JamesHackerMP

mbs? I very much doubt that a devout Catholic would have engaged in "progressive claptrap". Also, other than the conservationist bent in Tolkien, there isn't too much that I see as progressive. Or really reactionary for that matter. It's not meant to be political. I was just musing about the Shire's government above; not because I thought it was his intent in writing it, but because it just reminded me of that. Geeze.

Right. That's another good point, Wilber. Again, the FF's did not have some fatalistic "just in case" mentality about overthrowing their own product. It was meant to prevent it from happening in the first place, and they didn't say anything about letting people have whatever arms they wanted even if it was antithetical to public safety. The state militias (today called the National Guard) are a minority of the military manpower, which is just what the FF's were afraid of. And I don't see the proliferation of private arms as helping that situation.

One of my favorite lines is how the Sty (Shire) was divided into "farthings, half-farthings, and Indian-head nickels." (Nickel is the American word for 5-cent piece for those that aren't familiar; and they used to have an Indian guy on the obverse.) I also love "to the last battle at Ribroast [Fornost] with the Slumlord of Borax [witch King of Angmar], they sent some snipers, but whom they sided with is unclear." Love it! There's a recent reprinting of Bored of the Rings with a new "forward" by Frito Bugger. LOTR is also on Le Monde's list of 100 most influential books of the 20th century. I think the main theme of the Ring is power. Listen to how Tolkien describes the "addiction" people get by wearing a great ring for too long. At first, they toy with the idea of giving it up to someone else, early on. After a while, it grows on their mind. Then they cannot give it up. It's just like Tolkien is speaking of the addictive characteristics of POWER.

Can you clarify what you mean by your last sentence?

Is there anywhere specifically I can find out more about the subject of the development of parliamentary democracy? It's a subject that has always fascinated me. Though I have never written a book or think I really could write one, maybe I ought to try. As I understand it, George I couldn't speak English and needed a proxy to command his legislative agenda in parliament. Or something like that. So he chose the First Lord of the Treasury to be his parliamentary liaison, and the position developed from that. I may of course have that wrong...

I dont want to get into a "who's better" argument, but despite the politicization of the Supreme Court and some of the federal courts, there's at least a balance of power between the executive and legislative in picking the justices. Not a very perfect one, hell no. But especially when there is a Senate of one party and a president of the other, it requires compromise. The government of the day cannot always get its way. I really can't see another way of doing it, other than the present formula of the executive appoints and the Senate approves/rejects.

I found that I had started this thread all this time ago. I recently (like last year) finished the book once and for all. Now I'm re-reading it. Anyone else love it to death? I also found Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings. Hilarious. Have any of you seen that one? It's a funny as **** parody of LOTR written in the late 60s or early 70s. In the beginning it says "He would finished off Goddam [Gollum] right there, but pity stayed his hand....yes, said Dildo, it's a pity I've run out of bullets." Tolkien obviously borrowed heavily from other sources. They all do that in literature. In the Hobbit, the thing about the dragon guarding the treasure; that's straight out of Beowulf. Heck, look at all the crap Shakespeare more or less shamelessly plagiarized from other sources. Nothing wrong with that! There are other brilliant works of literature that are influenced by others. As I hinted above, Tolkien's Shire is non-cosmopolitan, agricultural, and most of their lives is spent making food and eating it, making ale and drinking it, growing pipe weed and smoking it (and, likely, going to the outhouse and throwing up from eating, drinking and smoking too much). The king is gone, so there's no real government as such, except for the post office and a small, informal security force that mostly makes sure that outsiders don't make a nuisance of themselves. The mayor of Michel Delving mostly presides at banquets, and little more. People govern themselves in peace and agricultural prosperity. Family values and very little government. What more could a Republican (or Libertarian) of Middle Earth ask for?

Right. Dictatorships typically happen gradually. Hitler didn't dismantle the Weimar Republic instantly; it was a long time in coming, plus things like that don't happen overnight. I read that there were a lot of arms in Iraq, is that true? Could be because of the Iran-Iraq War? (don't want to get off topic though) And they didn't manage to overthrow the Ba'athist regime.

I'm curious as to why a lot of foreigners think authoritarian tendencies in democracies are limited to the United States.

Most people, whether Americans or not, get the 2nd Amendment wrong. Within the United States, both sides of the spectrum also get it wrong. This is because we have allowed the NRA to set the debate, so all positions both for and against the second amendment tend to follow their preferred language. (The opponents in this country and abroad simply add "what a horrible idea" to it, but they're still following the wrong reasoning.) The NRA argument is thus: the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so that, if the U.S. government were to become tyrannical, the people--using their privately-owned firearms--could overthrow the government and establish a new one that would re-assert their rights and liberties. If we take away all privately-owned firearms, or even some of them, they say, it will gradually turn the U.S. government into a dictatorship. What the members of the first Congress REALLY intended was this. They believed putting a large, standing army into the hands of the federal government was a bad idea. It was antithetical to liberty, they reasoned, to have a centralized army like that. Instead, maintain and arm the state militias. Should there be an emergency that requires the army to assemble, the bulk of its manpower will come from the state militias. Congress at any time can call the units of the state militias (today called the national guard) into the service of the United States. The only way to have state militias was to allow the people to stay armed, so when it was called up, they'd have their own arms. (Other arms like field artillery would of course be government-funded, I'll go out on a limb and assume that few Americans at the time owned their own cannon.) The federal and state governments at the time were more minimalist; taxation was much lower (there was no payroll "income tax" at all) so they didn't want to have to pay for everyone's musket or rifle. It made sense to have armed private citizens if you were going to place the bulk of America's manpower in the hands of the states. The founding fathers did not, however, assume that "just in case the government becomes tyrannical, we'll need to overthrow it so let the people have arms." That's complete b.s. No government has ever planted within its founding document the seeds of its own eventual destruction. That's a ridiculous idea. Rather than the NRA's assumed "just in case", the founders came up with a way to make sure that didn't happen to begin with: keep the manpower out of the hands of the feds, period. That way, it can't GET tyrannical in the first place! Up to the second world war, this model of placing most of the manpower in the states was used. It was the necessities of the second world war and the cold war which followed, that required a standing armed forces in a way that would have startled the founders. The second amendment was a great idea. It's just a pity that most peoples' interpretation of the second amendment is so incredibly off the target.

Well, the crux of my argument, "can religion & science co-exist"?, assumes that it's not just a bunch of baseless ancient superstitions or as you put it, "Upstart mythologies". I'm not asking you to agree with me, but that was the OP. (Though I'm not trying to get dictatorial on you and tell you what to post, don't get me wrong.)

Will we ever have the brain power to fully comprehend the universe? We certainly don't now!

There is a lot in the Bible, particularly the old testament, that is complete nonsense if you take it literally. This is one reason you cannot "mix" them together. To treat the bible as if it were a scientific text turns it into trash. For example, the lack of sufficient gene pool from just Adam and Eve, or the animals that were on the Ark, or the fact that you couldn't fit all the animals into an ark 300 cubits wide (or however big they say the damn thing was); turning Mrs Lot into a pillar of salt, (need I go on?) Nothing in the bible can support science, either. Because if you try to make it support science it will again fall short of the mark. I think Betsy tried to "prove" in another thread that the bible supports science. That's also nonsensical; especially because it was not written directly by God but by his followers who knew nothing of modern science. Nor was it intended to one day support science. Because, again, when you try to do that it doesn't quite do the trick.

Funny someone else hasn't shown up...but of course, I don't want to jinx it. Thought it would be right up their alley.

Science doesn't contain a moral guide. Like in Jurassic Park, Dr Malcolm warns the scientists "You were so concerned with if you COULD do it, you didn't stop to consider if you SHOULD." It's amoral, not moral or immoral. That is where the two realms are separate. Nothing against atheists. And a lot of scientists are atheists. Then again, a lot of people who reject science are likewise single-minded in their thinking, and reject science. Why is it so unacceptable to both crowds to reject the other? That of course, doesn't take into account secular humanism, of course, which is a moral guide in itself. But there has to be something more than science in the universe and in our concept of it, just as there ought to be something more than religion. Absolutes are not a good thing. Such as statement as I just made will, naturally, not satisfy either side, which I realize. But I stand by it nonetheless.

You mean like the president of Germany? Remind me: exactly what does your GG have the power to do? And what doesn't she have the power to do? I know the Crown (i.e., the GG in fact) has the power to sign legislation (but not veto it) to dissolve and convene parliament, etc. I figured it was basically the same powers as the Queen has in the UK, but maybe I am wrong?

Existence of God cannot be a scientific fact. That's why it's a matter of faith, not science, that God exists.

Ah, I stand corrected. That is rather strange....

Shogun, by James Clavell.

Altai, what the hell are you getting at? I'm left clueless as to your point, due to your hateful ranting.

That happens in a lot of countries Not that that excuses it of course, but I dont see why you're singling out the US for that. What are the stats for that in Turkey?

I understand your reasons in the first paragraph; but the idea of the maritime provinces, or the west, or all of the rump state of Canada, joining the States is pure fantasy. You have a completely different form of government than we do. There is no way either Americans or the ex-Canadians would ever "compromise" on their own uniqueness to form a union between states of a parliamentary government and those of a presidential one. Yeah McGeorge Bundy was a whacko, wasn't he? There was a book where it happened, about a long-buried "North America Treaty" of 1914, in which, for the sum of one billion dollars, the United States bought Canada from the UK, so it would have more money to prosecute the war. Both copies of the treaty were lost, so Pres. Wilson wrote to Lloyd George and told him, never mind, it wasn't worth the trouble of re-negotiating. Flash forward to 1980s, and Quebec is seceding from Canada (the movement was agitated/instigated by the KGB of course) and there was an energy crisis in the midst, and Canada eventually breaks up once the treaty's original copy is found. Quebec becomes its own republic. It was a great read but I find it doubtful it would ever happen. I would never want to see Canada sacrifice its uniqueness and cease to be Canada just to suit a long-dead ambition of absorbing our separated brothers to the north. Canada would most likely become like Pakistan after the independence of the Indian Empire. (Remember how there was an East Pakistan, now Bangladesh?) https://www.amazon.com/Night-Probe-Dirk-Pitt-Adventure/dp/0553394924/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539062984&sr=8-1&keywords=night+probe&dpID=51K%2Bo8GixaL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch I read about the 1970 crisis, a UK diplomat was killed as well as Quebec's deputy premier. (It was actually a random article on Wikipedia "on this day in....")

Well, can they? The OT (old testament) of the Christian Bible (or Jewish tanakh if you prefer) is full of ancient traditions---I avoid calling them "myths" because they're not myths in the literal sense of the word---like Noah's Ark, the creation story (two of them actually), the expulsion from paradise, and many others. Today, most Christians (or Jews) think of these traditions as presenting a greater picture of some sort. Like in the NT (new testament) when Jesus wishes to illustrate a point He tells a parable of some sort. (There are good reasons for Christians to normally avoid the OT when they search for this bigger picture, but that's a different topic.) I'm concentrating more on the Christian Bible, including the OT (the Jewish testament, if you will) due to the fact that I haven't read more than the first three surahs of the Qur'an, and no other religious texts (like Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) My view, personally, is that religion and science can co-exist perfectly well IF you keep them separated. To draw religion into science causes one to ignore many scientific truths/facts and will only hold back scientific progress. To bring science into religion causes the nullification of a great deal of religious beliefs, and brings about a similar result. What results, effectively, is a "Mutually Assured Destruction" of science and religion caused by trying to combine them. To put it in scientific terms, it's like matter coming into contact with anti-matter: the result is the annihilation of both materials (and a rather large, destructive surge of energy in the process). Most thinking Christians today realize this problem. My copy of the Bible actually contains a footnote on the creation story: ...There is nothing in these early chapters that commits us to any particular scientific view of the world or man, or that would exclude the evolution hypothesis. I wish to point out that this particular bible was published in the 1950s. It is considered to be one of the more moderate to conservative translations (revised standard version). Yet for some reason, more fundamentalist Christians take the view, even these days, that what's in the Bible is not only literal truth, but applicable to science as well as spiritual matters. To me, this is dangerous. Nothing in the Bible is meant to support or refute science; nothing in science is meant to support or to refute what's in our religious texts, particularly the Bible. If you can follow that simple rule, if you can contain religion and science within separate containers as you would with a particle of matter and one of antimatter, then neither can be dangerous to the other. Neither will contradict the other. Neither will intrude upon the other's teachings. It would, in effect, be a better world in which religion and science cannot be brought within the same container to annihilate each other. Scientists would not feel under threat from religious fanatics, and we wouldn't have things like creationism in our schools. Religious people, just the same, would not feel that their lifestyles and beliefs are somehow "under threat" from science. This kind of paranoia should be a thing of the past. I realize this isn't exactly going to satisfy the scientist or the theologian, the conservative or the liberal. So be it. Thoughts?

would it matter if they left?

Canada, I read, pays nothing to maintain the royal family, if that's what you were talking about. I also read no Canadian taxes go to the UK. (I guess the poms learned their lesson the hard way with the Americans, lol). I take it then that you would rather have a mostly-ceremonial president of Canada, than a GG? One you elect rather than is appointed by the PM's fiat? Many commonwealth countries have gone this route. T&T springs to mind. Also, if you need the 7/50 requirement, couldn't that theoretically be done without Quebec's consent? Like, if the rest of the country met the requirement, couldn't they just tell Quebec to suck it up and live with it?