The New Testament doesn't really do prescribed Earthly punishment or conquering by the sword, you shun people and the rest is up to government.
Judaism is one of those religions that do not evangelize.
"7. All of the above pertains only when Israel is exiled among the nations or when the gentiles hold sway. But when Israel holds sway over the nations of the world, we are forbidden to tolerate a gentile who worships an alien deity in our midst"
The liberal family reunion rules wouldn't be a problem if the refugees were distributed evenly among the member countries. Then all countries could have whatever rules they wanted.That's hardly fair either. Things such as: land area, existing population density, existing levels of immigration, availability of housing need to be taken into account, before deciding how many refugees a country should take.I am pretty sure that's actually what Apis meant.
QuoteWe are not even homogeneous even within an individual state. California is a perfect example where the population centers have one set of beliefs and the agricultural areas have another. It is a perfect example of the tyranny of the majority where the entire Central Valley is unrepresented in decision making. Ever wonder why there is a North Carolina and South Carolina? How about North Dakota and South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia?
One of the bigger issues is that the US Senate is very undemocratic, with every state getting two representatives.
Wyoming, population 600,000 - 2 senators
California, population 39,000,000 - 2 senators
This allows the much more conservative small states to hold on to the Senate when that is in no way representative of the people.
This was/is a feature of the U.S. Constitution. The Senate as you stated were to represent a specific State with equal representation with other States. The House of Representatives was tasked with representing the interests of the people based on population density subject to adjustment by the decade U.S. census. Originally each State legislature selected their two senators rather then by the people of the State in general elections as now practiced.
I think that was a pretty cleaver design. Recall that neither the House or the Senate can pass laws by themselves and only then if the President allows the law to be implemented by not using his/her veto power.
Checks and balances as they say. Even the general public's 'power' needs to be subject to a balance of power as tyranny can come from any quarter.
The liberal family reunion rules wouldn't be a problem if the refugees were distributed evenly among the member countries. Then all countries could have whatever rules they wanted.That's hardly fair either. Things such as: land area, existing population density, existing levels of immigration, availability of housing need to be taken into account, before deciding how many refugees a country should take.I am pretty sure that's actually what Apis meant.I hope so. It just seems to be implied here that all countries need to have the refugees spread evenly. I agree that the UK could and should take more but there's not much space, compared to France. I think Russia should also take a lot of refugees as they've played their part in messing up the Middle East and it's the largest country in the world, by area so they're hardly short of space.
QuoteI think the opportunity for reform from within Islam itself has passed.Naah it is a question of time and exposure to different ways of living.
Look at Indonesia, the laws became more stringent each year and there came an anti movement, illegal bars (beer and other alcohol was forbidden), clothing for women etc.
Now the government is changing its laws because a lot of people think they went too far.
Also in SA you see young twentiers partying and dancing on music etc. etc. The whole system is based on fear, if you do something wrong you will be horribly punished, but a lot of people do not want to live anymore accoding to these stringent rules, so they will leave.
I hope so. It just seems to be implied here that all countries need to have the refugees spread evenly. I agree that the UK could and should take more but there's not much space, compared to France. I think Russia should also take a lot of refugees as they've played their part in messing up the Middle East and it's the largest country in the world, by area so they're hardly short of space.The majority aren't refugees they are economic imigrants.
If the UK and US had listened to the UN and not invaded Iraq we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
So you were OK with the staus quo in the middle east? You seem to be a humanitarian so I can't understand how you could be so concerned with the current migrants but were quite happy to have the kurds and shia live in repression and be subject to regular slaughter. You do recall that saddam was gassing the kurds and after the allied withdrawl he was doing whole sale slaughter to them and became even more oppresive to any potential adversaries who might exploit his vunerabilty after the war. Assuming no second intervention what time frame would you give before a full scale civil war kurd and shia vs sunni?
What people (left wing) seem to forget is that a lot of media were wanting intervention to protect the kurds and other religous minorities within Iraq it wasn't just the hawks wanting a second intervention. The left wanted protection for the kurds as well as other persecuted minorities as well. How would you propose to do this without firing a shot GANDHI?
Oh lets not forget the neverending Arab and Israeli conflict that flares up on a regular basis. Whats your plan there move everyone Arab and Jew to Sweden? Have fun.
Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs. He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others). That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.
Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs. He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others). That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded.That isn't true. Even back then there was enough information to conclude the WMDs wheren't there. Start here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/06/chilcot-report-2003-iraq-war-was-unnecessary-and-invasion-was-no/
Apis and nctino Let’s assume you are right, all the wrong in the ME is due to foreign intervention. Can you state anytime there was actually real peace and stability there? I know I can’t. I’m not including a dictator as stability because really, stability is only for those in the dictator’s favour for anyone else it’s anything but stability.
So you were OK with the staus quo in the middle east? You seem to be a humanitarian so I can't understand how you could be so concerned with the current migrants but were quite happy to have the kurds and shia live in repression and be subject to regular slaughter. You do recall that saddam was gassing the kurds and after the allied withdrawl he was doing whole sale slaughter to them and became even more oppresive to any potential adversaries who might exploit his vunerabilty after the war. Assuming no second intervention what time frame would you give before a full scale civil war kurd and shia vs sunni?
Here's a thought experiment: Bush was a bad man, would you have advocated invading the USA in order to force a regime change? I wouldn't because that would certainly have caused much more suffering and horror than what Bush managed to cause on his own. Even if it would have been certain it would have prevented the Iraq war and all the suffering it caused.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON: The information came from, in our intelligence system at the time, the 16 entities that compose our intelligence services, and spoken for by the then-master of that intelligence community, George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, and vouchsafed multiple times by his deputy, the DDCI, John McLaughlin. But it came from a much wider array, Amy. It came from Israel. It came from France. It came from Jordan. It came from Germany. Indeed, it came from almost every intelligence service that, at one time or another, had fed into the U.S. process with regard to Iraq. And frankly, we were all wrong. Was the intelligence politicized in addition to being wrong at its roots? Absolutely. And the leader of that politicization was the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney.
If the UK and US had listened to the UN and not invaded Iraq we wouldn't have had this problem to begin with.
So you were OK with the staus quo in the middle east? You seem to be a humanitarian so I can't understand how you could be so concerned with the current migrants but were quite happy to have the kurds and shia live in repression and be subject to regular slaughter. You do recall that saddam was gassing the kurds and after the allied withdrawl he was doing whole sale slaughter to them and became even more oppresive to any potential adversaries who might exploit his vunerabilty after the war. Assuming no second intervention what time frame would you give before a full scale civil war kurd and shia vs sunni?
What people (left wing) seem to forget is that a lot of media were wanting intervention to protect the kurds and other religous minorities within Iraq it wasn't just the hawks wanting a second intervention. The left wanted protection for the kurds as well as other persecuted minorities as well. How would you propose to do this without firing a shot GANDHI?
Oh lets not forget the neverending Arab and Israeli conflict that flares up on a regular basis. Whats your plan there move everyone Arab and Jew to Sweden? Have fun.
You're tainting the "It's all Bush's fault!" rhetoric with facts. You shouldn't do that!
Saddam did everything he could to convince his enemies that he had WMDs. He had to do that to keep Iran at bay (among others). That is was all a bluff didn't come up until AFTER we invaded. Now, a TRILLION dollars later, we're still trying to get out.
Good thing it's a 'thought experiment'! There are 100 MILLION gun owners in the US and 300 MILLION firearms.
Not counting military or law enforcement, of course.
Good thing it's a 'thought experiment'! There are 100 MILLION gun owners in the US and 300 MILLION firearms.The majority of whom wouldn't last long against any real army.
Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course
EU has been very specific that UK has to first trigger Article 50, and only after that any negotiations may take place.
Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course
While I do think it is a shame that the referendum ended as it did, I do think that May must trigger Article 50 and do it soon. Simply for the sake of the British democracy. The people have spoken and it should be taken seriously.
While I do think it is a shame that the referendum ended as it did, I do think that May must trigger Article 50 and do it soon. Simply for the sake of the British democracy. The people has spoken and it should be taken seriously.
As for "taking people seriously", what should happen when they realise their mistake and want to change it?
But that doesn't answer the question of how the people can tell parliament that it changed its mind...
Perhaps if we can start to negotiate the overall shape of our withdrawal without triggering Article 50, then put it to a GE in 2020 with a reformed Labour party standing for "we'll ignore it all and stay in" and the Tories standing behind "out, on these terms" we would truly be able to say that there was a popular mandate for the future. I also believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden, of course
EU has been very specific that UK has to first trigger Article 50, and only after that any negotiations may take place.