In the last Syria thread I mentioned wanting to know FIL's opinion on it. He grew up in Syria and left after undergrad. He generally doesn't talk about it much. But I asked him again today.
He said, "I left for a reason. I'm a secular person and I wanted to live in a secular place. Syria is very religious. And just like all the other Arab revolutions, it started out as a protest by the young, educated people who wanted jobs, but it's been co-opted by the radical Islamists. The current regime is absolutely a dictatorship, but if you ask me which I'd prefer between the current government or the rebels, I'd absolutely pick the current government."
I just thought it was interesting.
Re: Talked to FIL RE: Syria
That is interesting. Isn't the current president trying to stay in power for like 12 more years? I didn't know your FIL was Syrian (?).
I'm kind of schwasted so don't mind me if I'm too random in my statements.
He's basically trying to stay in power indefinitely. I think FIL's point was that at least the regime in power now is somewhat secular and doesn't enforce Shari'a law, which is what the rebels are after.
MIL is Lebanese and she's a lot more open about her childhood in Lebanon/Syria. She spent summers in Syria because her father and uncle were sharecroppers and their farm was in Syria. Basically, Lebanon and Syria were both majority Catholic countries. But after Israel was created, huge numbers of Palestinian refugees fled to Lebanon and Syria and completely changed the culture. They have a much higher birthrate than the Catholics and that, in addition to their high immigration rate has created a huge population explosion that has radically changed the culture of both countries in a relatively short period of time.
She mourns for the Lebanon she grew up in. I'm not sure why and I'm not trying to sound anti-Islamist, but as a general rule, Christians in the middle east tend to be more highly educated and wealthier than Muslims. It's just true, especially in Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria. So in the last 60 years or so, the general populace has declined in wealth and education pretty greatly. Beirut used to be compared to Paris regularly for its art and culture and now most people are just trying to survive. The rapid population change has caused a lot of other changes, mostly for the worse.
I was actually going to say something similar. If a theocracy is popular will, it is what it is.
Don't get me wrong; I'm opposed to theocracy, too. It's just that a non-violant theocracy is better than a violent dictatorship.
And then you have secular democracies that still institute an anti-blasphemy law that basically exists to silence religious minorities, so there's that.
How is that different than what they have now? It's horrifically atrocious right now. So, really, saying that at least it's secular isn't really a point in its favor. It's kind of moot when you look at the big picture.
Or is this about American exceptionalism, that we don't care what happens to others so long as it doesn't spill over into threatening us?
I admit I haven't been following the goals of the rebels closely, as I've been focused on the humanitarian crisis, but I thought the resistance was made up of many groups. Where are you getting that they have a unified vision for this sharia law?
And where does sharia automatically lead to stoning and trumped up crimes? It certainly can, but so can Ireland's anti-blasphemy laws. Countries like India and Phillippines also have a sharia civil system.