questions.

what does it mean to be a "christian" politician?

over the past week, a few newspapers have chimed in suggesting / reporting that the "christian" politicians must unite. the dailystar just had a comment today about something of the sort

unfortunately - or for some, fortunately - i have no idea what that means. unite against what? unite for what aim? what is a "christian" politician? someone who represents the christians? why should there be only one representative viewpoint? why should such a politician only aim at representing christians?

i'm at a loss for answers ... really, this is beyond my level of comprehension.

see, in my skewed perspective, i really don't care if a "christian" politician has a viewpoint which contradicts that of another "christian" politician. there will always be differences of opinions; more fundamentally, there will always be struggles for power. and that isn't a lebanese singularity.

however, what i do care about is the availability of an arena for such politicians to voice their differences in (and just for completeness, that arena should not be sfeir).

currently, there is no "nonviolent" arena (well, there was the hiwar ...). the main arena available to any two groups that disagree is the street, in terms of protests and clashes; many will agree that is a recipe for potential disaster. having "christian" politicians unite is inconsequential in the long run, because it isn't a solution to much.

(unfortunately, i'm not sure if anything will solve this issue as long as ex-warlords are still in the picture.)

posted by Lazarus, 11:58 PM