[322>US103]:10.17=[60x4+43] #1. Direct Democracy. #2. US "Sharia". To o.h., Bill tel: mom drugs, Dju tel 70'sClub. Home Hsiang's sis,Ch.off w Jun.

EU REACH>Chemicals: http://tinyurl.com/cs6ay Early cloud gone cool mild: Up 5:35, then 8:00, hurry answering [I]D >#1: 1., then [C]R >#2. Now 12:06pm to papers then o.h. Process documents and bank balances. Bill tel 4:15-5:25pm, discover mom now takes only one out of 2 or 3 or 4 heart drugs, not knowing when others were dropped! So coming again tomorrow. Dju tel Hao just left, as they got together for 70 years old club. Home, Hsiang's sis at my computer, later Ch (& dog) also supper. Answer #1's answer point by point >#1: 2. Jun still off, 2 sleep. Now 12:53am. 1:15am Jun tel not coming home (because Ch's parents not home). Bed 1:55. #1. "Direct Democracy" 1. "#1001: End the Nation or Federal State!": "" [Tsai 05.11.18=5 #1] Yes, D., this is the defense of the nation state which has brought the whole mankind incredible violence and "evils", and which is finally being curved initially. Their points are: 1) Peoples cannot rule themselves! because not wise enough. 2) The system we have is the only way which superior persons rule, especially when sciences are far more complicated and the system follows likewise.. Wrong, wrong! Well, please just compare the USA and Switzerland. Should we all continue to debate peoples' right to wear them or rather required to have them? The deadly problem lies precisely at "representative" and "federal". Peoples are sripped off weapons, money, and dignity, and from control of themselves. The EU and the UN are not "federal", and I hope never will be. Wales and the Welch(?) are freer under the EU in fact, psychologically and physically. "" 2. "#1002: Substance of Freedom": "" Tsai 05.11.18=5 #2] Let's have one by one: 1) "Republican Democracies": & Professionalization: D.: "In Republican Democracies people DO rule themselves through their elected representatives." That's the theory, but, in practice, too much shortcomings to the extent that overwhelming majority people feel powerless and helpless, and are "brain-washed" and manipulated. So the m. don't vote. D.: "It is a vitally important profession (meaning that it should be run by professionals)." Or ruled by p.? Not so for the ancient Greeks, it was chosen by lottery. The Swiss militia is not p. either. That's the essence of a free people? That political and military persons are not p. 2) Overlording tiny minority: D.: "Hopefully we select the best people available for the jobs, but that does not make them "superior people" under our system of government." In practice, not just s., but almost overlords who control, manipulate, and help their own kind of the tiny minority. D.: "At least Republican Democracies DO consider the people to be wise enough to decide who is wise enough to make the critical decisions for the rest of us." In practice, "the people to be" manipulated "enough", and put in our system to have our kind elected all the time, to work for us. 3) Size: D.: " But Switzerland also subscribes to republican form of government with elected officials making the decisions." The problem is not entirely that of form, but rather that of substance. At least partially it's because of the size. (Not far away Washington, DC.) Consequently, "elected officials" are better known by the voters. The President could ride bycycle to office, and not shield by security personnel. That's also the essence of democracy. 4) "Federal" protection against "State": D.: "The Feds brought civil rights to minorities who were denied them by the "democracy" practiced in individual states." However, that same feds becomes far worse oppressor, with far more powerful power, far away. The EU and the UN are not feds, and the Welsh and Scots are protected against them by the UK, or by far smaller mini-states, which are naturally far easier to be democratic because of their size. So, that's it, point by point. Hopefully I could bid you good night soon. "" #2. ""Heroic" Future of the Theocracy from the US?": "" [Tsai 05.11.18=5 #1] Yes, it was about "Sharia": "The law system inspired by the Koran, the Sunna, older Arabic law systems, parallel traditions, and work of Muslim scholars over the two first centuries of Islam." http://i-cias.com/e.o/sharia.htm That's why he even considered the USA a more "sharia"-type nation than the Saudi. I think there are two aspects about the relationship between the religion and the state. For the relition's disctinction between sacred and not sacred, or even all is sacred, the believers are ABSOLUTELY sure where the truth is So if Americans believe firmly that the American Consitution and the Founding Fathers are almost sacred and absolute, and the global spread of "Democracy" is a sacred mission, then it is at least the sharia-TYPE Americanism. ====================== R. wrote: Are you still so sure that islam is compatible with Western democracy? I have serious doubts that ANY religion is "compatible with Western Democracy." EITHER God has laid down rules for humans to follow OR you vote on what the rules should be. People who claim to believe the former - but go-along with the latter - are simply hypocritical, and don't take their religion seriously. The main objection (and it's a strong enough objection to get laws changed) to same-sex "marriage" in the USA is religion (And that in a country where "marriage" is largely a civil ceremony anyway.) Compare that with the way Sharia is implemented in Nigeria - where half the country is Muslim, and half Christian. Sharia is voluntary. "I'm not, and never have been a Muslim, so these laws don't apply to me" is an acceptable defence, at least where things like drinking and adultery are concerned. Pissing on a Mosque and making the same claim isn't likely to be as succesful. One of the problems implicit in some views (notably America's) of "Democracy" is that it's a choice between a strictly limited selection of choices. It's not enough to tell women that they're free NOT to wear the burka, or some lesser "Islamic" dress. Shrill voiced "democracy"-pushers then inform them that ignoring their new-found pseudo-choice by continuing to wear Islamic dress is UNDEMOCRATIC. What happens when a majority (and straw-polls suggest that Islamic dress is actually popular) decide not to exercise their pseudo-choice? Here in the west we have restrictions on what it's legal/illegal to wear. Walk around your local shopping mall naked... you'll get arrested. (And if you're female, probably molested as well) I don't see demonstrations in favour of "a woman's right to nakedness". It's just not seen as an issue of any importance. Pretty much the same as headscarves in Islamic countries. Yet the "Any excuse to bash Muslims" brigade insist that it's VITALLY IMPORTANT. Whatever happened to a male Sikh's "right" not to wear a turban? A few weeks back, my wife got a letter from an angry parent - who objected to her children getting sex-education at school which didn't actively condemn homosexuality. She quoted biblical chapter and verse in support of her views. It wasn't just her view, she explained, it was WHAT GOD WANTED. The same biblical chapter proposes the death sentence for children who turn up at school wearing leather shoes, or polester/cotton shirts and blouses. I suggested to my wife that she asked the angry mother for her views on wearing mixed-fibres. If God wants us to condemn homosexuals and feels it strongly enough to dictate his concerns into the bible... then clearly he feels equally strongly about mixed fibres, (if he didctates his thoughts on the matter in the same book to the same prophet.) One can't cherry-pick between divine pronouncements.... at least, not without looking like a hypocritical idiot. R. ""