Europe.
-
You guys probably should be referring this question to Islam. After all, they're the ones who will be inheriting any constitution you come up with in a couple of generations. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Nah we are sweet. We have the mighty fucking USA to protect us from this horrible future the rest of us have created for ourselves. Thank Allah they are so kind and willing to get involved for our benifit. I have taken a vow of poverty. If you want to really piss me off, send me money.
-
Ok... reposted here from the lounge, although I think this is apolitical.. I guess it could quickly become polictical. Last night I watched very good documentary on the BBC where Boris Johnson* (MP) talked about how the EU could look back to the Romans in trying to find a way of bringing Europe together. His observation was that "Rome" was much more of an idea than an entity. With the EU struggling to form a "constitution", my question is (and input more than welcome from non-Europeans) "What ONE thing should be in the constitution?" Rather assuming a constitution should be 100 page long and with 100's of rights... Start small, but keep it to definable items, e.g. Freedom can be spun many ways, my view of the US is that their "freedom" is being taken from them by their "anti-terror" measures, so.. whilst they're still "Free", it's not a concrete right. * Please ignore the "personality" if you have a strong dislike for Boris... the question isn't about him, but repeating something he raised. Regards, Ray
Ray Hayes wrote:
"What ONE thing should be in the constitution?"
one thing: "EU shall NOT have power to touch my money. Never, ever. Every bureaucrat who will want to take my money will be shoot!! Twice, to be sure he's dead." "Europe will never be like America. Europe is a product of history. America is a product of philosophy." -Margaret Thatcher
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice about new emigrants to the US not understanding anything about Jeffersonian Democracy.
Yeah whatever... as if I were a new "emigrant". :rolleyes: According to wikipedia[^], one of the core ideals of JD is: A wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from government intervention. So what's your point?
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
A wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from government intervention.
You know, you're playing Stan's cards right there. It does not say "keep the religion out of the state". It says "keep the state out of religion". Which I believe is Stan's point. However, that "wall" practically means a secular government. That's a point in your favor against Stan. :)
-
Of course, you know the reason he feels that way is that, like most modern Europeans, he doesn't plan on having grandchildren. Because that would just be immoral, and racist, and anti-environmental :rolleyes: "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan, I'll let you in on a fact you never have been able to grasp. I'm not European. I wasn't born a European, and I won't die a European.
Often the solitary dweller awaits favour for himself, the mercy of the Lord, although he, anxious in spirit, has long been obliged to stir with his hands the ice-cold sea over the path of the waters, to travel the paths of exile. Fate is utterly inexorable. So spoke the wanderer, mindful of hardships, of cruel slaughters, of the death of beloved kinsmen: Often alone each dawn I have had to bewail my sorrows; there is not now any one living to whom I dare speak my mind openly. In truth I know that it is a very noble custom in a man that he should bind fast his mind, guard the treasury of his heart, let him think as he will. One weary in spirit cannot resist fate nor can the troubled thought afford consolation; therefore those eager for glorious reputation often bind fast in their hearts a gloomy thought. So I, often wretched, deprived of my native land, far from my noble kinsmen, have had to bind my mind with fetters, since the time years ago when I hid in the concealment of the earth my gold-friend, and I, abject, winter-grieving went from there over the surface of the waves, wretched, I sought the dwelling of a dispenser of treasure, sought where I might be able to find far or near some one who, in a mead-hall, might know of my people or might be willing to console me, friendless, comfort me with pleasures. He who experiences knows how cruel is sorrow as a companion to him who has few friendly protectors for himself. The path of exile attends him, not twisted gold, a mournful spirit, not earthly prosperity. He remembers the warriors in the hall and the receiving of treasure, remembers how in his youth his gold-friend entertained him at feasting. Joy has all disappeared! Therefore he who must know how to do without the instructive speeches of his beloved friendly lord for a long time, when sorrow and sleep together often bind the wretched solitary. It seems to him in his mind that he is embracing and kissing his lord and laying his hands and head on his knee, as he sometimes formerly in the days of yore enjoyed the gift-throne. Then the friendless man awakens again, sees before him the dark waves, sees birds bathe and spread their feathers, sees hoar-frost and snow fall mingled with hail. Then the wounds of the heart are the more severe,
-
kgaddy wrote:
bend over and take it
No thanks, I'll stand.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Stan, I'll let you in on a fact you never have been able to grasp. I'm not European. I wasn't born a European, and I won't die a European.
Often the solitary dweller awaits favour for himself, the mercy of the Lord, although he, anxious in spirit, has long been obliged to stir with his hands the ice-cold sea over the path of the waters, to travel the paths of exile. Fate is utterly inexorable. So spoke the wanderer, mindful of hardships, of cruel slaughters, of the death of beloved kinsmen: Often alone each dawn I have had to bewail my sorrows; there is not now any one living to whom I dare speak my mind openly. In truth I know that it is a very noble custom in a man that he should bind fast his mind, guard the treasury of his heart, let him think as he will. One weary in spirit cannot resist fate nor can the troubled thought afford consolation; therefore those eager for glorious reputation often bind fast in their hearts a gloomy thought. So I, often wretched, deprived of my native land, far from my noble kinsmen, have had to bind my mind with fetters, since the time years ago when I hid in the concealment of the earth my gold-friend, and I, abject, winter-grieving went from there over the surface of the waves, wretched, I sought the dwelling of a dispenser of treasure, sought where I might be able to find far or near some one who, in a mead-hall, might know of my people or might be willing to console me, friendless, comfort me with pleasures. He who experiences knows how cruel is sorrow as a companion to him who has few friendly protectors for himself. The path of exile attends him, not twisted gold, a mournful spirit, not earthly prosperity. He remembers the warriors in the hall and the receiving of treasure, remembers how in his youth his gold-friend entertained him at feasting. Joy has all disappeared! Therefore he who must know how to do without the instructive speeches of his beloved friendly lord for a long time, when sorrow and sleep together often bind the wretched solitary. It seems to him in his mind that he is embracing and kissing his lord and laying his hands and head on his knee, as he sometimes formerly in the days of yore enjoyed the gift-throne. Then the friendless man awakens again, sees before him the dark waves, sees birds bathe and spread their feathers, sees hoar-frost and snow fall mingled with hail. Then the wounds of the heart are the more severe,
I wonder if the Muslims will be all that impressed by that little thread of water that separates your island from Europe after they control the entire place, or how carefully they will treasure old English poems. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
I wonder if the Muslims will be all that impressed by that little thread of water that separates your island from Europe after they control the entire place, or how carefully they will treasure old English poems. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
I did not post The Wanderer for their benefit.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
I did not post The Wanderer for their benefit.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
Well, I thought it was lovely. Here wealth is temporary, here friend is temporary, here man is temporary, here kinsman is temporary- all this earth's foundation becomes empty! Indeed... (BTW, I got that from a translation easier to read) "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 18:11 Monday 30th January, 2006
-
Well, I thought it was lovely. Here wealth is temporary, here friend is temporary, here man is temporary, here kinsman is temporary- all this earth's foundation becomes empty! Indeed... (BTW, I got that from a translation easier to read) "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself" -- modified at 18:11 Monday 30th January, 2006
I'm glad. It is one of my favourites, even if I can't read more than half a page of the original.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Bravo! If you believe the state "gave" you rights, then they can certainly take them away. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
kgaddy wrote:
If you believe the state "gave" you rights, then they can certainly take them away.
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from. Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed. Incidentally, no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights, so this blathering on about the state as the alternative to the Creator as a moral source is just misdirection and obfuscation. The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Jefferson wrote "We are endowed by our creator..." and not "we are endowed by the state...". The notion that the state is the source of freedom and liberty is completely contradictory to Jeffersonian principles. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jefferson wrote "We are endowed by our creator..."
That's fine. My creator is my parents. ColinMackay.net "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucius "If a man empties his purse into his head, no man can take it away from him, for an investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -- Joseph E. O'Donnell
-
kgaddy wrote:
If you believe the state "gave" you rights, then they can certainly take them away.
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from. Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed. Incidentally, no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights, so this blathering on about the state as the alternative to the Creator as a moral source is just misdirection and obfuscation. The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from.
But they can not do so legitimately if those rights are yours by the mere fact of your existence. If the state is the ultimate authority than any thing it does is legitimate.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Actually, the democrats have caused far more damage over the last few generations to our liberties than Bush has during his tenure. Nothing Bush has done (in terms of his efforts against terrorism) affects me directly in any way. Everything the dems have done has a direct impact upon every aspect of my life.
John Carson wrote:
The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source.
And no Jeffersonian would argue otherwise. But the state is empowered to be so by those it governs. I give permission to Bush, for example, to take those actions necessary to defend the nation from a very real threat even though I know there is some small risk to certain liberties that I enjoy. Once the threat is passed and the enemy defeated, I will reevaluate the situation and act accordingly. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
A wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from government intervention.
You know, you're playing Stan's cards right there. It does not say "keep the religion out of the state". It says "keep the state out of religion". Which I believe is Stan's point. However, that "wall" practically means a secular government. That's a point in your favor against Stan. :)
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
You know, you're playing Stan's cards right there. It does not say "keep the religion out of the state". It says "keep the state out of religion". Which I believe is Stan's point.
Yep, I saw that, but...
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
However, that "wall" practically means a secular government. That's a point in your favor against Stan.
A wall is a wall. :-)
-
kgaddy wrote:
If you believe the state "gave" you rights, then they can certainly take them away.
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from. Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed. Incidentally, no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights, so this blathering on about the state as the alternative to the Creator as a moral source is just misdirection and obfuscation. The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
-
John Carson wrote:
The state can take away your rights wherever you think they came from.
But they can not do so legitimately if those rights are yours by the mere fact of your existence. If the state is the ultimate authority than any thing it does is legitimate.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Actually, the democrats have caused far more damage over the last few generations to our liberties than Bush has during his tenure. Nothing Bush has done (in terms of his efforts against terrorism) affects me directly in any way. Everything the dems have done has a direct impact upon every aspect of my life.
John Carson wrote:
The state is certainly the legal source of rights, and that is true even if you think the Creator is the moral source.
And no Jeffersonian would argue otherwise. But the state is empowered to be so by those it governs. I give permission to Bush, for example, to take those actions necessary to defend the nation from a very real threat even though I know there is some small risk to certain liberties that I enjoy. Once the threat is passed and the enemy defeated, I will reevaluate the situation and act accordingly. "If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes." "a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself"
Stan Shannon wrote:
But they can not do so legitimately if those rights are yours by the mere fact of your existence. If the state is the ultimate authority than any thing it does is legitimate.
To repeat, I don't know of any western secularist who believes that the state is the source of moral authority and hence of moral rights. As a practical matter, your moral rights tend to be of limited effect unless the state will respect/defend them, but the state is not an independent moral source. Needless to say, I completely disagree with you on the Democrats vs Bush question (except that you may be correct in terms of its impact on you personally).
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the state is empowered to be so by those it governs. I give permission to Bush, for example, to take those actions necessary to defend the nation from a very real threat even though I know there is some small risk to certain liberties that I enjoy.
So the legitimacy of the state's actions comes from the consent of the governed, not from the Creator? John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
viaduct wrote:
The French will be required to follow EU Laws the same as everyone else.
:confused: Do we not ?
viaduct wrote:
The regular decamp to Strasbourg periodically at great expense will cease.
Yep, let's make it definitely there and forget this with ... how is it named again ? Ah yes, "Bruxelles". Ok I live in Strasbourg, nevermind
viaduct wrote:
The "Euro" currency will be given a not-so-stupid name.
Former name was Ecu :rolleyes: What's wrong with euro, BTW ? ~RaGE();
No, you follow EU Law where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't - remember the British Beef ban when the EU said you had to let it back in? "Euro" doesn't have enough consonants... :-)
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
So, no religion - people can practice whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo they think will gain them a comfortable hereafter but the state should not sponsor it, pay for it, or support it.
Well most western states are build on the christian religon. It's not bad to have social merits. Nine of the decalogue are universal, even if you don't believe in god. And it isn't so bad when people don't kill and steal. But I agree, that we don't want god based state of any kind, with a religon everybody has to bear. I want to give just an idea, it's not my opinion, but it's a point to look at. Other could say, that they want religion to be instituted in the constitution. So what to say against? You said that every one could live like he wants, but that is not possible at all. Perhaps someone believes that building a religion based state is the only way, so you would prune his rights to live his religion if you don't let him. If you let him, he would prune your rights to live without religion. What todo then? Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, it's just the way you look at. So one's believes will be depressed and consequently his rights. It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights. We don't find a perfect solution for this problem, even if we agree, there will be someone who won't. What if fifty and one percent of all habitants of europe like to have it in the constitution? Greetings, Ingo
ihoecken wrote:
It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights.
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff.
John Carson wrote:
Actually George Bush and the Republicans have been busy doing that for the last few years, but I don't expect you have noticed.
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one. My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking" Kim0618 wrote: "the father of Bush's mother is also Bush's mother"
kgaddy wrote:
Do you have a right to life? If you do, do you believe it was given to you by the state? or was it yours just for being born? It doesn't have to be God if your so concerned. It's worded that way so everyone understands that you have certain rights just for being alive, and the state cannot take that away. this is gov 101 stuff
You don't appear to have read what I wrote --- at least not with any comprehension. I wrote: no Western secularist that I have ever come across believes that the state is the moral source of human rights This is reading comprehension 101 --- a pre-requisite for gov 101 that you don't seem to possess. The legal source of human rights is another matter. The state is the legal source of human rights because the government makes and enforces the laws. If the law says all left-handed people should be put to death, then left-handed people have no legal right to life. Governments put people to death all the time, sometimes by the millions, in accordance with laws they have written. Perhaps you have noticed. This is history 101.
kgaddy wrote:
Can you give me an example where a US citizen has had their rights taken away? just one.
Bush has taken away the right not be be imprisoned without charge, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured, and various rights to freedom of movement, privacy etc. To what extent these rights have been taken away specifically from US citizens is a secondary issue. No-fly lists are one example. Warrantless phone interception is another. You can find others here: http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf[^] John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
ihoecken wrote:
It's not possible to give everybody all rights he wants, because then nobody has any rights.
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is.
Yes of course. You are a little bit ingenuous. This is the problem the mankind suffers from since thousand of years. If you got all the rights you want, somebody won't get his rights he want. There are thousand of examples I could give you. The Example we talk about: Person A wants the right to have a christian state, Person B wants the right to have state where religion is not in the constitution. Only one of them can get his rights and the other won't like it. And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do? Oh by the way I didn't said your an authoritarian, I just pointed out, that there are different viewpoints. Nothing more, nothing less. Greetings, Ingo -- modified at 5:44 Tuesday 31st January, 2006
-
John Carson wrote:
Nonsense. Give me all the rights I want and you will still have plenty. I am not the authoritarian that you apparently believe everyone is.
Yes of course. You are a little bit ingenuous. This is the problem the mankind suffers from since thousand of years. If you got all the rights you want, somebody won't get his rights he want. There are thousand of examples I could give you. The Example we talk about: Person A wants the right to have a christian state, Person B wants the right to have state where religion is not in the constitution. Only one of them can get his rights and the other won't like it. And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do? Oh by the way I didn't said your an authoritarian, I just pointed out, that there are different viewpoints. Nothing more, nothing less. Greetings, Ingo -- modified at 5:44 Tuesday 31st January, 2006
I am not disputing that the rights that people assert may be in conflict. I was disputing your extreme assertion that giving one person all the rights (s)he wanted would leave no rights to anyone else.
ihoecken wrote:
And I think you want some rights, that others claim for themselves and don't want to give you. So the problem is the same. What to do?
You can try appealing to the Golden Rule: http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html[^] If people want to dictate my religious beliefs/observances, how would they feel if I tried to dictate their religious beliefs/observances? To the extent that people cannot establish some sort of consensus on a live-and-let-live set of laws and social arrangements, you are obviously going to get conflict. Some views/beliefs just are in conflict. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine