Electoral Reform

[NuurAbSaal]

There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. There is a difference between being religious and zealotry or fanaticism. I can be a patriot, a libertarian, and still have Christian moral standards. The difference is that I don't seek to force anyone to live my beliefs. And, I would never seek to have the State implement and enforce laws for the stated reason of liberty, and for the secondary reason of the cost of enforcement. I can seek to discuss, argue, educate and enlighten people to my way of thinking, but I would never force anyone to pay for the enforcement, or live my morality by law. Anyhow, this is how I define Liberty.

I almost started a "gee thanks..." response, before realising this actually helped me understand your point of view a bit better. Even though I had made the distinctions you list myself, long ago:).

strippers

This probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in most European countries;)
While I don't see the clear relation between being happily married and not being allowed to look at, guessing, breasts, my girldfriend might hold different views. I would be annoyed at the obvious risk this adds to driving. Distraction ftl.

I desire all people to be free to live as they desire within the boundaries of what is defined in law as a civil society. But, if we encroach on liberty with excessive taxation, laws, and government for the governors, then we succumb to the shackles of the state.

We can totally agree on that part.

I cherish the freedoms defined within the US Constitution, for me and my children. So much so, that I would be willing to die to defend them from usurpation or dilution. This is patriotism. But, I don't believe my nation is better than another's. That is nationalism.

A solid distinction, in my opinion. I still don't "get" patriotism, to be honest. But I admit to being generally confused on issues/topics like this one. I'd describe myself as a happy cynic and cultural pessimist, to give you a glimpse of my state of mind at the moment.

There are Christian kooks and there are Muslim kooks. But, the news is now filled with many more Muslim kooks these days. And, comparatively, I don't recall Christian militants beheading anyone lately, or sending their people strapped with bombs into crowds. While, the Muslim kooks are reaching into the very souls of nations and telling their peoples and government to watch out or they will incite their adherents to intifada or jihad. It's not that Muslim = terrorist, just that Muslim might = terrorist. Maybe not today, but maybe next week. The problems in France for example are partly a social justice issue, but also a Muslim issue.

Pointing at the obvious: IRA and ETA. While ETA bombings are clearly politically motivated, they are carried out by Christians. Spain qualifies as being hardcore religious in my book.

About Islam as a violent religion:
I should finally get off my butt and inform myself about it. From my, still uninformed, point of view Islam (islamistic cultures/governments) lack a couple of hundred years of development, let's not forget that the catholic church used to be a merciless slaughtering behemoth for hundreds of years.

Also the lack of a figure comparable to Jesus, who, in my interpretatin, turned around the rather bloodthirsty "theme" of the Old Testament into something completely different might be a factor. As an atheist I'm speculating again though. Damn, I'm really uninformed...

While the teachings of Christ certainly did not stop the church from cheerfully committing mass-murder in his name, somewhere along the line change happened.

And if you don't mind I'd rather drop the topic, or at least the confrontational part of it (if there was any...), before I get stomped by Pete for mouthing off about issues I clearly have no idea about:).

take care
Tarabulus

EDIT: a couple of "hundert", right...