I don't think there will be any prison camps in the future; I think there will be highly secured estates for the 'elite', and the rest of us can just perish.
Saying that, I live and have learned to accept a something called Laïcité in the culture that I chose :
The French Constitution of 1958
According to the first article of the French constitution:
“France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organised on a decentralised basis.”
The word secular in the English translation is the word laïque in the French, and it is connected to the French word laïcité. The English word secular does not quite give the same sense as the French word laïque. It is a word at the heart of the opening paragraph in the French constitution, defining the very nature of what it means to be French today. It is equally a word central to the attitude of the French state and the French people towards religion. So it is important to try and understand as much as possible the full sense behind the words laïque and laïcité.
Laïcité is the noun related to the adjective laïque. Inasmuch as we can use the word secular as a translation of the concept, laïcité would be translated by the word secularism, compared with laïque which would be translated by secular. The concept of Laïcité
The concept of laïcité can be defined as the neutrality of the state towards religious beliefs, and the complete isolation of religious and public spheres. According to the concept of laïcité, the French state and government do not take a position on any religion or religious beliefs. They can only speak on religious subjects when considering the practical consequences of the beliefs and practices of a religion on the lives of its citizens. It also means, in theory at least, that there can be no interference by any religion in the functioning of the government. Equally it also means, in theory at least, that there can be no interference by the government in the religious life of its citizens, or in the forms of religion to which they adhere.
“The French government is legally prohibited from recognizing any religion (except for legacy statutes like those of military chaplains and Alsace-Moselle). Instead, it merely recognizes religious organizations, according to formal legal criteria that do not address religious doctrine:
whether the sole purpose of the organization is to organize religious activities; whether the organization disrupts public order.”
Laïcité is theoretically based upon the respect of the state for the freedom of thought, in particular the freedom of thought in the religious sphere, of all its citizens. This is enshrined in the first article of the French constitution in the phrases “It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion” and “It shall respect all beliefs”. Practical Consequences of Laïcité
The practical consequences of the concept of laïcité are, firstly, that there is no such thing as a state religion, and secondly, there is a complete separation of church and state. It has also come to mean, certainly in France, that there must be a complete division between a citizen's private life and his religious views and beliefs on the one hand, and his life in the public sphere.
The result of all this is that rather than promoting freedom of thought and freedom of religious belief and expression, in reality it can prevent someone from practising their religion. A second result, in France at least, is that the public expression of religious belief is viewed with a certain amount of distaste or suspicion. Religion is something that you do behind closed doors, and do not talk about in public. Thus laïcité means that you are not allowed to let your religious beliefs affect the whole of your everyday, normal life. You cannot show your faith or religious affiliation in public places. Background to Laïcité
Laïcité goes back to the laws passed in 1905 that enshrined the principle of separation of church and state, and ended, at least in principle, the support of the state for what up to that time were officially supported religions: Roman Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans and Jews. There wasn't a complete break, however, with Roman Catholics still having the right to use free of charge all the church buildings that they were using at the time the law was passed, even though the church buildings were now considered the property of the state. There were some special clauses in the law also to deal with the complications of Alsace and Lorraine, a region which alternated in ownership between France and Germany. The political expediency behind the law of 1905 was to break what was then perceived by many to be the control of French policy and government by the power of the Roman Catholic church. Such control and influence was in principle at least brought to an end by the law of 1905.
This concept of laïcité in France has been reinforced in recent years with what many people consider to be anti-religious legislation, and thus against the original principle of laïcité enshrined in the French constitution, and also contrary to the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights to which France has signed up. This is seen in the law of 2004 which banned the wearing of head-scarves by Muslim girls at school for example, or the wearing of skullcap by Jews, or the wearing of a conspicuous Crucifix by Christians. The word conspicuous is important to note; the complete banning of religious symbols is not banned, provided that they are small and unobtrusive.
This reflects the modern French interpretation of the concept of laïcité as meaning that nothing connected with religious belief or practice should appear in public life. It is not hard to see as a consequence of that why some would interpret this as being the interference of the government in the religious life of the citizen, and thus contrary to the constitution. The contrary view would be expressed as the citizen being free to believe whatever he or she likes, but that the principle of laïcité enshrined in the constitution dictates that all religious expression must be kept out of the public sphere.
There you go...
A simple question to our USA members if I may? : Do you folks think that the phrase "In god we trust" should be excluded from the dollar note? If so why, if not why?
"A simple question to our USA members if I may? : Do you folks think that the phrase "In god we trust" should be excluded from the dollar note? If so why, if not why?"
In the grand scheme of things this is like asking me if the bandaid on my finger bothers me while my hand has been cut off.
I think the better question would be does it bother you more to live next door to a neighbor with a religion based on a book that advocates death to non believers or letting your government force you into taking that neighbor?
It bothers me in no way to have in God we trust on a one dollar bill. This country was founded on Christianity, and despite what the liberal left will have you believe, even the basic of history lessons can teach a person that.
Living where I live Christianity and this country's inception with this religion is unmistakable.
Now if you asked me about the pyramid and the all seeing eye on the back of a buck, yeah that pisses me off. But again in the grand scheme of things, the design of the dollar isn't even in the top 1 million issues when you national debt is 18,000,000,000,000.00 dollars.
The Alinsky plan has been followed to perfection.
#2 astonishes me more than the rest. Image if I said I could play the pied pipers pipe with a song that would make the poor people dependant on me for everything, convincing them I will take care of them for everything, while telling them to blame another for the enslavement of their ancestors. This is a belief system any Christian or member of islam would love to learn how to implement.
If you have a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: Take two, and KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN.
I don't think there will be any prison camps in the future; I think there will be highly secured estates for the 'elite', and the rest of us can just perish.
It bothers me in no way to have in God we trust on a one dollar bill. This country was founded on Christianity, and despite what the liberal left will have you believe, even the basic of history lessons can teach a person that.
There was a time when I would have agreed with that, but I was much, much younger. The history of Christianity isn't something to be proud of, or 'wear like a badge'- like America has been want to do.
Christians have a very long history of conquoring 'primative' people, destroying ALL of their history, and forcing them to conform to Christianity. Many Native American languages are dead, and the few remaining are rapidly disappearing. Native children were forcably removed from their familys and sent to 'Christian' schools to learnhow to live like 'Christians'-where they were beaten and mollested.
I take no pride in the references to our country being based on such a barbaric religion, and I still see plenty of atrocities being committed in the name of religion and God.
Post by Michigan Swamp Buck on Dec 12, 2015 11:23:57 GMT -6
Saul Alinsky wasn't the first to come up with this. Have a look at Antonio Gramsci and his plans for "Cultural hegemony". IMO this is the original playbook the communist infiltrators have been using in the U.S. for more than 50 years now.
Subverting Christian Faith
The civilized world, Gramsci deduced, had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and Christianity remains the dominant philosophical and moral system in Europe and North America. Practically speaking, civilization and Christianity were inextricably bound together. Christianity had become so thoroughly integrated into the daily lives of nearly everyone, including non-Christians living in Christian lands, it was so pervasive, that it formed an almost impenetrable barrier to the new, revolutionary civilization Marxists wish to create. Attempting to batter down that barrier proved unproductive, since it only generated powerful counter-revolutionary forces, consolidating them and making them potentially deadly. Therefore, in place of the frontal attack, how much more advantageous and less hazardous it would be to attack the enemy's society subtly, with the aim of transforming the society's collective mind gradually, over a period of a few generations, from its former Christian worldview into one more harmonious to Marxism
The following is a list of Current Communist Goals as revealed by Dr. Cleon Skousen in The Naked Communist, written in 1958 and read into the Congressional Record in 1963. Of the 45, I can provide specific examples to at least 40 of them. While they may be masqueraded under the guise of something other than communism, the final result is the same – the dissolution of the Constitutional Republic that is the foundation of the United States of America. It’s interesting that the Representative was a member of the Democratic Party, the very party that has been largely enveloped by those with Communist and Socialist beliefs. Let’s see where we are in 2013. As you read, keep in mind that this list was written in 1958.
Ah miss Nugget you don't have to quit while you're ahead I understand what you're driving at. But you can't place death, conquering, and atrocities at the feet of christians alone. Native Americans were no better when it came to atrocity to each other during the land wars. If fact it's difficult to lay out exact tribal areas of Native Americans because they changed so much. In the southwest they have found burial sites with many skeletons embedded with spear tips. Indians were killing each other for many years before european christians got there. It was a time in the world where atrocity, killing, barbarism, and conquering were everywhere. No one was immune and no one was innocent.
In today's terms I would rather live next to Christian bible thumpers than worry about living next to quran touting muslim with a desire to kill anyone who doesn't agree with his god or religion. Unfortunately the world is not a perfect place, and at this point it still isn't even close but to attempt lay blame for history's atrocities on a single religion IMO isn't a fair assessment. It doesn't matter if it's worshipers of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Star Gods, Annunaki, or Mother Earth they all have something ugly in there past.
Now I will quit while I am ahead... With hugs and kisses.
If you have a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: Take two, and KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN.
Thanks, Rickster ; I needed that. I get so frustrated at ALL religious ideologies when they draw their beliefs like a gun to overpower others. It just frustrates me to hear America was founded on 'good Christian principals', when nothing can be farther than the truth. It was founded on bloodshed and greed, and white-washing history won't change the facts.
Are we truly better than we were in our founding days? When I think of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, I have to wonder.
Thanks, Rickster ; I needed that. I get so frustrated at ALL religious ideologies when they draw their beliefs like a gun to overpower others. It just frustrates me to hear America was founded on 'good Christian principals', when nothing can be farther than the truth. It was founded on bloodshed and greed, and white-washing history won't change the facts.
Are we truly better than we were in our founding days? When I think of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, I have to wonder.
Actually IMO I don't think a lot has changed, maybe just less of it but, we have become much more efficient at killing now.
If you remember that post about ISIS I said they could be defeated easily, in the first desert storm we killed 100,000 300,000 injured with 72,000 prisoners. In a total of about 3 weeks. Yeah we are just really good at the killing part now. The world has industrialized everything, from food to death.
As far as 'good christian principals' the founders were said to be theist, but IMO the case can be made either way, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson. He definitely saw things differently. He even went to the extent of cutting up his bible and keeping the parts he thought were correct and believable.
This is also why I say laughingly but with a bit of truth if we did come from aliens as Sitchin says, then dad is probably not such a nice guy.
Thank you Nugget you had made me look at things with your post quite differently at times.
If you have a headache, do what it says on the aspirin bottle: Take two, and KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN.
Post by rickymouse on Dec 12, 2015 23:34:01 GMT -6
If we actually had a socialized healthcare system in the USA, people would not have to fear losing their insurance or winding up going bankrupt. The elderly might have something left to give their children when they die. Socialized healthcare is the only thing I think needs to be socialized here. We do need to quit making the top five percent richer and richer though, people have been BSed into believing they need things that they want.
There has been deception increasing for fifty years here in America. The conditioning has taken hold of many people, they are overextended and afraid of losing their jobs so will back things that benefit their continued employment or the employment of their friends even if it is not good morally. Making people fear getting sick is not good, the fear itself weakens our immune system. It's not the government that is running this either. There are individuals that actually have control over how things work.
The Democrats actually spearhead the change to a more socialist society but I actually doubt if it will work here in America. Occams Razor will cut it and money will still go up to the top but the middle class will definitely get drained. We had it a lot better before the insurance companies, and Wall Street got hold of our money. The use of Credit cards is making banks a lot of money, they charge a percentage of the purchase from the stores, we have higher costs because of that. Then they charge us high interest on the balance. That is sort of like loan sharking in my mind, a new type of Mafia.
I think the better question would be does it bother you more to live next door to a neighbor with a religion based on a book that advocates death to non believers or letting your government force you into taking that neighbor?
To be honest mate...
I witnessed, lived and even had (sadly), combat experience with the IRA in the UK back in the early 80s... Those were sad times indeed for the people that believed in their religion(s) and lost beloved ones and those that were there thinking that they were protecting the innocents and also sacrificed their lives too...
I lived through quite a few changes when the UK also had a massive influx of ME students coming over to the UK to learn the language as well...
All these people lived by the book and tried (and still try) to "brainwash" so to speak...
Growing up minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day etc etc... I learned that the best thing to do is just listen and try to understand what they have to say and don't answer back in order to make the matter even more complicated... Tolerate them so to speak until they start getting too heavy... AND THEN suggest that they go somewhere else to preach... OR whatever...
I have lived next door to PRACTISING Christians, Catholics, Jewish, Muslims, and the whole bunch of religiously brainwashed nut jobs out there in the world... including quite a few sects imported from the USA into the UK... (scientology, Latter day church of cripes knows what ever etc etc etc...)
I listen(ed)/respect(ed)/understand(ood) all opinions etc... BUT at the same time ignore(d) all and stayed faithful to my own opinions...
My neighbour (s) does not worry me in the least...
My only neighbour (and great friend) is a plumber with 4 dogs too and has the same mindset as us... Everyone needs a plumber and everyone needs a veterinarian surgeon...
I understand your position, I to have lived next door to various religious factions. But that was my choice not someone else's. The governor of our state an ex Clintonesta has already said he will take as many as Obama wants. This no longer makes it my choice, we live in a reasonably nice upper middle class neighborhood with mostly retirees. The issue now is as the retirees pass the family is keeping the homes as rentals. Now it could be the government's choice on who lives in my neighborhood. While at the same time writing executive orders for additional gun control.
It appears we are heading down the same path as the EU whether the citizens want it or not. We already have one compound full of training muslims in my state being watched by the FBI. With all of the intel agencies close by and many people we know in the business, with all of the retired military it could get interesting here first.
It also looks as if the EU is over the refugee situation as well, it will be interesting to see how this turns out.
"The EU is to establish a single border guard that has the right to patrol a member state’s border against its wishes, under plans to be unveiled by Jean-Claude Juncker next week.
Mr Juncker will unveil plans to create an EU Border and Coast Guard agency in a bid to halt the influx of 1.5 million refugees expected to attempt to enter Europe next year and save the Schengen zone from collapse."
The history of Christianity isn't something to be proud of, or 'wear like a badge'- like America has been want to do.
I get so frustrated at ALL religious ideologies when they draw their beliefs like a gun to overpower others. It just frustrates me to hear America was founded on 'good Christian principals', when nothing can be farther than the truth. It was founded on bloodshed and greed, and white-washing history won't change the facts.