Collin Powell on Iran nuclear deal

[NJlonghorn]

There are no blue laws in Texas or any other state of which I am aware.

The only blue law I'm aware of in Texas involves alcohol sales before noon on Sunday. That law is designed to protect church attendance, and should go.

This may be ignorant but where are prayers allowed at any gov't event anymore? I am not speaking of grass roots prayers.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court says that prayer is allowed at gov't events -- and it doesn't even have to be nonsectarian (link). This happens all over the country, from Congress down to town councils. My instinct tells me that anyone pushing prayers to their god at a government meeting is telling those who don't worship that god that they aren't welcome. Whether the fear is rational or not, it is real and it isn't just me who feels it.

In public schools, prayer has to be voluntary and student led. I fervently support the right of each individual student to pray when time permits, such as when blessing a meal. I equally support the right of organized groups to use school property just like any club does. Thus, for example, I have no problem with a meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. But during a non-religious activity, such as football practice, there should not be organized prayer. That is basically telling kids that they have to pray to Christ if they want to fit in. Unfortunately, this happens every school day.

Jews with horns? REALLY? can you provide an example of a religious group that preaches that?

That was mostly a joke. Glad you were reading closely.

This was a widespread belief in the Dark Ages, apparently based on a passage in the New Testament that says the devil is the father of the Jews. You can tell who is Jewish in 15th and 16th century art because Jews are depicted with horns. This was also a widespread belief in Nazi Germany. I'm told there are some Americans who believe this, but I've never come across it and I doubt it is widespread.

Crimes against Jewish business is a legitimate issue but again can you provide proof the crime was committed by an legitimate group. The only wacko group I know is the Westbore idiots but they get beaten down by biker groups and I don't know they ever committed a crime.
Are there people out there who hate Jews? Yes just as there are people who hate almost every segment there is.
Is there an polarized religious right group wanting to harm any Jew based on their Judaism?

"Legitimate group" or not, everything I've ever heard or read on the topic suggests that anti-Jewish violence and vandalism are committed almost entirely by fundamentalist Christians who believe that my kinfolk and I are responsible for the crucifixion, or for all of the world's injustices, or whatever. Is it the entire religious right? Of course not. But it is disproportionately so.

 

[theiioftx]

This has spun where he needed it to spin. First it was "proximate," now it is softening "threat." We have a local school in trouble for teaching about the Muslim faith and I certainly agree for all religion to be excluded from the curriculum. Does not matter what religion, no place in public schools.

However, if it boils down to being threatened by prayer, I feel sorry for you. Do you also fear people wearing traditional religious clothes in public or do you just fear prayer all together?

Like it or not, religion drives politics in every country in the world. To analyze the Christian Right has a threat to Jews comparable to Iran's open shouts of "death to Israel and death to America" is simply intolerance for people who do not believe like you.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

First off, if a prayer offends you because they are trying to absorb you into their cult, then you really need to look inwards at yourself.

Second off, if everything that offended me could be outlawed or questioned this world would be a better place.

Third off, accept other people and if feel like they are indoctrinating you, politely tell them no thank you....why can't you accept other people's views and beliefs? You make it a damn strong argument that you never offend anybody........I doubt that, if we followed you around I bet we would learn a whole lot of pot and kettle!!!

The loudest are usually the most egregious(sp).

 

[NJlonghorn]

This has spun where he needed it to spin. First it was "proximate," now it is softening "threat."

“Proximate” was in my original post. No softening was needed.

I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting that I softened “threat”. I’ve tried to explain why I see certain things as a threat. You don't agree. Fine.

We have a local school in trouble for teaching about the Muslim faith and I certainly agree for all religion to be excluded from the curriculum. Does not matter what religion, no place in public schools.

I may be parsing your words too closely, but it is interesting that you object to “teaching about” the Muslim faith. I have no problem with this, or with teaching about Christianity, or with teaching about Judaism. All of these things should be part of the curriculum (in an age-appropriate way). But there is a huge distinction between teaching about a religion and preaching a religion. Telling a first grader that she will go to hell if she don’t accept Christ as her savior is preaching, not teaching.

However, if it boils down to being threatened by prayer, I feel sorry for you. Do you also fear people wearing traditional religious clothes in public or do you just fear prayer all together?

I don’t feel threatened by prayer in general, nor by fundamentalist Christian prayer in particular. My synagogue has semiannual interfaith services with a local Methodist church, which are amongst my favorite services of the year. As a kid, I occasionally went to my best friend’s Southern Baptist church, bible study and all, and he came to my synagogue with me from time to time. I occasionally attend weddings, funerals, and the like from a wide variety of faiths, and I love the experience. I don’t mind when people choose to pray over a meal, nor does it offend me when football players praise god for delivering a touchdown (I do think that’s silly, but I digress).

All of those things happen outside of the governmental sphere. It is when the power of a governmental body is used, formally or informally, to advance a religious viewpoint that my antenna goes up. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to such concerns. But (as Spidey suggested above), the history of my people counsels strongly in favor of excessive vigilance.

And don’t forget – this all started as a discussion of why Jews tend to vote Democratic. I expressed a belief that many Jews are scared of the religious right. The point is not whether the fear is reasonable or not, just whether the fear exists. And I think it does.

Like it or not, religion drives politics in every country in the world.

One of the things that makes America special is that we don't judge ourselves against the standard of "every other country in the world". We judge ourselves against lofty ideals, and secularism is one of those ideals.

To analyze the Christian Right has a threat to Jews comparable to Iran's open shouts of "death to Israel and death to America" is simply intolerance for people who do not believe like you.

Again, I am not saying that fundamentalist Christianity is a bigger threat than Iran is. In fact, I explicitly said to the contrary in my very first post on the topic. All I'm saying is that the threat is closer to us and our everyday lives, and thus it impacts our voting patterns.

Nor do I understand why what I'm saying is "intolerant". You can pray about whatever you want to pray about, to whomever you want to pray. Just don't do it as an official act of a governmental agency, or as part of a government-run event. The fact that you are in the majority does not give you the right to use the government to further your religion.

Think of the fear that would exist in some circles if a muslim was on the house floor using his faith to support a particular issue.

Good point, Spidey, but you vastly understate it. Think of the fear if a Muslim used his faith to support a particular issue, AND IT PASSED BY MAJORITY VOTE. The right-wingers would go ballistic.

 

[theiioftx]

The Christian Right is now "Fundamentalist?" You do have a way of changing your words as you migrate through your explanations. I heard a similar argument on liberal radio. To liberals, every Christian is what they see on TV and hear from MSNBC. Here is some breaking news, they are not.

Also, good point on education(teaching vs preaching) however, not in public schools. If so, you plan on every religion getting equal time? If someone wants religion taught or preached to their kids, attend a private school where it is known and expected or take classes in college. No way there would ever be consistency or unbiased presentation of every religion.

I say you are intolerant because you specifically identify Christian Republicans as your comparable threat. You describe people as silly, threatening or just call them out in general. Seems like you could have easily substituted Hindus, Muslims or some other religion and you would have been outside your liberal boundary. Or comparably, where did you stand on Trump's first description of illegal aliens from Mexico?

 

[Seattle Husker]

But I don't know that there's a widespread push to have the gospel injected into school curriculum - even the most hard-core Christians I know haven't ever expressed that.

Isn't teaching creationism alongside the Big Bang and Darwin's Theory of Evolution "injecting the gospel into school curriculum"? That's already been done in Texas and Kansas hasn't it?

How about the limitations outside influences put on sex education? Abstinence only programs? Again, isn't that drawn from putting religion into school curriculum?

Living in the Seattle area we are pretty insulated from non-secular influences in our secular schools but these activities are more concerning to me than Iran. When I look at Texas' influence over school text books simply due to their buying power I get very concerned about the injecting religion into secular schools where it doesn't belong.

Do I think secular schools should ignore religion completely? Absolutely not. There are classes on Religious studies and history classes in which religion should be a topic that is addressed. Does it have any place in science, sex ed, literary arts or athletics? Absolutely not.

This does not preclude parental rights to removed their children from a health class at the point that sex education is taught. That's a parents choice but they shouldn't have the ability to inject their views across the student body.

 

[Horn6721]

NJ
This has been an eye opener. I had no idea there were so many things that are perceived by Jewish people in America as threatening. Some of it I see is legitimate. some of it IMO is over reacting and looking for ways to be offended. Much like not every single act or word spoken by a white person is racist.

I hope you can step back and see how some of what you are threatened by isn't meant that way at all. You mentioned the football player giving the voluntary prayers adding ." In Jesus name we pray" .
Do you think he or anyone who uses that is trying to insult or threaten you since he believes differently? Does your faith have a oft used phrase? when you use it is it meant to threaten or denigrate non Jewish people?
Prayers in gov't events are non specific to say Catholics or Methodists or Judaism OR rotate on a religion by religion basis. How is that not fair?
You are wee-wee'd up by not buying booze before 12 or Sundays? Are stores open all day every day in Israel?

When the teacher read a book near Easter did you complain to the school?
Are you as upset about schools having public schoolchildren write the tenets of Islam including " Allah is the one true and only God"? Not just read about but write. Would You want your daughter writing that?
Which religious group is more dangerous?
You mentioned that your research shows people who commit anti semitic crimes are " fundamentalists". Do you have some examples?
Vile ignorant people who commit these acts or any other heinous acts usually aren't that organized in their mind to be a real fundamentalist . They are usually just vile.

Not sure how you get from that to politicized religious right. AS far as I know so far not one has or is calling for anything demeaning to " your people".
and I am still waiting for a name of any elected pol who stood on the floor of Congress and used their religion to press a bill forward.

Maybe things are worse in New Jersey > if they are I am truly sorry. I do know if I want to look for slights I can find them everyday. But I choose not to.
You ask me how I'd feel if Muslims passed some lege with a majority vote. How would you feel? Do you think anything passed would benefit you or make you feel less threatened?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Isn't teaching creationism alongside the Big Bang and Darwin's Theory of Evolution "injecting the gospel into school curriculum"?

No. I was responding to NJ's example of attempting to convert kids through chosen curriculum, and my comment was directed at that specific issue.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Iran hates Israel and the U.S. Wow, that's a new one.

The question is how best to deal with the problem that is Iran. I understand, but repeating how bad Iran is contributes nothing to the conversation.



There are a wide variety of reasons, but I'll offer a few. Of course, these are broad generalizations that can't possibly speak for everyone.

(1). Most of us believe that war is a bigger threat to Israel than radical Islam is. Trying to find a negotiated settlement, even if it is imperfect, is desirable.

(2). Many of us, myself included, see the politicized Christian Right as a more proximate threat (not a bigger one by any stretch, but a closer one) than Iran. Every time I hear that this is a Christian country, I cringe.

(3). We as a whole care more about domestic policy than foreign policy.

NJ Interesting post. After graduating from Texas, I've lived in Virginia, Connecticut, NYC, and Washington, DC. My Jewish friends were very diverse politically while also reflective of their geography. My Jewish friends in Texas, Virginia/DC, and the Navy were pretty much republicans. My Jewish b-school classmates in Connecticut and New York who weren't bankers were reliably democrats, while my banker Jewish friends voted republican.

To answer Zork's question of why Jewish voters turn out for democrats...I haven't looked at polls, but from personal anecdotal observation, I'd hypothesize that it's simply most Jewish people live in urban blue districts.

It's the same thing with Catholics. All the folks who went to my church growing up voted republican. Yet catholics in Boston, New York, Chicago, etc. vote democrat.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think it has more to do with a slippery slope than anything. They have seen what it looks like in the past when groups take over the government and start passing laws on the basis of their religion. It scares them and they want to go the other direction.

/\/\/\ This.

I would take issue with NJ on some (but probably not most) of the specifics of his concerns. For example, though it may exclude others of different faiths, if students pray at a school event without the involvement or encouragement of school officials and do so without disrupting the event, I'm going to take the students' side. In fact I'd consider it a violation of their rights to interfere with it.

Might I think the fear or offense some Jews take toward religion entering the public activity is excessive? In some situations, yes. (Even NJ said the fear isn't always right.) However, like Larry said, I think when we put Jewish history into perspective, their fear certainly becomes understandable even if it isn't perfectly grounded in every situation. It certainly isn't stupid as some have suggested.

Jews have seen the power of government used to create a colossal killing machine directed at them, and this wasn't done centuries ago. It was done in very recent history. Some of the victims of it are still living. Furthermore, the scope of the Holocaust was extremely broad. How many Jews today have a relative who lived in a ghetto, was imprisoned at a concentration camp, or worse, was murdered? Probably most. Frankly, there'd be something wrong with them if that didn't affect their politics. If it had happened to my very recent ancestors and the ancestors of everybody I knew, it would impact mine.

I don't think they equate the relatively small things that modern Christians in the US want to do with the Holocaust. However, the Holocaust didn't start with executions. A lot of much smaller and more passive acts (to which the majority population was indifferent) took place before people were getting gassed at Auschwitz. If you're a Jew, why would you want to get anywhere near that slope for it to become slippery?

Furthermore, antisemitism is on the rise all over the world, and they are such a small minority that if the more passive acts became real aggression again, they wouldn't have the ability to stop it. In light of that, I think their fear is understandable and deserves our sensitivity even if I wouldn't always yield to it in every situation.

 

[theiioftx]

Maybe unfounded, but I would think Jews would be more threatened about gun control coupled with a terribly fragile world economy. I certainly think Israel being "gone within 25 years" as the two leaders of Iran said yesterday would concern them even more given our government is negotiating with Iran.

To the original post, the fact that Colin Powell agrees with this means nothing. He came out of the democrat closet to support Obama a few years ago. One of Obama's original national security team was on tv yesterday saying that it was a terrible deal.

The political support for this deal - no I do not think it is rational support - concerns me most. This deal has side deals Powell nor any of the other supporters have ever seen. It provides someone who promises the extinction of Jews and to send terrorists to the "Great Satan" America billions of dollars a path to more weapons of mass destruction. It allows them to self monitor. It is overwhelmingly opposed by the majority of Americans, yet their representatives fail to representi their position.Hell, Kerry's reasoning for why this is not a treaty is because "it would have never passed."

Now it seems McConnell, Corker, Alexander and Boehner have cut personal deals along with the democrats to let this pass. It is a sad day in America and I believe a critical mistake that everyone will one day point to as the event that let it happen. AND some people wonder why Trump has such high support.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Critics can disagree, but they are disingenuous when they imply that inspection of current or suspected nuclear sites will be by “self inspection,” an implication that you, Prodigal, appear to have accepted.

It seems like the argument that critics are being disingenuous is that you choose to call them that. The politifact article you link (which by the way isn't exactly known for its even-handedness in terms of its politics) doesn't go as far as you do, and it in fact acknowledges that there are certainly areas where the surveillance is less stringent:

Parts of Iran’s nuclear complex will indeed be under high-tech surveillance and monitoring around the clock. But for other parts of the country’s nuclear infrastructure, there will be no such direct surveillance, and inspectors won’t have the right to barge in whenever they want -- they could be delayed for as long as 24 days. While some experts say such delays won’t undercut the agreement’s effectiveness, others disagree.

It sounds like you're making the argument that Parchin should not be included in this discussion, since it's not a "nuclear site" and therefore not covered under the agreement in question. That being the case, the self-reporting that is in fact going to happen there is not linked to the current agreement - is that the argument you're making?

We'll see, I guess, I've read in other sites that the IAEA is going to be present at all those inspections, and if that's the case, then that's obviously better. My issue though continues to be the idea that there are only two options: sign this deal, or go to war with Iran. And then those who oppose the deal can automatically be cast as warmongers.

 

[towersniper]

[

ProdigalHorn:

I fear I wasn’t clear. I linked to the Politifact piece after stating that things are complicated, and there are legitimate arguments to be made, not to illustrate the deceptive “self-inspection” arguments. As I stated: “There are legitimate concerns and good arguments to be made on both sides – this things are necessarily complicated.” They are, and your concerns are legitimate. The Politifact piece details some of those complexities, which is why I linked it. There are other more inflammatory articles that lay out the concerns, but I thought Politifact was pretty fair, and not terribly slanted.

“It sounds like you're making the argument that Parchin should not be included in this discussion, since it's not a "nuclear site" and therefore not covered under the agreement in question. That being the case, the self-reporting that is in fact going to happen there is not linked to the current agreement - is that the argument you're making?”



It seems that I was equally or more unclear when I tried to make my point about Parchin and the “self-inspection” regime – sorry, I’ll try to clarify. The deal creates a system that has been described by some as “self-inspecting” with respect to the Parchin site. It is expressly included in the deal, but only with respect to Iran’s history of nuclear related research, from ten years ago. Iran considers Parchin to be a sensitive site, and a target for espionage. That is fair. IAEA does not consider it to be an active site of interest, but wants to investigate Iran’s history in this area, which is also fair. The IAEA, and the allied negotiators believe that the “self-inspection” system is suitable for a historical site (again, what self-inspection” means is complicated, and not necessary to this discussion.) It would most assuredly NOT be adequate for inspecting active or suspected nuclear sites.

Critics of the deal intentionally, and deceptively, conflate Parchin (historical interest only) with active nuclear sites, to give the impression that Iran is inspecting itself, and we are trusting them to tell us if and when they breach the agreement. This is good politics, but not good for accurately judging the merits of the deal. And come on, I know that you think Kerry is naïve, but nobody is THAT naïve.

As I understand it, if the deal goes through, we have the so-called “24/7” right to inspect all known or declared nuclear sites. (with some, but not all, sites being actually monitored 24/7).

If we think that there is a site (including Parchin) that is not declared and is being used for nuclear activity, that triggers the request and arbitrate procedure. (That is, if we think they are cheating.) This invokes the request/arbitrate procedure that is subject to legitimate debate.

Some kind of evidentiary procedure is needed. If we announce that we think there is a nuclear facility in Ali Khamenei’s desk drawers, should we have a right to just show up and rummage through it? The risk of pretense announcements of suspicious sites is legitimate – Iran has legitimate security interests. On the other hand, Iran cannot just have a veto right over inspection requests for “new” suspected cheating sites. The deal creates the request/arbitration procedure that critics say takes too long, and has holes in it. They might be right, and it is fair game for debate. It is not, however, a “self-inspection” regime. That is where the critics are being disingenuous and manipulating the American public. We are not naively relying upon Iran ratting itself out if it cheats.



“My issue though continues to be the idea that there are only two options: sign this deal, or go to war with Iran. And then those who oppose the deal can automatically be cast as warmongers.”

Agreed. That is where the administration is engaging in deceptive argument. It is fair to question whether the coalition can survive or be effective beyond the present deal, but that is open to debate, and I think that your observation is correct. Continued, though probably different, sanctions are certainly a possible third alternative, if a better deal is out there to be had. It is unfortunate that our politics seems to require apocalyptic arguments. But they work, so that is what we get. A public that is led to believe that either Iranian fox gets to guard the nuclear hen house, or we have to go to war with Iran.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Good clarification, thanks.

And come on, I know that you think Kerry is naïve, but nobody is THAT naïve.

I do hope that's true. I have usually chalked it up more to the mindset that a deal HAS to be done, for whatever reason (politics, security, legacy, whatever it may be.) It also has to do with what I think is a mindless equivalence that we draw between nations that are trying to keep nations from blowing each other up with nukes and nations which brag about doing it. Pasotx (I think) asked in a thread at one point, "What gives us the right to decide whether another nation gets to have nukes?" And I think that's ultimately how a lot of people see this discussion - many don't think we have the moral authority to do it, or are at least conflicted. And that's ultimately why I don't really believe that any of this will be truly or meaningfully enforced. I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

[towersniper]

A very big reason that we have the moral authority in this case is that Iran signed, and violated, the Non-Proliferation Agreement.
As an aside, too bad that this guy is no longer in charge:
"Shortly after coming to power, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini scrapped the Shah’s nuclear power programs as un-Islamic. In fact, he called nuclear power “the work of the devil.”" http://fpif.org/us_tells_iran_become_a_nuclear_power/

 

[majorwhiteapples]

It is alll fun and games and then someone drops a bomb in Tel Aviv, WWIII and many many american soldiers will die.

 

[zork]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-threatens-criminal-america-in-new-video/