JamesHackerMP

I can't answer for our Canadian friends, but since no one has answered your question, I did not hear anything about Fixed-Term parliaments in Canada. Am I wrong guys? How did she manage to pull a snap election with a law on the books intended to prevent exactly that?

The problem with this theory is that they will not "step up and act in their own interest" just because they think they're on their own. The countries there will not cool things down. It's wishful thinking. Americans say exactly this thing all the time. We shouldn't be there, these people should take care of their own region, etc. If it were that simple America wouldn't have any cause to be there, wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on the region not just in war but in foreign aid.

Well the Chinese would like to think they created civilization. but I don't think there's any purpose arguing science with someone who believes in absolute creationism. If someone wants to think that man was planted on Earth like a geranium, always remember the expression about with whom one should never argue. Seriously, this thread in my opinion is getting a little silly. Au revoir.

However, TSS is right. go to Wikipedia and look up "Fiji".

That's true, Rue. Kind of like Catholics with the Pope, he's foreign too, and we don't give a damn. Besides, at least Canadian taxes don't go to the Crown (the Brits learned that one the hard way, cough-American-cough). Yeah, I mean, it's better they swoon over a Queen, who's pretty harmless, than a prime minister or an elected president. Not only that, if I understand what I have read about your Constitution then it makes sense to retain a monarchy. The downside is that, of course, that the GG will continue to be picked by the PM, which as I said, is a no-no in parliamentary democracy (if I understand the principle of it correctly). So a better solution would be to have the privy council as a whole recommend the appointment to the Queen rather than the PM alone. They could go through a crap-ton of resumes and narrow it down to one candidate for recommendation, or maybe several from which the Queen can choose. (And if you're afraid of the Queen choosing the wrong person, the Council can simply recommend one obvious candidate and several shitty ones. Kind of like a magician's conjuring trick--pick any card, you always pick the one the magician wanted you to pick.) Maybe, there could be a stipulation that the government members of the council would have to abstain so they cannot force their choice on the rest of them. I read your cabinet is sort of a sub-committee of the Privy Council so if they were there, you know? I know I voiced my opinion that an elected president would have greater independence from the government than a GG would, but this suggestion of mine might make sense. You could have the best of both worlds with a council appointment rather than an elected president. Have we mentioned the 1975 constitutional crisis in Australia? Maybe we did.

Also, what modern Christians do not understand is that the Old Testament is written by Jews. I don't know too many Christians who observe Jewish law. If you want to know the most accurate interpretation of the OT, why ask a Christian cleric? Wouldn't you be better served by asking a rabbi?

Actually, I was told the KJV makes some rather erroneous mistranslations. For example, it still says the RED SEA was parted. This is agreed by modern biblical scholars to be one of the worst mistranslations in the Bible. The children of Israel crossed the SEA OF REEDS not the Red Sea. But the mistranslation stuck. Catholics insist that the Challoner revision of the Douay-Reims version is the most accurate. They believe that St Jerome's Vulgate is more accurate because it was completed closer in time to the authorship of the original sources. More of them still existed at the time, and some of these languages were still at that time being spoken as "living" tongues, not dead languages, like Latin, Ancient Greek, etc. are today. And yet, the Protestants claim that that particular belief of the Catholics is B.S. I don't have the time to read that book, though thank you for citing it for me. However, I must point out that I am aware that the most conservative Christians in the US believe the KJV to be the only "uncorrupted" translation of the Bible. Needless to say, I am very skeptical of their claim. I admit there are Christians that are more widely-read by myself, but everybody has his/her own views on what is an uncorrupted translation. If I may ask, do you or Betsy speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic?

This may be a little off topic, but I think it illustrates the change in attitudes in America toward religion. This is a verbatim quote from the Declaration of Rights; the first and largest section of the Constitution of Maryland (1867, last amended 2012). Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come. So, you cannot be prohibited from being a juror or witness due to your religious belief IF you believe in God (in other words, atheists need not apply as jurors and witnesses in court). I would imagine it's OK for Jews to be witnesses or jurors, because it says "either in this world OR the world to come." (Since Jews do not believe in an afterlife; and it says "OR" and not "AND".) Probably it wouldn't prohibit Muslims, either, but I am not aware of any Muslims who participated in the 1867 constitution convention in Maryland. (Though I am aware of one Muslim in the House of Delegates.) Still, though.....wow.... However the only reason Article 36 has been retained is more out of symbolism than anything. In the election of 1970, voters approved the following amendment to Article 36: Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place. Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970). Which tells me, that attitudes in America toward religion have changed drastically. Religious "toleration" (or semi-toleration) is part of Maryland's early history, except for a couple of rather disagreeable periods, the longest from 1688 to the end of the Revolutionary War (about a century), when Catholicism was illegal. The majority of Americans believed that religious toleration didn't include atheists. Starting in the mid 20th century, that attitude began to change. Freedom of religion includes freedom to be an atheist if you want to be. I agree with this attitude. I do not see religion as in any way "under siege" in the U.S. The people who insist it is, those on the far-right, are typically those who have been scared into believing the hippies are going to one day rise up and slit the throats of all non-atheists. Fear tactics like that are great for keeping your followers loyal; and the left-wing leadership in this country does the same thing (one day the religious right will rise up and bayonet the throats of all liberals/progressive types.) And that's why I have so little patience for the politics of the far right and far left in this country. Betsy, there are plenty of right-wing, religious-based special interest groups in this country. They do plenty of lobbying on their own.

Possibly. Possibly not. The investigation is still ongoing--though the facts so far are in the very least "extremely suspicious" and at worst, damning.

Interesting. And do you do anything in your life that contradicts the scriptures? You seem to not take into account that different people have different opinions on what contradicts the scriptures. On page one you said "consistency throughout," if I read that correctly. Oh really? In Acts 1:18-19, Judas died from his stomach exploding. But in Matthew 27:5, he hanged himself. That sort of "consistency"?

Betsy, about thou shalt not kill: what about soldiers who defend our respective countries? Are they evil? Seems to me like there certainly is a bit of leeway and a need to "interpret" something, not just take it literally and absolutely. God doesn't always take the "short path" or make it easy, does He? You see what I mean now?

No, they're not. And yes, there are. Why else would there be so many Christian sects? (as I asked above) And, why would there be so many translations into the same language, if there weren't a little leeway? I'm curious as to why you started this thread if you think nothing in the Bible is open to interpretation.

Not to get off topic, but I don't think the KJV is the best translation if you want modern English and you're not a regular chuch-goer (who would already knot what it says). There's plenty of other translations about into English. I find it rather curious when someone says "I'll pray for you..." Kind of like they're trying to sound polite about something.

I think the breakup of the empire has little to do with Woodrow Wilson's demands. He wouldn't have made those demands if the empire could have continued to survive as before. I think you're looking at a causation fallacy.

Good one. Betsy, as with any religion there is leeway to interpret the Bible. You may not think so, but there are a plethora of Christian sects in the world; all of them disagreeing with each other on their interpretation of it. Part of the reason for this is that there are not really any 100% authoritative texts that exist. The oldest manuscripts, the ones considered the most accurate, are each a copy of a copy of a copy. This doesn't make the Christian message bullshit, but it does leave--as I said above--leeway for the interpretation of that message. And at the end of the day, it's a matter of faith.

I cannot agree with you that it was modern, progressive, civilized or federal; or that minorities were respected. Historical facts prove otherwise. Take the Crown Prince for example. Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Bosnia-Herzegovina, is sometimes portrayed as a progressive by some historians who aren't looking at the whole picture. He was no such thing. What he really was, was a reactionary who wanted German Austria to dominate the empire again. In 1867, the Hungarians won their piece of the pie. But did they share their power with the other repressed minorities or promote their causes? Hell no. They guarded their newly-won rights just as jealously as the Germans guarded theirs. F.F. was sick of the Hungarian element in the rule of the empire so he wanted to screw them over somehow. How do you do that? Simple: promote the rights of the other minorities of the empire--Serbs, Croats, Bohemians, Slovaks for instance. Give them a tiny piece of the pie each and it takes a crap-ton of power away from the Hungarian aristocracy. If the crown prince had become emperor, and had had his way, the Hungarian element in the empire's governance would have been squashed and the Germans back in sole control of the empire. In fact, he had a map drawn up to show how the empire could be a federal state, calling the scheme The United States of Great Austria. Again, it was all a ruse to screw the Hungarians and reassert Germanic control of the empire. Some progressivism! The empire might have been multi-ethnic, but as far as Vienna and Budapest were concerned, only two of those ethnicities had a manifest destiny to rule the rest of them. As for why it is no more, well, when you lose a war, all bets are off. Losing a war is disastrous to any body politic, especially a multiethnic powderkeg that was, essentially, an accident waiting to happen. The empire wasn't even really a single empire, and not just because of its multi-ethnic composition. It was divided into Transleithania (the Hungarian zone) and Cisleithania (the Austrian zone). The minorities of the empire had been divvied up between the two groups of elites (Germans and Magyars) without respect to those minorities' interests. In fact, to demonstrate how inefficiently governed it was, no Hapsburg subject ever carried such a thing as an "Austro-Hungarian" passport: those living in the Hungarian zone carried a Kingdom of Hungary passport; those in the Austrian, an Austrian imperial passport. There were two different treasury ministers. Two different prime ministers, two different cabinets. There were several "joint" ministers, but only for foreign affairs, war, and the part of the treasury that controlled the expenditure of the House of Hapsburg. As far as internal trade, a customs union between Austria and Hungary had to be renegotiated by the two parliaments every ten years. A state that is that disorganized won't survive the strains and stresses of global war. (Which I think answers your question...) A famous historian called the Holy Roman Empire "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." The Austro-Hungarian empire was neither entirely Austrian, nor entirely Hungarian, nor an empire; at least not like its Russian or German neighbors. All it took to collapse the house of cards was a slight gust of wind...

If you say so. I never said you hated us, just that you seem to have fallen into the trap that the US is this big monolithic bogeyman with Machiavellian designs on the rest of the human race.

well Betsy, it's called humour or levity, a concept seemingly alien to yourself. If you take things in the Bible literally, they will contradict.

Be that as it may, Mr Flanders hit the nail on the head.

As far as Australia, an Aussie president would not be one with large powers. They wouldn't go for that in a [former] commonwealth realm. Replacing the GG with an elected president would imply a parliamentary-style presidency; not an American-style president.

You know, I recall what Ned Flanders said on The Simpsons: "I believe in all parts of the Bible: even the contradictory ones. Just in case!"

But until the next election, the Canadian Govt has a lot of power---far more than the executive branch south of the 49th parallel. Elections don't always work to unseat tyrants, even in democratic countries. From what I have learned of the Canadian government, there is a hierarchy in the Commons that is far steeper than its counterpart in London. Good luck challenging the PM, either at the polls or within the party.

Hmmm, well that didn't play out that way in Fiji, did it?

Why not. Thanks. The prince-regent of which you speak was played by Hugh Laurie on "Blackadder the Third". Hilarious show.