a go at the US is pretty rare, and his comments are well reasoned, so I doubt you can find an example of him going into melt down mode
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and the Green party wonders why it gets flamed for being anti-American. I seem to recall Keith Locke was one of those cheerleading the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan at the time, a murderous occupation, but somehow you DON’T say that Russia was a leading sponsor of terror – of course not, that was “back then” during the Cold War. So even though the US Presidency has changed three times since then (indeed more than the Soviet/Russian Presidency), the actions of previous administrations mean it can be blamed. Imagine if the NZ government was blamed for the actions of the Muldoon administration.
More importantly, to apply moral equivalency to the USA, compared with those who deliberately target to murder the maximum number of civilians in cities is repulsive.
The Green party likes to claim it takes the moral highground on human rights internationally, but when it is a state the US targets (for whatever reason) it starts finding excuses for it. The Iranian state murders homosexuals, political dissidents, teenage girls for having consensual sexual relations, it brutally suppresses debate about religion or its Islamist state. Iran is backing the spread of similar Islamism to Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Iran’s President has repeated called for the eradication of Israel, including rhetoric that talks of annihilation – meanwhile Iran fails to deliver the level of transparency the IAEA requires of it.
However, the Green (declared) beliefs in feminism, freedom of speech, secular government, liberal democracy and human rights can be dismissed, as can the agenda against nuclear weapons, or even the belief in peace, because Iran is being exposed for what it is by the USA. Your blind anti-Americanism is such that you NEVER protest against the torture and executions carried out by Iran, you NEVER protest Iran’s failure to be transparent with the IAEA (even though you profess to believe in multilateralism).
If you damned Iran for its abuses of human rights and its lack of nuclear transparency, but also declared opposition to any initial use of force against Iran it would at least show principle, and I could respect that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Um, what about here on the Greens’ human rights campaign page, Scott. There are 6 links relating to the persecution of Christians in Iraq.
Incidentally, the other countries to get one or more condemnatory mentions on that page are Burma, China, Singapore and Saudi Arabia.
Despite the horrors of Guantanamo Bay, not one mention for the US!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It doesn’t take away from the nonsense of “the US being the leading state sponsor of terror”. It grants Iran moral equivalency to the US, which is little more than the fantasy of a grey haired old Marxist, or an outright lie. It also deflects attention from Iran’s own declared aggressiveness, it doesn’t need defending by anyone – its government attacks its own people and is generating enough fear to incite pre-emptive strikes against itself. It is hardly innocent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Could the US be about tied with the USSR as the leading *historical* state sponsors of terror? Hmm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oops, yes, I did mean Iran.
BB said: your case is not helped by the likes of Keith Locke who seems to go into melt down mode whenever he gets the chance to have a crack at the Yanks.
Actually, I’ve just trawled Keith’s media releases throughout 2007 for statements criticising actions of foreign governments. Those Governments that get one or more mention in that regard are:
Iran (6), United States (6), Burma (4), China (2), Philippines (2), Zimbabwe (2), Tonga (2), Fiji (2), Afghanistan (1), Israel (1), Indonesia (1) and Australia (1). So only 20% of Keith’s 2007 media releases criticising foreign governments criticise the US, the same as criticise Iran. Hardly “going into melt down mode whenever he gets the chance to have a crack at the Yanks”!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d say the Green Party, along with the Maori Party, are the two most independent parties in parliament right now.
The USA has some really great things about it, and I think supporting the USA in research, advancement of free speech, in trade where their businesses are ethical, and so on has a lot of potential to do great things for both our countries. But none of those things mean we should just line ourselves up by their side all the time. In the long term, our allies will respect us more if we hold our own, independent principles, and we stick up for them in a way that doesn’t antagonise them. I don’t see how implying that we wouldn’t support a war in Iran is anti-american in any sense.
I don’t support the idea that Iran and the USA are morally equivalent, (as the problems with US politics are unsanctioned and there is open talk and movement for reform among Presidential candidates) but I don’t trust anyone with nuclear weapons. Until there is a meaningful step-down from the countries with more ridiculous armaments, I see no reason why we should be antagonistic of peaceful attempts at nuclear power.
That said, I do agree with watching the Green Party for xenophobia. It is one of my few remaining concerns with the Party, and an area where they could truly do better. There is from time to time a lack of respect in the Greens’ calls for independence, and we should all avoid that sort of thing. That said, this is a relatively small failing compared to the social injustice and economic hegemony that I feel some of the other parties would allow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yes, but on the side of the invaded & threatened nations, not the aggressor.
o.k. ari got there first & also said: “Iran… is at least pretending democracy”
it’s worse than that. iran was inching toward better democracy but bush did his best to present a hostile intransigent face to the fledgling democracy there. as a result it was discredited at home & replaced with a more hardline approach.
indeed… how many interveiws have you seen? maybe i don’t watch enough tv but it seems to me his strategy is to remain the totally unknown quantity that is now & was when he arrived in politics & suddenly started to be talked up as the next leader.
i suspect the more people know about him, the less we’ll like him.
funny they didn’t say australia. still at least they’re saying “traditional partners” this time instead of “traditional allies” (traditional allies would be france, russia, greece etc).
nonsense, the usa has been an imperialist power from day one. take the phillipines… oh, you already did.
toad seems to have caught that peculiar american disease. toad, to you believe in individual responsibility?
aside from the obvious point that someone who comes to power by electoral fraud can hardly be said to be “elected” there is more similarity between iran’s constitutional provisions for choosing its leader & the USA’s than you let on.
the president is appointed by the elected electoral college, the supreme leader in iran is appointed by an elected body too.
bogey man, no extra o required. likely from the scottish word “bogle” for ghost.
i love to nitpick.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Will there be witnesses ?
—————–
In the USA- boogie
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
respectfully
andrew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Which is why I said it was the US, not everywhere… there is no real “authority” although most of us accept Webster’s
I wonder which (or how many) spellings they use for this word.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anyone who elects to be an atheist in any part of “middle-america” does so clandestinely or at large personal risk. I know you don’t believe it, I know you don’t understand it. I don’t think a New Zealander is equipped to understand it. It has to be seen to be believed and it has stuff all to do with “elitism”, thanks very much.
“I will also remind you the everyone has the opportunity to get wealthy “…
You really do NOT understand how America works now, do you. You have some idea of what it used to be and what it might have been but as far as what it actually is, you are as innocent as a Bee is of Ballistics.
Fortunately I was able to move here. Unfortunately you can’t go there to live and work. I wish you could. Really. Understanding can only come from having done that and done if for years on end. This isn’t about being anti-American. It is about being understanding that too much inequality is bad for a society, and concentrating power to absolute limits, as has happened in the USA lets the “corruption” saw show some pretty sharp teeth.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
However, as an American (aiming to emigrate to NZ in the next couple years), the idea that you have “more liberty” choosing a religion– you’ve GOT to be kidding me, right? I’m an atheist and I learned very quickly to keep my mouth SHUT on everything from homosexuality, race, evolution (and science in general), gun violence, and of course, anything remotely “religious.” I have a job I would like to KEEP, thankyouverymuch. Hell, even John Key would never get very far as a politician here because he’s expressed a more agnostic attitude toward God and an afterlife (and no, that is NOT an exaggeration).
And I can show you shanty towns and things that would shock the sensibilities of most people in other developed nations just walking a couple blocks down my road and in plenty of places here in Memphis, Tennessee (not to mention Dallas and pre-Katrina New Orleans and also Nashville). And I know the difference between what “low income areas” look like in NZ and how much worse they are in the US by comparison.
And big money does affect the outcome of elections in a joke of a two-party system where “third” parties are ignored and the only “liberal” politicians who get any media coverage are to the RIGHT of even most conservatives in New Zealand!!
As far as Huckabee goes, he knows how to milk the religious nuts– and there is a LOT of money being poured in all that by the likes of Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and a whole host of other religious nuts (imagine the Destiny Party in NZ, except that they actually have a lot of supporters). Politicians in the US do NOT represent US citizens– they represent lobbyists. I pay you large sums of money for your campaign– ok, now its quid pro quo time… (I think the EFB is one of the best insurances against the sort of anti-democratic streak that has been running through the US for at least the past three decades).
That being said, the US has (or had) some great things about it. But it is FAR from being the image of what it purports to be. I would GLADLY switch places with any kiwi that would rather live here in the US any day. You will not find a developed country more insular, more narcissistic, and less informed than the US. And “we” like it that way. Those cultural attitudes shape the political policies of the country and what is even permissible in public discourse.
No, its not as bad as Iran, but its a lot worse than I think many foreigners from developed countries could imagine, considering all what America is supposed to stand for. Please, don’t buy the propaganda from CNN, Fox, CBS, Hollywood, etc. You mostly get to see the good slivers of US wealth, but its a lot more highly concentrated than you think. Live here for 37 years and you’ll see what I mean.
Sorry for the rant. Statements like that just leave me gobsmacked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
don’t worry, i’ll be your authority.
however, are you sure you aren’t exaggerating a smidgen about america? i’m in contact with a number of americans who still live there, & while it sounds like they have oppressive childhoods in the redneck states, i’ve never heard of any of them as adults suffering any discrimination let alone living in fear for their atheism or other religious beliefs
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050802/2religion.htm
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=159590&ac=PHnws
Oh, and this one is rich: “Can Parents Be Atheists?” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/02/03/atheist-discrimination-suit-settled.htm
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/25659
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm
Atheism is also “historically” linked to communism (hence why the “under God” was added to the US Pledge of Allegiance in 1952). Being an atheist is “unamerican” as Americans say (one of the most absurd words ever coined).
And lastly, this video is most revealing of the whole environment: http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00420/atheist/20-20-atheist-discrimination/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
one cafe owner whose objection was not so much to having atheists in the shop, but rather to hosting meetings of an atheist organization there, a quite different & less sinister matter,
one example of corporate abuse of power which is more to do with human dignity than religion – the employee should not have been any happier if he’d been asked to dress in an atheist costume (if there is such a thing).
i presume the other links i haven’t read yet will give more concrete examples of discrimination & persecution of atheists
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“On October 18, 2004, Arthur Shelton, a self described Christian and Eagle Scout, murdered his friend and roommate, Larry Hooper, because Hooper didn’t believe in God.”
http://www.parallelpac.org/murder.htm
http://weeklywire.com/ww/06-07-99/austin_pols_feature1.html
It isn’t usually a murder… people get fired, their lives are ruined, their property is wrecked and the community makes a real effort to drive them out. Murder is an extreme. The people involved are nutcases, through and through… they exist everywhere all the time… but the response of the police is the place which leads you back to fear if you are one of the “black sheep”
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/25659
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
Hell… even I had some trouble with the Boy Scouts. I adopted the protective colouration of a non-denominational church and played nice.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/downey_24_4.htm
The point I was making is and remains, there is a widespread willful ignorance in the USA, and it is making Thomas Jefferson’s little ditty….
“A society which wishes to be ignorant and free, desires what is not and which never can be” – Well that’s almost right anyhow…
look positively prescient.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In The Adventure of English Melvyn Bragg concludes that the historical evidence leads to exactly the opposite conclusion. American English is closer to the English imported by the puritans than is the case for England’s modern English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_English
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sometimes the american spelling matches the latin or old french antecedent better than the english spelling, but often in these cases the spelling shift had taken place in french before the word was absorbed into english so the modern english spelling is still “correct” as far as english goes. still i’d be happy to accept that alternative spellings might be “the correct american spelling” & “the correct english/nz spelling” but the abuse of language goes broader & deeper than some alternative spellings & pronunciations locked in in 1775 & it includes grammar & word choice.
things like saying “substantive” when they mean “substantial”, leaving out “to be”, pronouncing “regatta” like “regarter” or even “regarda” (reason enough to hope team nz win the next america’s cup)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)