Political views (not another war thread)

[flap]

I'm not really sure how you can be both a socialist and a nationalist.

[Pantso]

Scottish people are patriots not nationalists. Even if they are nationalists they have every right to be, since the English invaded and are still occupying their homeland! Much like what will go on with Irag in the following months. Only in that case they will call it "liberation".  

[flap]

I don't see the distinction between nationalism and patriotism. They're both as much the "opium of the masses" as religion, and equally as good a tool of leaders for coercing the populace into doing their bidding. Socialists should be above that kind of tribalism.

[Pantso]

Of course there are differences between the word "nationalist" and "patriot". At least in my native language, which btw gave birth to the word patriot, the difference is huge! A socialist CAN be a patriot but he cannot be a nationalist at the same time.

[flap]

My point is that I object to any sense of arbitrary collective identity such as nationality, so whether it's expressed through 'nationalism' or 'patriotism' I don't see one as being any less foolish than the other.

[Pantso]

You seem to have something against words of similar meaning.     No objection there.  

[Calum]

woah woah woah! it's a popular misconstruction that the 'Scottish Nationalist Party' are nationalists. The scottish nationalist party exist for one reason alone, and that's to get Scotland accepted as a nation state within the EU. They also do go on about a lot of other stuff, and i agree with most of it, but when it comes down to fundamentals, they start to really disagree with each other. i honestly think that when we finally get recognised as a nation state in europe, that there will be no real point in the scottish nationalist party (although they are doing a good job of being the opposition party in our devolved scottish parliament right now (scotland has its own parliament but all decisions must be okayed by england before they become law, you can see why i think scotland needs to be an independent state).
Anyway, the scottish nationalists are really badly named, since most of them, and certainly all the ones i agree with are not nationalists at all, in the true definition of the word. I am DEFINITELY not a nationalist, but i do agree with the scottish nationalist party's opinions usually, although you can't trust them all the time...

when it comes down to it, when the scottish nationalists and the scottish socialists disagree, i find myself agreeing with the socialists more to be honest.

ps: re: patriotism, i think i did go into this before but yes i am patriotic, but i think that blind patriotism is not good. I know that the scottish nationalists are not to be trusted, and i do not accept what they say without my own thoughts and criticisms coming into play. luckily, they make you think by being untrostworthy every now and again (sadly this stops them getting votes, mine included, i voted scottish socialist last time i was present for an election in scotland). patriotism and scottish nationalism are the same thing, but i think that nationalism in its more proper sense is more like elitism or perhaps racism (at a stretch) than patriotism.

[ March 24, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: literally X11 ]

[zoolooo]

quote:Originally posted by Siplus: *Capitalist*:

 homosexualism, whether it be male or female, is morally wrong in my mind

So, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I assume you have studied these things extensively, so I hope you can help.

Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

zooloo

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

[flap]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: literally X11:
The scottish nationalist party exist for one reason alone, and that's to get Scotland accepted as a nation state within the EU.

I'm not clear why you want Scotland accepted as a nation state?

[Calum]

because its people are totally different from the people of england. at the moment however scotland's presence in europe is pathetic. scotland has the same status as yorkshire, an outlying english county, and even within the 'united' kingdom, i suspect that yorkshire gets more consideration from the english government than scotland does.

england tries out new taxes on scotland, does all the dirty nuclear stuff (that the americans pay them to do) in scotland (the further away from london it is, the safer it must be), because they know the people of scotland don't want the english to be part of the same country, so the english just treat scotland like shit. plus the english sell scotland's oil off and spend the profits... on england! disgusting and pathetic.

not only that but the english are always saying no to things in europe when actually scotland would probably say yes (and vice versa). scotland has a voice of its own which nobody is currently listening to. scotland's voice deserves to be heard. the very fact that people cannot see the reason scotland should be independent shows that scotland needs to be able to make its voice be heard.

luxembourg has the status of a nation, belgium has  it, so do the netherlands (touchy issue, possibly), so why not scotland?

[flap]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say that the Scottish are "different" from the English.

I agree though that there is a danger of regions being ruled badly if their government feels indifference toward them, whether it be because their government is racist/nationalistic or simply because the seat of government is far away. But I don't see why that should be an question of nationality, it's just a pragmatic issue of granting enough autonomy to the different regions of a country.

[Calum]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can say that the Scottish are "different" from the English.

are you english? if so then i can see why you say that. england's economy is propped up by scotland's so it is easy to see why the english do not see the possibility of scotland becoming its own nation again (something that almost every other nation under the english heel in the time of the 'british' empire has been granted now)

 

quote:I agree though that there is a danger of regions being ruled badly if their government feels indifference toward them, whether it be because their government is racist/nationalistic or simply because the seat of government is far away. But I don't see why that should be an question of nationality, it's just a pragmatic issue of granting enough autonomy to the different regions of a country.

i disagree. scotland is a different country from england. the people there are scottish, the english are english. just the same as the difference between canadians and americans, or kiwis and australians. you might as well say you think that the whole of africa should still be part of the english empire! it should not because the people there are different. the history of scotland is different from the history of england, the social culture of scotland is intrinsically different from that of england. the differences are staggering and unparralelled by any other two nations in such close proximity anywhere in the world, except possibly germany and france. or maybe iran and iraq. well you get the point.

I know, being scottish and having lived in both scotland and england, the inherent differences between the two cultures, and i know, and hope, thet the two cultures will never mould into one single one. scotland has been anglicised enough thank you very much, and now we would like the english to give us our nation back.

it is purely down to fear that scotland is not independent already. england has made scotland's sheeple afraid of autonomy, and england is afraid that if scotland becomes independent that they will be denied access within scotlands borders (which is ludicrous, all EU citizens would have free passage!), and maybe they are more justifiably afraid of scotland's oil reserves no longer being under control of westminster.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by zoolooo:


So, when someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific Bible laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? She's 18 and starting University. Will the slave buyer continue to pay for her education by law?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? ....Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should this be a neighborhood improvement project?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? Would contact lenses help?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I assume you have studied these things extensively, so I hope you can help.

Thank you for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

zooloo

[ March 25, 2003: Message edited by: zoolooo ]

!  Isn't that a letter someone sent Dr. Laura?

[flap]

I really couldn't care less whether Scotland becomes independent or not. It makes absolutely no difference to me. I don't care if the UK is sold to France tomorrow and we all become French, if they'd make a good job of running things. And, no, I don't understand how Americans and Canadians are different, or how you can assign generalised characteristics to the population of a country.

Could you elaborate on the culture difference argument?

[Calum]

look. here's a tiny example of the difference between english people and scottish people.

you have put 'uk' as your location. to me this proves 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are english. no scottish person would put 'uk'. remember this is one tiny example. there are thousands upon thousands of tiny examples such as this one which go to make up a cultural difference huge enough to warrant scotland and england being seperate, equally weighted european states. scotland's voice and england's voice should be heard as seperate voices because they would often say different things if they were given a chance to.

i have nothing against the english people, but i do dispute the english government's inability to let go of scotland when it has let go of india, rhodesia, hong kong, most of the now united states, and many other countries and territories. I would even be happy if scotland were given commonwealth status like australia and canada, where they are independent nations who still theoretically come under the jurisdiction of the english queen (actually i would not be happy with that but it would be a damn site better than what we have now!)

but i find it difficult to elaborate any more than that about the differences and really i don't think you will see my point if you would not mind the french running england, because france and england have very different national personalities, and if you don't mind the cultural melting that that would involve, then i don't think you will see anything wrong with scotland's subjugation however i express my views.

also, every absolute is just asking to be challenged and found wanting. i am already kicking myself about saying no scot would say they were from the uk, there's an exception to every rule, and who knows, maybe you are that scot!

but anyway, that's the gist. i didn't mean different in a racist kind of a way, more in a culturally unique kind of way.