BREXIT

[Metsfanmax]

...government should always be at the lowest level possible which is practically feasible, so as to be close to the people it governs as possible. The needs of the farmland are not the needs of the suburbs and are not the needs of the urban centers. Of course, the men who were redesigning the Articles of Confederation weren't redesigning all of the various state constitutions, or county/parish constitutions, so that wasn't possible in that document, but that should still be the goal, not a one law that somehow has to apply to all types of possibilities, enforced by one global enforcement agency.

Yes, that's right, the farmland needs slaves, and it's really not the place of those elitist city folk to tell them that slavery is wrong!

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Remain- I've been pretty much on the fence for most of the debate, albeit leaning remain. The "it's all about the economy" argument from the remain side never really sat right for me, but the anti-immigrant nastiness from the leave side tipped me.

Too many friends from Europe, and indeed from around the world, who work and contribute to the UK have said to me that they don't understand where this hatred has come from. Britain has always been a tolerant nation on the whole, at least in my lifetime.

I guess that's an odd point of pride for me to admit here, as it opens me up for attack, but yeah, I guess that's a view I have of the UK.

Look at it geographical. The anti immigration, anti EU areas of the country have zero to minimal migrants. Its fear of the unknown. Pure and simple.

[GoranZ]

If UK voters decide to leave they should leave as friends and not expelled as enemies so if another generation of UK voters decide to return to EU they can be accepted as friends(like nothing happened before). Thats the only way EU will become stronger regardless of UK's vote. Anything else could mark the beginning of the end for EU.

The problem with that is, what can be considered a friendly break? Does this mean the EU would have to give the UK extremely beneficial concessions? Or is the EU treating the UK like any other non-EU country already considered friendly?

Since its obvious that Brexit might turn into a catastrophe for the whole continent, not just for EU and UK, quick negotiations with objective of keeping acquired benefits for both EU and UK should be considered friendly enough. The faster the negotiations conclude the less damage will be done by speculations and potential uncertainty.

P.S. A Brexit survival guide

[waauw]

If UK voters decide to leave they should leave as friends and not expelled as enemies so if another generation of UK voters decide to return to EU they can be accepted as friends(like nothing happened before). Thats the only way EU will become stronger regardless of UK's vote. Anything else could mark the beginning of the end for EU.

The problem with that is, what can be considered a friendly break? Does this mean the EU would have to give the UK extremely beneficial concessions? Or is the EU treating the UK like any other non-EU country already considered friendly?

Since its obvious that Brexit might turn into a catastrophe for the whole continent, not just for EU and UK, quick negotiations with objective of keeping acquired benefits for both EU and UK should be considered friendly enough. The faster the negotiations conclude the less damage will be done by speculations and potential uncertainty.

P.S. A Brexit survival guide

Nonsense. I understand why you would want to think so considering your opinions would fit in well into the far right camp, but most political leaders actually want to avoid offering credibility to such parties. What you're claiming is nothing but a delusional dream. Ministers from France, Italy and Germany have already indicated any negotiation will be tough if even taken place.

It would be a pity for the British people, because after all it is their right to decide their future for themselves, but unfortunately the rest of europe is dealing with internal issues themselves that require unfavorable positioning around the negotiation table. If the UK would have left 10 years ago when euroscepticism wasn't at such a high, a friendly break might have been possible, but not in the current political climate.

[tzor]

The founders hated Catholics and felt Catholicism was an alien, fifth column religion incompatible with Liberty,

Actually, they hated what they thought was Catholicism. Let's go through the video tape. The Protestant Reformation began almost two hundred years prior to the age of enlightenment. The 95 thesis was placed on the door of the cathedral in 1517 and traditionally the start of the age of enlightenment is 1715. Dyslexic coincidence? Probably. It's origins actually come much earlier. There is a basic two pronged approaches. The English prong is generally against monarchy, which actually started to really develop after the Protestant Reformation. The French prong is generally against religion in general, by insisting that "science" was superior to faith. (Age of Enlightenment science, especially medicine is so funny, but I digress.)

So the English hated the Popish Church because ... well that was the one thing they all agreed on. (Almost every revolution in England against a reigning monarch was done because of the fear that the monarch might lean towards Papist tendencies. And if you want to get into the secret causes of the American Revolution, consider the result of the war against the French in Canada where the King of England allowed the former French provinces to (gasp) remain Catholic. If that sounds like a fantasy, riddle me this Batman ... why was the first invasion by the United States in the renewed war against Britain against Canada?

The French "scientific elite" hated the Church in general.

This resulted in the creation of something new, a more social than religious religion. This something new was Free Masonry. In the Colonies, this appeared alongside Unitarianism.

In the North East (New York / New England) Catholic priests were barred from the colonies. In New York it was a capital offense should a Catholic Priest be seen giving spiritual guidance to a native (who had been converted by French missionaries a century or two before. In the former Catholic colony of Maryland, no Catholic could hold political office. Many states required those holding political office to swear against Catholic doctrines.

The colonists had one solid model for Church State relations and that was the relation of the Church of England and the State of England both under the Protestant King of England.

Never the less, in rejecting monarchy, they were in fact recreating and embracing old Catholic principles of government, especially that of subsidiarity. Jason Lewis: America’s Founding Fathers adopted the Principle of Subsidiarity

BY the way, if you ask the Founding Fathers who they thought would be the most famous Founding Father, (and people did) the name might surprise you because you probably don't know him. Charles Carroll of Carrollton was mentioned by John Adams as one who would remembered as one of the great founders. Charles Carroll was ... wait for it ... Catholic. Source

The Founders, as far as I know, greatly respected Carroll. Adams called him one of the best of his generation; Washington considered him a friend and a vital political ally; Jefferson sought him out for financial advice; Madison turned to him and the Maryland Senate Carroll created as the model for the U.S. Senate; and Hamilton thought he might be the best successor to Washington as president. Regardless, it’s very difficult to find unadulterated praise of Carroll. For, no matter what Carroll’s virtues, the other Founders always had to add “... for a Papist” when describing him.

How Charles Carroll Influenced U.S. Founding Fathers

Catholic teaching was almost totally suppressed in the British Empire in the 18th century. The colonists thought they hated the Catholic political tradition, which they mistakenly identified with the Stuarts' doctrine of divine right. But the Founding Fathers really had no idea what the authentic tradition was.

I argue that the Founding Fathers unknowingly reinvented the Catholic political tradition. If anyone had suggested to them at the time that that is what they were doing, the Founders would have been horrified. Paradoxically, they were able to revive several elements of Catholic thinking because they were totally ignorant of the authentic tradition.

They also had Charles Carroll in Congress and in the Maryland Senate, pushing them toward Catholic political practice without ever letting on what he was doing. And this is what the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore meant when it said in 1884 that the framers of the Constitution were "'building better than they knew,' the Almighty's hand guiding them."

Sometimes it seems when you reject the result of the rejection, the result is similar to the original, especially when you have someone familiar with the original making suggestions along the way.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Tzor, you might want to retake english history. Look up Mary Queen of Scots amongst others.

The protestants were just better at uprising.

[warmonger1981]

Before you tell Tzor what to do why not answer my questions. Or are you from Dodge City? You spouted off to me. I reply. You dodge.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

@Wing

Do you believe one government will be able to regulate every culture? Or do you believe a culture should regulate itself? Does Sharia Law trump government law? The EU will become global through trade. Like the TPP or APP. I'm pretty sure Americans are welcoming of cultures. I'm not sure about this but America would seem to have more types of people from more countries than any other. The problem is that Americans have adopted a corporate ideology of what America should look like. People come here to lose their culture within a generation.

I wasnt going to answer them, as if you read my original post carefully, you will see that I already did.

I do believe that one goverment has the capability to keep global peace without disadvantage to individual groups/cultures.

As I said before, Sharia Law should be discussed, rather than given opinions on from a position of fear and ignorance.

[saxitoxin]

Actually, they hated what they thought was Catholicism.

That was way too long so I only read your thesis where you claim the founders had been hoodwinked and didn't really understand Catholicism; that, by extension and implication, you're smarter than the founders because you do understand it.

Sorry, you're a great guy, but there's nothing you've written so far that leads me to believe you're smarter than Benjamin Franklin.

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, they hated what they thought was Catholicism.

That was way too long so I only read your thesis where you claim the founders had been hoodwinked and didn't really understand Catholicism; that, by extension and implication, you're smarter than the founders because you do understand it.

Sorry, you're a great guy, but there's nothing you've written so far that leads me to believe you're smarter than Benjamin Franklin.

That's not going to work. I tried that in the climate science discussion.

[Symmetry]

@Wing

Do you believe one government will be able to regulate every culture? Or do you believe a culture should regulate itself? Does Sharia Law trump government law? The EU will become global through trade. Like the TPP or APP. I'm pretty sure Americans are welcoming of cultures. I'm not sure about this but America would seem to have more types of people from more countries than any other. The problem is that Americans have adopted a corporate ideology of what America should look like. People come here to lose their culture within a generation.

I wasnt going to answer them, as if you read my original post carefully, you will see that I already did.

I do believe that one goverment has the capability to keep global peace without disadvantage to individual groups/cultures.

As I said before, Sharia Law should be discussed, rather than given opinions on from a position of fear and ignorance.

A worthy stance. Sharia, as with other cultural legal codes, have a place in multicultural societies. Demonizing Sharia law has become an easy way of demonizing Islam as a whole.

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it. An Islamic marriage, for example, should be recognised.

[saxitoxin]

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it.

Insofar as you are saying that, in private contracts or arbitration between two consenting adults, two parties should be allowed to determine whatever the terms of the contract or arbitration are and two parties who are both sufficiently nutty might choose to negotiate a contract or receive arbitration on the basis of Sharia, or Canon Law, or Rastafarian principles, I agree with your militant Libertarianism.

I disagree that Sharia should "inform" any legal system. The best Islamic legal scholars, like Sultan Suleiman (whose bas relief is carved into the U.S. Capitol), succeeded despite Sharia, not because of it. IMO!

[Symmetry]

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it.

Insofar as you are saying that, in private contracts between two consenting adults, the two parties should be allowed to determine whatever the terms of the contract are and two parties might choose to negotiate a contract on the basis of Sharia, or Canon Law, or Rastafarian principles, I agree with your militant Libertarianism.

I disagree that Sharia should "inform" any legal system. The best Islamic legal scholars, like Sultan Suleiman (whose bas relief is carved into the U.S. Capitol), succeeded despite Sharia, not because of it.

So, would you say that the beliefs of parties in a legal dispute should be ignored? I would say that they should be acknowledged and inform the decision made by a secular court, without overruling them.

Why, for example, should Sharia contracts be ignored by a legal system if they are relevant to a dispute? Surely they would inform the legal system.

Additionally, I'm wary of entirely dismissing another country's or culture's judicial system out of hand.

That sharia rulings should be ignored seems a step too far. Even in rejection, they can inform.

[saxitoxin]

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it.

Insofar as you are saying that, in private contracts between two consenting adults, the two parties should be allowed to determine whatever the terms of the contract are and two parties might choose to negotiate a contract on the basis of Sharia, or Canon Law, or Rastafarian principles, I agree with your militant Libertarianism.

I disagree that Sharia should "inform" any legal system. The best Islamic legal scholars, like Sultan Suleiman (whose bas relief is carved into the U.S. Capitol), succeeded despite Sharia, not because of it.

So, would you say that the beliefs of parties in a legal dispute should be ignored? I would say that they should be acknowledged and inform the decision made by a secular court, without overruling them.

If two people mutually decide to have their dispute settled by a private arbitrator acting on the basis of a personal, unofficial legal code they all happen to recognize (like Sharia, or Canon Law, or Law of the Jungle, or Mr Miyagi's Karate Rules, or whatever) I think that's fine.

But when I sue Metsfanmax for failing to SUCK IT, it's gonna be in the civil division of the Santa Barbara Superior Court.

And that's all I have to say.

[Symmetry]

Fine by me, nobody was under the impression that you'd say that you were wrong gracefully. I'll leave you and Mets to the rest.

[Metsfanmax]

A worthy stance. Sharia, as with other cultural legal codes, have a place in multicultural societies. Demonizing Sharia law has become an easy way of demonizing Islam as a whole.

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it. An Islamic marriage, for example, should be recognised.

What exactly do you mean that an Islamic marriage should be "recognized?" What specifically does that imply with respect to the secular legal system?

[Symmetry]

A worthy stance. Sharia, as with other cultural legal codes, have a place in multicultural societies. Demonizing Sharia law has become an easy way of demonizing Islam as a whole.

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it. An Islamic marriage, for example, should be recognised.

What exactly do you mean that an Islamic marriage should be "recognized?" What specifically does that imply with respect to the secular legal system?

In this particular case, it obviously means that you don't want to confront Saxitoxin. Good for you, but I'm not gonna be your lazy out.

Sorry, bro, you'll have to try and stand up for yourself or slime out on this one.

[Metsfanmax]

A worthy stance. Sharia, as with other cultural legal codes, have a place in multicultural societies. Demonizing Sharia law has become an easy way of demonizing Islam as a whole.

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it. An Islamic marriage, for example, should be recognised.

What exactly do you mean that an Islamic marriage should be "recognized?" What specifically does that imply with respect to the secular legal system?

In this particular case, it obviously means that you don't want to confront Saxitoxin. Good for you, but I'm not gonna be your lazy out.

In my preferred legal system you should not be allowed to speak, so may I call up the UK justice ministry and inform them of this?

[Symmetry]

A worthy stance. Sharia, as with other cultural legal codes, have a place in multicultural societies. Demonizing Sharia law has become an easy way of demonizing Islam as a whole.

Sharia, at its best, should work with an overarching secular legal system, and at times, inform it. An Islamic marriage, for example, should be recognised.

What exactly do you mean that an Islamic marriage should be "recognized?" What specifically does that imply with respect to the secular legal system?

In this particular case, it obviously means that you don't want to confront Saxitoxin. Good for you, but I'm not gonna be your lazy out.

In my preferred legal system you should not be allowed to speak, so may I call up the UK justice ministry and inform them of this?

Sorry, bro, you'll have to try and stand up for yourself or slime out on this one.

It's your call, but for what it's worth, manning up may help you if you're willing to give it a try.

[warmonger1981]

@ Wing


Fair enough. But does Sharia Law trump government laws of a nation? I believe that if a person might makes an agreement with a person it's none of the government's business. But if it goes to the courts of government then what happens? Now if Sharia goes black market style then the government won't even know.

@Saxi


Is it Libertarian or Anarchy? Or maybe a system similar to Native Americans.



According to the Britannica Sharia Law a doesn't create law through a democracy. It's the will of God. It seems that Democracy and Sharia Law are incompatible. Please dissect Britannica views.


In the first place the scope of the Sharīʿah is much wider, since it regulates an individual’s relationship not only with one’s neighbours and with the state, which is the limit of most other legal systems, but also with God and with one’s own conscience. Ritual practices, such as the daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage, are an integral part of Sharīʿah law and usually occupy the first chapters in the legal manuals. The Sharīʿah is also concerned as much with ethical standards as with legal rules, indicating not only what an individual is entitled or bound to do in law but also what one ought, in conscience, to do or refrain from doing. Accordingly, certain acts are classified as praiseworthy (mandūb), which means that their performance brings divine favour and their omission divine disfavour, and others as blameworthy (makrūh), which means that omission brings divine favour and commission divine disfavour; but in neither case is there any legal sanction of punishment or reward, nullity or validity. The Sharīʿah is not merely a system of law, but a comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public activities.

The second major distinction between the Sharīʿah and Western legal systems is the result of the Islamic concept of law as the expression of the divine will. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, communication of the divine will to human beings ceased so that the terms of the divine revelation were henceforth fixed and immutable. When, therefore, the process of interpretation and expansion of this source material was held to be complete with the crystallization of the doctrine in the medieval legal manuals, Sharīʿah law became a rigid and static system. Unlike secular legal systems that grow out of society and change with the changing circumstances of society, Sharīʿah law was imposed upon society from above. In Islamic jurisprudence it is not society that molds and fashions the law but the law that precedes and controls society.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, bro, you'll have to try and stand up for yourself or slime out on this one.

It's your call, but for what it's worth, manning up may help you if you're willing to give it a try.

At any time you are welcome to explain your statement that a secular legal system should "recognize" an Islamic marriage. Or, you can choose to leave it as an incomprehensible, opaque assertion. Your call.

[Symmetry]

@ Wing


Fair enough. But does Sharia Law trump government laws of a nation? I believe that if a person might makes an agreement with a person it's none of the government's business. But if it goes to the courts of government then what happens? Now if Sharia goes black market style then the government won't even know.

@Saxi


Is it Libertarian or Anarchy? Or maybe a system similar to Native Americans.



According to the Britannica Sharia Law a doesn't create law through a democracy. It's the will of God. It seems that Democracy and Sharia Law are incompatible. Please dissect Britannica views.


In the first place the scope of the Sharīʿah is much wider, since it regulates an individual’s relationship not only with one’s neighbours and with the state, which is the limit of most other legal systems, but also with God and with one’s own conscience. Ritual practices, such as the daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage, are an integral part of Sharīʿah law and usually occupy the first chapters in the legal manuals. The Sharīʿah is also concerned as much with ethical standards as with legal rules, indicating not only what an individual is entitled or bound to do in law but also what one ought, in conscience, to do or refrain from doing. Accordingly, certain acts are classified as praiseworthy (mandūb), which means that their performance brings divine favour and their omission divine disfavour, and others as blameworthy (makrūh), which means that omission brings divine favour and commission divine disfavour; but in neither case is there any legal sanction of punishment or reward, nullity or validity. The Sharīʿah is not merely a system of law, but a comprehensive code of behaviour that embraces both private and public activities.

The second major distinction between the Sharīʿah and Western legal systems is the result of the Islamic concept of law as the expression of the divine will. With the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632, communication of the divine will to human beings ceased so that the terms of the divine revelation were henceforth fixed and immutable. When, therefore, the process of interpretation and expansion of this source material was held to be complete with the crystallization of the doctrine in the medieval legal manuals, Sharīʿah law became a rigid and static system. Unlike secular legal systems that grow out of society and change with the changing circumstances of society, Sharīʿah law was imposed upon society from above. In Islamic jurisprudence it is not society that molds and fashions the law but the law that precedes and controls society.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Shariah

Hmm, that's obviously a silly interpretation. Sharia may be considered rigid, but as with any religion, it's open to interpretation. It's not static.

Even a cursory example of states that operate Sharia law will show you different cultures. I'm sorry, but if you think Saudi Arabia and Iran, are operating under identical static legal systens, you need to look at where you messed up.

Can I ask you where you're getting your information from?

[Symmetry]

Sorry, bro, you'll have to try and stand up for yourself or slime out on this one.

It's your call, but for what it's worth, manning up may help you if you're willing to give it a try.

At any time you are welcome to explain your statement that a secular legal system should "recognize" an Islamic marriage. Or, you can choose to leave it as an incomprehensible, opaque assertion. Your call.

I'm gonna call you- gonna go all in.

If two people mutually decide to have their dispute settled by a private arbitrator acting on the basis of a personal, unofficial legal code they all happen to recognize (like Sharia, or Canon Law, or Law of the Jungle, or Mr Miyagi's Karate Rules, or whatever) I think that's fine.

But when I sue Metsfanmax for failing to SUCK IT, it's gonna be in the civil division of the Santa Barbara Superior Court.

And that's all I have to say.

Are you willing to stand up for yourself? Or do we have to watch you slip and slide around this stuff again?

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, bro, you'll have to try and stand up for yourself or slime out on this one.

It's your call, but for what it's worth, manning up may help you if you're willing to give it a try.

At any time you are welcome to explain your statement that a secular legal system should "recognize" an Islamic marriage. Or, you can choose to leave it as an incomprehensible, opaque assertion. Your call.

I'm gonna call you- gonna go all in.

If two people mutually decide to have their dispute settled by a private arbitrator acting on the basis of a personal, unofficial legal code they all happen to recognize (like Sharia, or Canon Law, or Law of the Jungle, or Mr Miyagi's Karate Rules, or whatever) I think that's fine.

But when I sue Metsfanmax for failing to SUCK IT, it's gonna be in the civil division of the Santa Barbara Superior Court.

And that's all I have to say.

Are you willing ti stand up for yourself? Or do we have to watch you slip and slide around this stuff again?

I honestly don't understand what you're asking me to do. I completely agree with saxitoxin, and I'm asking you to give me a reason to believe otherwise.

[Symmetry]

Sorry, bro, you'll have to try and stand up for yourself or slime out on this one.

It's your call, but for what it's worth, manning up may help you if you're willing to give it a try.

At any time you are welcome to explain your statement that a secular legal system should "recognize" an Islamic marriage. Or, you can choose to leave it as an incomprehensible, opaque assertion. Your call.

I'm gonna call you- gonna go all in.

If two people mutually decide to have their dispute settled by a private arbitrator acting on the basis of a personal, unofficial legal code they all happen to recognize (like Sharia, or Canon Law, or Law of the Jungle, or Mr Miyagi's Karate Rules, or whatever) I think that's fine.

But when I sue Metsfanmax for failing to SUCK IT, it's gonna be in the civil division of the Santa Barbara Superior Court.

And that's all I have to say.

Are you willing ti stand up for yourself? Or do we have to watch you slip and slide around this stuff again?

I honestly don't understand what you're asking me to do. I completely agree with saxitoxin, and I'm asking you to give me a reason to believe otherwise.

Mate, I'm very happy to leave things as they stand. Pushing this further seems a bit cruel

Bonsoir!