Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The 47%, the Courageous Christians & the "failed" Arab Spring


1.  Who are the 47%?  

It turns out that Mitt Romney told his rich donors that he only really cares about 53% of the country at a fundraiser last year.  As the story goes, the other 47% (according to our aspiring President) pay no taxes, mooch of the government and don't care to take personal responsibility for their own actions.  But who are these 47% that Mitt Romney talked about?  We'll find out when we talk to friend of the show and economist, Marshall Auerback and Miami-based activist/small business owner and others.

2.  "The Innocent Muslims" and the "Courageous Christians" 

Last week, the world went a little upside down when a really poorly made "film," "the Innocence of Muslims," was unleashed online and met with angry protests around the world.  One of the men that took credit for consulting with that film was a man by the name of Steve Klein.  Upon hearing of his involvement with the film, Courageous Christians United, an organization that Klein sat on the board for, dismissed him from the organization and repudiated the film.  We wanted to get their take on the whole debacle and find a way forward from this mess.  With that in mind, we invite Courageous Christians United's President, Rob Sivulka, onto the show.

3.  Did the Arab Spring fail?  Does the Middle East deserve democracy?  Are those really stupid questions?

After protests and a violent seemingly pre planned attack engulfed the Middle East after the release (and not necessarily because of) the "Innocence of Muslims" film, more than a few commentators suggested that the Arab Spring was a failure and that the Middle East wasn't ready or capable of democracy.  We'll give those notions a BS test when we speak with writer Sara Yasin and writer/Professor Khalid Bey.


1 comment:

  1. Thanks for discussing this issue. Of particular note for me is the Rob Sivulka section. Here, he is disingenuous in two ways. First, he and Courageous Christians are not respectful of other peoples' beliefs. This is evident in the confrontational ways in which he goes to the sacred ground of Mormon and Muslim alike and engages in approaches that are interpreted as hostile by members of those religions. Mr. Sivulka has every right to share his views, but he might consider doing so in a more civil fashion. Second, the Courageous Christians website describes the "Innocence of Muslims" video as one which is "reprehensible and irresponsible, and serving primarily to provoke a violent response." In the past Mr. Sivulka used to go to Muslim mosques and hold up signs which read "Muhammad Lied .org". In light of the Muslim reaction to disrespect of their prophet, how can this too not be construed as reprehensible and irresponsible, just as much as the film CCU decries?

    Thankfully there is a new way forward among evangelicals which seeks to be civil and respectful in the engagement of others, and non-compromising in the articulation of religious differences. This can be found in the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy (www.religious-diplomacy.org/node/35). For those interested in a more positive alternative to the approaches of Courageous Christians and Mr. Sivulka, take a look at this.

    ReplyDelete