I thought I knew what Libertarian was, but ...

[Skipjack]

This is why secularism needs to be part of the constitution. That at least requires a two third majority, if you want to change it.

Sharia law is being implemented in parts of England

First time, I hear about that. I know that they do have some issues with islamists in England, but not to that point. Do you have any more details on this? I am very scared about the ongoing islamisation of Europe, so I am very interested in what you have got there.

Turkey was the best example of a Secular Muslim government, and now that example is broken.

That is in part thanks to the west, who have been bashing Turkey for their rather radical constitution that was established by Kemal Pasha.
Once the religious right gets to much leverage, the military emmediately takes over and cleans up the government and subsequently the mess.
This has happened in the past (and the stupid west condemned it) and I am surprised it has not happened again.
Kemal Pasha was a visionary and truly a great man for his time. It is a shame that his heritage is not better understood today.

[Diogenes]

This is why secularism needs to be part of the constitution. That at least requires a two third majority, if you want to change it.

Sharia law is being implemented in parts of England

First time, I hear about that. I know that they do have some issues with islamists in England, but not to that point. Do you have any more details on this? I am very scared about the ongoing islamisation of Europe, so I am very interested in what you have got there.

On the web sites that I frequent, this was all over the place several months ago. Since it wasn't one of my main issues, I didn't bother to save any links, but I can see what I can find.


(I did a quick search. Here's a link.)

Turkey was the best example of a Secular Muslim government, and now that example is broken.

That is in part thanks to the west, who have been bashing Turkey for their rather radical constitution that was established by Kemal Pasha.
Once the religious right gets to much leverage, the military emmediately takes over and cleans up the government and subsequently the mess.

Yeah, it's the religious RIGHT. No it isn't. That is simply the derogatory term that the left (who have a virtual lock on news, entertainment, education and the legal profession in this country) uses to malign the right. Islamo-facism bears no resemblance to the Principles of Burk, The Founders, Friedman, or Hayek. It is just another form of socialism promoted by a very different religion.

This has happened in the past (and the stupid west condemned it) and I am surprised it has not happened again.

You'll not get an argument from me on this particular issue. Jimmy Carter famously condemned and undermined the Shah of Iran, (ostensibly because he was oppressing human rights) and worked to topple the Shah. The result is we have a FAR WORSE situation for both the people of Iran AND the rest of the world as a result of getting rid of that dictator.

I am of the opinion that some countries NEED a dictator because their population is too ignorant and/or brainwashed to exist without one.

Kemal Pasha was a visionary and truly a great man for his time. It is a shame that his heritage is not better understood today.

We have a whole series of founders about which the same can be said.

[Skipjack]

I did a quick search. Here's a link.

Oi, that is indeed scary. Religion, be it christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, whatsoever, has not place in LAW! Horrible conditions in England. I have heard of it getting worse there, but I did not know it was getting this bad!
Thanks for the link. I forewarded it to a few people that would be interested.

Yeah, it's the religious RIGHT. No it isn't.

You understand where the terms "Left" and "Right" come from, do you?
In the turkish parliament the religious AKP party sits to the right of the room. It is therefore a right wing party, like it or not.
It is funny what this party stands for (at least according to Wikipedia):

Conservatism
Social conservatism,
Liberal conservatism,
Religious conservatism,
Centrism
Economic liberalism

Erdogan is one of the most dangerous men in the world right now.

[Skipjack]

Jimmy Carter famously condemned and undermined the Shah of Iran, (ostensibly because he was oppressing human rights) and worked to topple the Shah.

Yeah, and Reagan helped the mujahedin against the Russians. Those "freedom fighters" later became the Taliban and we all love those guys.
The US has traditionally been rather bad in choosing their allies.
E.g. they are puting pressure on the EU to let Turkey become a member.
LOL...

[Diogenes]

I did a quick search. Here's a link.

Oi, that is indeed scary. Religion, be it christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, whatsoever, has not place in LAW! Horrible conditions in England. I have heard of it getting worse there, but I did not know it was getting this bad!
Thanks for the link. I forewarded it to a few people that would be interested.

You're welcome.

Yeah, it's the religious RIGHT. No it isn't.

You understand where the terms "Left" and "Right" come from, do you?
In the turkish parliament the religious AKP party sits to the right of the room. It is therefore a right wing party, like it or not.
It is funny what this party stands for (at least according to Wikipedia):

Conservatism
Social conservatism,
Liberal conservatism,
Religious conservatism,
Centrism
Economic liberalism

Erdogan is one of the most dangerous men in the world right now.

The term originally refers to the French parliament prior to the revolution.
The monarchists on the right, the revolutionary supporters on the left.

The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. (The seating may have been influenced by the tradition of the English parliament, where the monarch's ministers sit to the speaker's right, while the opposition sit to his or her left.) One deputy, the Baron de Gauville explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp". However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.[11]

The term has historically come to mean the difference between socialists and capitalists, with the capitalists being on the right, and the socialists being on the left. As the term had an understood meaning that goes way beyond whatever the situation is in the Turkish parliament, it is more appropriate to use the internationally accepted description rather than the Local Turkish description.

The term "Conservative" is not just a noun with a specific political meaning, but an adjective used to describe a person. This lends itself to great confusion whereby a Fire breathing Russian Communist and a staunch Free Market American can both be regarded as "Conservative".

The media ALWAYS uses this confusion to malign the American Conservative movement whenever this terminology is used. They WANT people to associate American Conservatives with evil, it's part of their propaganda war.

[Diogenes]

Jimmy Carter famously condemned and undermined the Shah of Iran, (ostensibly because he was oppressing human rights) and worked to topple the Shah.

Yeah, and Reagan helped the mujahedin against the Russians. Those "freedom fighters" later became the Taliban and we all love those guys.
The US has traditionally been rather bad in choosing their allies.
E.g. they are puting pressure on the EU to let Turkey become a member.
LOL...

There are people who say that our mistake wasn't arming the Mujaheddin, but in abandoning them after they won. No one at the time could have conceived that they would have been able to do anything that would have bothered the US, let alone an attack big enough to get our attention, and in fact, the Afghans didn't really play much of a role. If I recall properly, most of the Hi-jackers were Saudis.

I cannot help but think, had Jimmy Carter never been President, none of that mess would have happened. This has all been one big power struggle revolving around Iran and it's oil.

I have been saying for years, the Democrat Presidents are responsible for some really major nation wide and world wide disasters. For Some reason, these disasters never seem to get laid at their feet appropriately.

[Skipjack]

The media ALWAYS uses this confusion to malign the American Conservative movement whenever this terminology is used. They WANT people to associate American Conservatives with evil, it's part of their propaganda war.

Uhm not just the US conservative movement, pretty much everywhere.
There is nothing wrong with some conservative sentiments. I am conservative in some respects. I do think that there are some values worth "conserving".
To me the term "conservative" does not always have a bad ring. It depends largely on the context.

I cannot help but think, had Jimmy Carter never been President, none of that mess would have happened.

Uhm, I may be wrong, but I am almost 100% sure that the whole Mujaheddin mess happened under Reagan and Bush sen..

[Diogenes]

The media ALWAYS uses this confusion to malign the American Conservative movement whenever this terminology is used. They WANT people to associate American Conservatives with evil, it's part of their propaganda war.

Uhm not just the US conservative movement, pretty much everywhere.
There is nothing wrong with some conservative sentiments. I am conservative in some respects. I do think that there are some values worth "conserving".
To me the term "conservative" does not always have a bad ring. It depends largely on the context.

I cannot help but think, had Jimmy Carter never been President, none of that mess would have happened.

Uhm, I may be wrong, but I am almost 100% sure that the whole Mujaheddin mess happened under Reagan and Bush sen..

The Reagan Administration helping the Mujaheddin fight the Russian invaders did indeed happen under the Reagan Administration. The invasion of Afghanistan happened under the CARTER administration, and if the US had still been maintaining a large Military presence in Iran, the way we did prior to the Iranian revolution, it is very likely that Russia would have decided invading was not a good idea.

(The Russians have even admitted that after Reagan fired the Air Traffic controllers, they knew he was a man you shouldn't mess with.)

It was the fact that the entire world knew that since Carter was a feckless idiot, he would do nothing about it. If we had any sort of man as commander in chief at that time, the Russians wouldn't have risked a confrontation.

Since Carter got us kicked out of Iran, and allowed the nation to be humiliated by a bunch of college students, the Russians figured if college students can F*** that P***y then so can they!

And now we have a P***y WORSE than CARTER!

The Silly Brits (who couldn't get enough of him earlier) have finally figured it out.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nileg ... n-britain/

[MSimon]

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.[51] [52]

In reference to the Islamic slave trade of Americans and Europeans by the Barbary states, Jefferson asked Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. He answered, Jefferson later went to war with the Barbary states.

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Quotation ... .2C_Thomas

I do believe that at least Jefferson was cognizant of Islam.

Also:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -Thomas Jefferson

I do believe that Jefferson's opinion on the matter was modern. His hope was that the promise of the words would eventually be fulfilled. I doubt he expected it in his time.

[MSimon]

...we know that when he and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, "Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free." Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words "Jesus Christ" for "Almighty God" in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia's representatives wanted the law "to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today's Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson's friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that "the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen." This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

http://www.slate.com/id/2157314/fr/rss/

I will state again: Jefferson's personal position was a minority position. However, it served as an acceptable compromise because no religion then extant in America wanted to be dominated by another.

[MSimon]

The following is adapted from The Papers of George Washington, Presidential Series, W. W. Abbot et al., eds., vol. 6, 284-86 (Mark A. Mastromarino, volume editor), University Press of Virginia (Charlottesville, 1996).

[Address to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island]
[Newport, R.I., 18 August 1790]

Gentlemen.

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, [note 1] from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2007/ ... ws-of.html

Maybe Jefferson was not so minority after all.

[MSimon]

Skipjack,

What is happening now in Britain is a natural outgrowth of their deciding in 1921 to side with the Arabs against the Jews.

http://jerusalem-history.blogspot.com/2 ... salem.html

Appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1921, Haj Amin al-Husseini was the most prominent Arab figure in Palestine during the Mandatory period. Al-Husseini was born in Jerusalem in 1893, and went on to serve in the Ottoman Army during World War I. Anti-British and anti-Jewish, the mufti was the key nationalist figure among Muslims in Palestine. Fearful that increased Jewish immigration to Palestine would damage Arab standing in the area, the mufti engineered the bloody riots against Jewish settlement in 1929 and 1936.

Al-Husseini's appointment as mufti was itself the subject of much controversy. The decision to grant al-Husseini the position was made by Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner of Palestine. It was odd that Samuel, a British Jew, would appoint a man who would be responsible for so much unrest within the Mandatory area. Al-Husseini in fact had been sentenced to ten years in prison by the British for inciting riots in 1920. None of that sentence was served, as al-Husseini had fled to Transjordan, and was soon after amnestied by Samuel himself.

For his part, al-Husseini had used his influence to quiet additional disturbances in 1921. He assured Samuel that he would continue to maintain order, and it was with this understanding that the high commissioner granted him the position of mufti. In the following year, he was also appointed to lead the Supreme Muslim Council, expanding his already significant powers. Known later as the Grand Mufti, al-Husseini was able to establish himself as the preeminent Arab power in Palestine.

[Skipjack]

Skipjack,

What is happening now in Britain is a natural outgrowth of their deciding in 1921 to side with the Arabs against the Jews.

Uhm, yes. I did not really take part in this discussion. So I am slightly confused by you calling me out Msimon.
All I can say is, whatever is happening to the Brits right now is the "curse of the evil deed". They deserve it...

[Skipjack]

However, if they want to smoke, it is their lungs they are ruining, not mine.

Uhm, ever heard of secondary smoke? It can even harm babies in the mothers womb. As someone who is "pro life" (clearly), I am sure you understand that I dont like people smoking next to pregnant women. Generally I think that smoking is bad. I used to be a smoker, but I quit a couple of year ago (never smoked much anyway). One reason why it was easy for me, was because it got really expensive. Here they use the money from the taxes on cigarettes to pay for the treatments of smokers and secondary smoke related illnesses...
So it is all for your own good, gggg
Anyway, it helped me reduce my cigarette consume (that and the support from my wife) and I finally quit. Yes, I still want a cigarette every now and then, but I can fight the urge.