Oldie but a goodie... saw this around while I was away from Multiply earlier this year. Sorry if its a re-post. Yeah, of course it's edited so the producers used the best bits, and they're not ALL like that... are they?
We have a few of our own like these in Britain unfortunately, just fundamentalist religion hasn't infiltrated our political system to quite such an extent, at least not overtly. 'England's' relationship with the Roman Church is another thread... you could fill this group ten times over with that.
Citizens should be required to pass an exam before being allowed to vote?
Just an idea.
This is not America-bashing, religion-bashing, nor even an attempt to remind everyone Stateside why it might not be a great idea to vote for Glenn Beck should the opportunity arise; my sole purpose is to postulate that Church and State remain seperate.
I wish the parrots who think in terms of 'Lib' and 'Rep' would think laterally a little more and realise that the main options presented are both controlled by the same Machine. The identity of the President - and I'm only posting on US Politics at all because I'm that exasperated with how repetitive and narrow it all is, and I've only been back since mid-June - yes, the identity of the President, or which party, hardly matters anymore. The same private agenda continues regardless.
Calling any on the centre or 'right' of American politics who have a few more braincells than some of the people in this video? A little more intelligent dissent around here, often on issues that actually originate from beyond your great nation's shores... now that would be great!
I do hope such people exist. I'm told we are 'biased'. Not that we operate according to a dogma given to us by a supreme being we've never met, or anything, but I do try... can only counteract that criticism with YOUR help.
If you believe Church and State should not be seperate, pray tell?
We have a few of our own like these in Britain unfortunately, just fundamentalist religion hasn't infiltrated our political system to quite such an extent, at least not overtly. 'England's' relationship with the Roman Church is another thread... you could fill this group ten times over with that.
Citizens should be required to pass an exam before being allowed to vote?
Just an idea.
This is not America-bashing, religion-bashing, nor even an attempt to remind everyone Stateside why it might not be a great idea to vote for Glenn Beck should the opportunity arise; my sole purpose is to postulate that Church and State remain seperate.
I wish the parrots who think in terms of 'Lib' and 'Rep' would think laterally a little more and realise that the main options presented are both controlled by the same Machine. The identity of the President - and I'm only posting on US Politics at all because I'm that exasperated with how repetitive and narrow it all is, and I've only been back since mid-June - yes, the identity of the President, or which party, hardly matters anymore. The same private agenda continues regardless.
Calling any on the centre or 'right' of American politics who have a few more braincells than some of the people in this video? A little more intelligent dissent around here, often on issues that actually originate from beyond your great nation's shores... now that would be great!
I do hope such people exist. I'm told we are 'biased'. Not that we operate according to a dogma given to us by a supreme being we've never met, or anything, but I do try... can only counteract that criticism with YOUR help.
If you believe Church and State should not be seperate, pray tell?
Western civilisation was built on Christian principles, no?
AntwortenLöschenSo why then, shouldn't the USA... I exaggerate of course... become a fully-fledged Christian Theocracy?
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
AntwortenLöschenAnn Coulter
With an election looming here in the next couple of weeks I must say I have noticed a stronger emphasis in faith based policies. Whether this is a ripple effect from US fundamentalist influences or just because the issues facing us today like embryonic stem cell research, abortion & recognising same-sex relationships which all have profound moral and/or religious connotations I can't say.
AntwortenLöschenHere in Australia there is no separation of church & state in the constitution. Not that it has been a big issue in the past from what I can see. Whilst it isn't enshrined in law there was an unspoken agreement to protect the rights of minority religions. This was meant to avoid conflicts between faiths and to avoid state-sanctioned religious persecution the freedom to worship was necessary in maintaining social order.
But freedom from religion is becoming increasingly important to those who do not want choices restricted on the basis of religious views that they don’t share. IMO few Australians are indeed comfortable with policy and law making that is justified by religious doctrine. Those of us who know about the growing influence of conservative Christianity in the United States don’t want to see the same divisive debates here in Australia.
I do recognise that people of faith, whatever faith, inevitably use their religious beliefs as a basis for their political activities. Is any political action devoid of a specific moral stance? I can't think of an example.
One can only ask that both politics and religion express tolerance of other points of view. That’s a given if Australia is to be a genuine pluralist society.
edit: to correct typos
By all means they need to be separate, especially in the US
AntwortenLöschenI have the impression that the UK has also developed a tradition of religious freedom despite having the Church of England as its state church. I suppose that is no more remarkable than evolving a democratic system while retaining the form of monarchy.
The path taken to arrive at a respect for freedom of thought and of speech probably matters less than having made the trip.
Some authoritarian Christions may not realize it, but religion in general is as much the beneficiary of separation as the people are.
An established church in the US (and which of hundreds of sects would it be?) would be as resented and hated as the government often is, just by being the authority.
Several interesting points:
AntwortenLöschen>>>the UK has also developed a tradition of religious freedom despite having the Church of England
I think the original act of separating the Anglican Church from Rome itself constituted a first step to separate Church and State in England... obvious step to DOUBT a central religious authority. Add to that England's colonial wealth AND industrialization during the more recent centuries... and I guess that has smoothly led it to its current state of "implicitly understood separation of Church and State there...
In the US, this "reform" came top down (reminds me of Ataturk's top down Westernization reforms in Turkey), hence not yet quite distilled in society.
The basis of the US "secularism" and its apparent success partially relies on the fact that the original immigration to the US were by the persecuted Protestants of innumerably many splinter sects.
I still recall in horror my high school term paper.
Naively, I had made the unfortunate choice to study "religions" in America. Gosh! It is such a chaotic thing, I FAILED to write anything coherent and meaningful. Fortunately, the teacher also knew what a mess of a topic I had chosen.
I'd be interested in a British perspective on the Anglican break from Roman Catholicism. The story we get is that it resulted from Rome's refusal to grant Henry the 8th a marital annulment. I suspect that that may have been the trigger, but that there was more to it than that. It was a declaration of political independence from the Roman church's power. Even today there is a distrust of Catholicism, and evidently a law remains that the royal family cannot marry a Catholic.
AntwortenLöschenEven in the US the separation and religious freedom in actual practice is a work in progress. There are still some state and local laws, many fewer than there used to be, establishing Christian-based Sunday restrictions, and of course such issues as gay marriage and Texas' anti-dildo laws.
But then, that's the reason for a Bill of Rights, because there are always challenges to individual freedom that must be answered in court.
Seen this, in a rush... will reply in the morning if I'm online. Huge depth of blog material there.
AntwortenLöschenThe documentary, 'The Money Masters', which I re-watched recently, around part 3 or 4 (of 22ish) points out there may have been another angle to goings on under Henry 8th, Queen Mary and Elizabeth 1st. Elizabeth took back the power from 'the money changers' that Henry had granted them, apparently. British history of Kings and Queens used to bore me to tears at school. Renaissance Europe, I've never really studied.
Today, I understand the bar is being lifted (have blogged on that here - bit of a 'conspiracy' opinion piece), because Camilla Parker-Bowles, Charles' missus, is a Catholic. I think Kate Middleton, William's girlfriend, might also be. They just do as they please, I guess.
Here's that video. I have far too much reading to do on this before I can justify writing a decent blog on it...
AntwortenLöschenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701
AntwortenLöschenThe Act of Settlement is an act of the Parliament of England, originally filed in 1700, and passed in 1701, to settle the succession to the English throne on the Electress Sophia of Hanover—a granddaughter of James I—and her Protestant heirs. The act was later extended to Scotland as a result of the Treaty of Union (Article II), enacted in the Acts of Union 1707 before it was ever needed, and further through the expansion of the British Empire. Along with the Bill of Rights 1689, it remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to not only the throne of the United Kingdom, but, following British colonialism, the resultant doctrine of reception, and independence, also to those of the other Commonwealth realms, whether by willing deference to the act as a British statute or as a patriated part of the particular realm's constitution.[1] Since the implementation of the Statute of Westminster in each of the Commonwealth realms (on successive dates from 1931 onwards), the Act of Settlement cannot be altered in any realm except by that realm's own parliament, and then, by convention, and as it touches on the succession to the shared throne, only with the consent of all the other realms.[2]
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henry+VIII+usury+laws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
AntwortenLöschenHenry VIII / Usury laws
UK may change Monarchy Marriage Rules, from Wall Street Journal, March 2009:
AntwortenLöschenhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820008539062233.html