• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

How to abolish the sectarian system in Lebanon

Status
Not open for further replies.

loubnaniTO

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
Interesting that you think I have answers to what was the Parliament doing over the past 26 years, or even think that I ever voted for the esteez.

Unlike you, I do not recognize the government of Lebanon post-ta'ef and I do not participate in it, by not being a registered voter, refusing to have a Lebanese ID, or a Lebanese passport . Lebanon after Ta'ef does not represent me.

I will only participate in the decision making process when article 95 is implemented.

Only when this system is overthrown, I will vote for my representative in Lebanon. I vote in Canada at the time being.

while article 95 is probably the best thing in the constitution, i don't think it is enough to change old habits... taking away the religious ID of politicians will not help, unless our politicians and their SUPPORTERs stop thinking and behaving religiously. Saying anyone could be president or MP or PM... will not stop Berri from protecting shiaa rights, or Aoun from defending christians, or Jumblatt from defending Druze in Israel and Syria!
We need a system that imposes strict separation between state and religion.... thats why you and i love the Canadian system!

but anyway, that's a discussion for another thread :)
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
while article 95 is probably the best thing in the constitution, i don't think it is enough to change old habits... taking away the religious ID of politicians will not help, unless our politicians and their SUPPORTERs stop thinking and behaving religiously. Saying anyone could be president or MP or PM... will not stop Berri from protecting shiaa rights, or Aoun from defending christians, or Jumblatt from defending Druze in Israel and Syria!
We need a system that imposes strict separation between state and religion.... thats why you and i love the Canadian system!

but anyway, that's a discussion for another thread :)

Absolutely not, it is government that defines the political identity of citizens in the state. It is not the people that are confessional and the people are religious. It is a confessional system and the way this confessionalism is institutionalized is in da'erat el nofous and the municipalities.

Ikhraj Kaid confessional associated with a specific villages is how the system maintains territorial confessionalism. The administration and the administrative management of demographics is founded on confession.

When the system is not confessional. You will get people voting where they reside, rather people voting in a village they never live in say for municipal elections for example.

Right now, you have all these people living in Baabda and Beirut pumping money into the municipal tax system of these two governorates, but in return to nothing. This is because, while these masses are the property owners, and pay property tax accordingly, they cannot vote for the municipalities in the areas in which they reside and own property. This is not them the people. This is the confessional system. This confessional system sagragates them because of da'erat el nofous. If these people were residents in the areas where they reside instead of Shi'a, then they will belong to their new neighborhood.

In this confessional system and confessional leaders that mobilize by religion.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Absolutely not, it is government that defines the political identity of citizens in the state. It is not the people that are confessional and the people are religious. It is a confessional system and the way this confessionalism is institutionalized is in da'erat el nofous and the municipalities.

Read about social constructionism, structure and agency, and structural functionalism...

"People make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them."
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Read about social constructionism, structure and agency, and structural functionalism...

"People make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them."

I am a PhD student and I must know the depth of the literature around these perspectives and paradigms. So what are you suggesting by this quote. I do not understand why are you quoting this for me to read. How does this quote, constructionism, structure and agenc,y and structural functionalism relate to my post.

In all cases, I do not operate within the functionalist structural paradigm. I operate within a post structural paradigm where such modalities are essentially seen as non operational as they aim to exchange abstract concepts from one epistime to the other and expecting them to operate and function within a new locality. The fact is they do not. This is why there is this war you know, and it is taking long.

Still, I do not know why are you bringing theory into this discussion and what is the point you want to make.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I am a PhD student and I must know the depth of the literature around these perspectives and paradigms. So what are you suggesting by this quote. I do not understand why are you quoting this for me to read. How does this quote, constructionism, structure and agenc,y and structural functionalism relate to my post.

In all cases, I do not operate within the functionalist structural paradigm. I operate within a post structuralism where such modalities are essentially seen as non operational as they aim to exchange abstract concepts from one epistime to the other and expecting them to operate and function within a new locality. The fact is they do not. This is why there is this war you know, and it is taking long.

Still, I do not know why are you bringing theory into this discussion and what is the point you want to make.

The point I am making is that you can't claim that "the government defines the political identity of the citizens" nor can you claim that the citizens define the nature of the government, because both happen simultaneously through a dialectical process. They are not mutually exclusive.

Not only that, but there are processes beyond the state-citizen level that are also part of the mechanism.
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
The point I am making is that you can't claim that "the government defines the political identity of the citizens" nor can you claim that the citizens define the nature of the government, because both happen simultaneously through a dialectical process. They are not mutually exclusive.

Not only that, but there are processes beyond the state-citizen level that are also part of the mechanism.

Yes I can claim and I am making this claim. I can make whichever claim I wish to make as long as I have the theory to back it and the empirical evidence to prove my claim.

It would be great if you can also elaborate on what you mean with "dialectical process" that you assume is happening. I mean when it comes to dialectics the only possibility is revolutionary overthrow of government for Marx the revolution of the proletariat, the overthrow of capitalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I did not think you are a communist.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Yes I can claim and I am making this claim. I can make whichever claim I wish to make as long as I have the theory to back it and the empirical evidence to prove my claim.

It would be great if you can also elaborate on what you mean with dialectical process that you assume is happening. I mean when it comes to dialectics the only possibility is revolutionary overthrow of government for Marx the revolution of the proletariat, the overthrow of capitalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I did not think you are a communist.

The notion of "dialectics" implies a mutual discourse, or a "give and take," which is in opposition to the concept of a revolutionary overthrow.
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
The notion of "dialectics" implies a mutual discourse, or a "give and take," which is in opposition to the concept of a revolutionary overthrow.

Indeed not mutual, It is antagonist, full of hate and struggles.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Indeed not mutual, It is antagonist, full of hate and struggles.

Disagreements are part of discourse. Anyone who thinks they can come up with, and achieve, a "perfect" system in which everyone is always content and happy is living in lalaland.
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
The whole notion of "dialectics" implies a mutual discourse, or a "give and take," which is in opposition to the concept of a revolutionary overthrow.

Disagreements are part of discourse. Anyone who thinks they can come up with, and achieve, a "perfect" system in which everyone is always content and happy is living in lalaland.

Give me the name of this theoretician that made the claim that the dialectical process implies "mutual discourse or "give and take". You must not read at all or you are just playing smart.

The only mutual understanding paradigm is Jurgen Habermas, who is not even speaking about dialectics, and he must be on another planet, called planet Germany. He speaks of a social well fare government and processes of normalization into this mutual understanding paradigm, which does not exist except in the mind of Habermas, and some Nazi and Fascist modern socialists.

Now, dialectics falls into a conflict paradigm, the assumption in Marx material dialectics is a notion of economic struggle and an overthrow of government. For Foucault, it is antagonism in discourse and not mutual discourse.

Just to tell you the basics, Socrates allah yer7amouh died. If you are refering to his dialectical method. It has no such relation to politics, it is linguistics.
 
Last edited:

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Give me the name of this theoretician that made the claim that the dialectical process implies "mutual discourse or "give and take". You must not read at all or you are just playing smart.

In contemporary polemics, "dialectics" may also refer to an understanding of how we can or should perceive the world (epistemology); an assertion that the nature of the world outside one's perception is interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic (ontology); or it can refer to a method of presentation of ideas and conclusions (discourse). According to Hegel, "dialectic" is the method by which human history unfolds; that is to say, history progresses as a dialectical process.

Dialectic - Wikipedia

Just to tell you the basics, Socrates allah yer7amouh died. If you are refering to his dialectical method. It has no such relation to politics, it is linguistics.

And I suppose you're not aware of the theory that language defines reality (including cultural and socio-political interpretations)?
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
The point I am making is that you can't claim that "the government defines the political identity of the citizens" nor can you claim that the citizens define the nature of the government, because both happen simultaneously through a dialectical process. They are not mutually exclusive.

Another way to understand dialectics is to view it as a method of thinking to overcome formal dualism and monistic reductionism.[69] For example, formal dualism regards the opposites as mutually exclusive entities, whilst monism finds each to be an epiphenomenon of the other. Dialectical thinking rejects both views. The dialectical method requires focus on both at the same time. It looks for a transcendence of the opposites entailing a leap of the imagination to a higher level, which (1) provides justification for rejecting both alternatives as false and/or (2) helps elucidate a real but previously veiled integral relationship between apparent opposites that have been kept apart and regarded as distinct.

Dialectic - Wikipedia

Now if you want to continue this conversations it has to be in a new thread.
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
And I suppose you're not aware of [B said:
the theory[/B] that linguistics define reality (including socio-political interpretations)?

If you want to continue this conversation, it has to be in a new thread.

the theory, exactly.

Habibti Indie, let us not spoil the aim of this thread with a discussion about social and political theory. It is not the place to discuss this topic. I am not here to discuss theory. I am doing empirical work based on predefined concepts. So, thanks for the wiki page, and let us go back to this point, because you are you are off topic.

This is the post to discuss in here.

Absolutely not, it is government that defines the political identity of citizens in the state. It is not the people that are confessional and the people are religious. It is a confessional system and the way this confessionalism is institutionalized is in da'erat el nofous and the municipalities.

Ikhraj Kaid confessional associated with a specific villages is how the system maintains territorial confessionalism. The administration and the administrative management of demographics is founded on confession.

When the system is not confessional. You will get people voting where they reside, rather people voting in a village they never live in say for municipal elections for example.

Right now, you have all these people living in Baabda and Beirut pumping money into the municipal tax system of these two governorates, but in return to nothing. This is because, while these masses are the property owners, and pay property tax accordingly, they cannot vote for the municipalities in the areas in which they reside and own property. This is not them the people. This is the confessional system. This confessional system sagragates them because of da'erat el nofous. If these people were residents in the areas where they reside instead of Shi'a, then they will belong to their new neighborhood.

In this confessional system and confessional leaders that mobilize by religion.
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
the theory, exactly.

Habibti Indie, let us not spoil the aim of this thread with a discussion about social and political theory. It is not the place to discuss this topic. I am not here to discuss theory. I am doing empirical work based on predefined concepts. So, thanks for the wiki page, and let us go back to this point, because you are you are off topic.

This is the post to discuss in here.

lol...nice escape...

I already addressed "the post to discuss." You're creating a false dichotomy :)
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
lol...nice escape...

I already addressed "the post to discuss." You're creating a false dichotomy :)

I am dressing a political position. I am also speaking of evidence. Your answer is full of undefined jargon that lacks any insight, you are just trolling .
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
I am dressing a political position. I am also speaking of evidence. Your answer is full of undefined jargon that lacks any insight, you are just trolling .

Just because you don't understand my "jargon" it doesn't mean it lacks any insight.

In my opinion, you lack insight.

And where is your "evidence?" :)
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
And where is your "evidence?" :)

but anyway, that's a discussion for another thread :)[/QUOTE]


Absolutely not, it is government that defines the political identity of citizens in the state. It is not the people that are confessional and the people are religious. It is a confessional system and the way this confessionalism is institutionalized is in da'erat el nofous and the municipalities.

Ikhraj Kaid confessional associated with a specific villages is how the system maintains territorial confessionalism. The administration and the administrative management of demographics is founded on confession.

When the system is not confessional. You will get people voting where they reside, rather people voting in a village they never live in say for municipal elections for example.

Right now, you have all these people living in Baabda and Beirut pumping money into the municipal tax system of these two governorates, but in return to nothing. This is because, while these masses are the property owners, and pay property tax accordingly, they cannot vote for the municipalities in the areas in which they reside and own property. This is not them the people. This is the confessional system. This confessional system segregates them because of da'erat el nofous. If these people were residents in the areas where they reside instead of Shi'a, then they will belong to their new neighborhood.

In this confessional system and confessional leaders that mobilize by religion.

What do you have to say about the bold argument I make about municipalities and da'erat el nofous and the taxation system?
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
but anyway, that's a discussion for another thread :)

Then start it and show us your evidence :)

What do you have to say about the bold argument I make about municipalities and da'erat el nofous and the taxation system?

I already said what I had to say about the topic. Here I'll repeat it a third and final time.

People create their governments as much as governments create their citizenry. You think you can find some magic system in which angels from heaven will be the new politicians, and the "victimized citizens" will be saved from tyranny? You are dreaming. Where did our current politicians come from, if not from the midst of the citizens? How was the current system created, if not through the collaborative effort / zombie-like indifference of the citizens?
 

Mighty Goat

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top