"The crux of the Cantor-Goodlatte position is that, in March 1995, if only the Congress had sent a federal balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, all of their congressional overspending, their lack of personal and institutional principle, their paucity of restraint, their blatant inability to comprehend basic economics, their obsession for power over the less worthy, their obscene vote selling and incessant influence whoring -- all of these sins would have been washed away, instantly and permanently.
"The whole debate is moot, because it has been demonstrated from the beginning that Congress has never met a law that it couldn't ignore, modify, or break, starting with the original Constitution."
Cut, Cap and Balance: A Chicken Tale
by Karen Kwiatkowski
It is hilarious to observe the most recent preening and fluffing behavior of the national bird in Washington. No, it's not the bald eagle, or the alleged choice of Ben Franklin, the survival-oriented wild turkey.
The national bird of the federal government, wholly dependent upon a system that feeds it, conveyor-belt style, all the precious fruit of the shrinking American working class it can eat, is the chicken.
And not just any chicken, mind you. The federal government, the elected class in particular, is like the chicken grown in the poultry houses all over the Shenandoah Valley and beyond. These guys and gals look all grown up, but are amazingly immature, inexperienced and ill-informed about the real world. They spend their entire lives closely shielded from the outside world, exposed to little more than others like themselves, with a water drip they take for granted, and a never-empty all-you-can-eat free lunch dispenser. These helpless yet blissfully unaware chickens are a testament to the predictable tendencies of applied central planning, and they are the perfect icon for the government of the United States of America today.
They start out running and chirping, but before a few months pass, these guys are crippled by their own weight. By design, these chickens must be harvested early, before they die of heart failure, or fall down and never get up, trampled and pecked to death by their compadres.
Welcome to the Congress of the United States, analogy courtesy of Purdue, Tyson, and Pilgrim's Pride.
The latest spectacle of the chickens who run our country comes from the so-called conservatives in the House – who are currently pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to "balance the federal budget," as part of a " Cut, Cap and Balance" package that doesn't cut, raises the borrowing cap, and continues the ongoing and unsustainable imbalance in government spending. Little of what these Congressmen are doing today, or have been doing for the past twenty years has been even remotely constitutional, so it isn't clear why amending the Constitution is ever necessary. Most Congressmen haven't completely read it, don't understand what they did read, and believe it is a prop best used during election campaigns. Most don't believe it is the law or binding in any way on their votes and actions.
One side of the Janus-state – the so-called left side, is angry that the Cut, Cap and Balance may interfere with their political base and agendas, while failing to raise tax collections on that part of the country that they do not claim. The so-called right side of the Janus-state believes that as long as defense spending for the corporate empire is nurtured, preserved and expanded, their proposal will appear "conservative" and be welcomed as titillating foreplay for the November elections.
It seems like they take us all for fools, but as usual it is the genuflecting Congress and the emperor who are fooling themselves. While the United States as a functional value has been calmly downgraded (again!) to a C-minus and Americans rapidly seek alternative home bases, passports, ways of making a living off payroll and out of sight, conservatives recall the "glory days" of 1994 and 1995, and as the strutting feather-headed duo of Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte proclaim, it might have been so different, if only.
The crux of the Cantor-Goodlatte position is that, in March 1995, if only the Congress had sent a federal balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, all of their congressional overspending, their lack of personal and institutional principle, their paucity of restraint, their blatant inability to comprehend basic economics, their obsession for power over the less worthy, their obscene vote selling and incessant influence whoring -- all of these sins would have been washed away, instantly and permanently.
The whole debate is moot, because it has been demonstrated from the beginning that Congress has never met a law that it couldn't ignore, modify, or break, starting with the original Constitution.
It is also moot because these congressmen assume that ¾ of the several states would approve such a balanced budget amendment, then, now, or in the future. The states well understand their fundamental relationship to the federal government, that unwritten law of federalism. States exist to bring home the goodies, ideally paid for by other states or by a collective accumulation of shared debt owed by future voters and future taxpayers, again mostly residing in other states. The very idea of a demand to pay the federal bill in a given fiscal year (even 18 months later, as the proposed language has it, allowing time to "measure" the GDP) would be simultaneously laughable and repulsive to state governors and to the people, because they intuitively understand that it would mean both fewer goodies and higher taxation, for the wealthier states first and eventually for even the poorest and smallest of states.
The states would overwhelmingly reject this amendment, even if it had teeth and claws, which it does not. This proposal is the rohypnol in the Constitutional martini, following the tradition of federal government boorishness of the 16th Amendment and the 1973 War Powers Act. Cap, Cut and Balance should be nicknamed the Roofie Amendment.
Given that most prudent states would immediately just say no, I can envision a contrarian movement among some states to consider the risk and actively support the Balanced Budget Amendment. Counting on staying competitive for business and productivity as people flee ever more federally "owned" states, certain governors might support the Roofie Amendment in order to eventually weaken the DC loyalists and set the stage for real secession. North Dakota, with its questionable legal statehood status may want to go slow in correcting their constitution. A balanced budget amendment, if passed, would bring economic slavery to the more federally integrated states of the union, and place North Dakota in a super-cool position of pre-existing independence from Washington. Republic of Texas flag wavers, Hawaiian revolutionaries, and Vermont secessionists, take note!
American states, of course, cannot print their own money. A smaller group of states, with interests in allowing alternative hard currencies, or even those with a tradition of creative community currencies, might join with the hopeful independents in supporting a Balanced Budget Amendment as a means to ultimate monetary freedom from D.C. Utah's sound money movement and upstate New York community business vouchers, gold and silver holders everywhere, upon ratification of a Balanced Budget Amendment, would become even more valuable, reasonable, popular, and useful.
There are many ways to critique and chuckle at the proposals by Cantor and Goodlatte to somehow rein in federal spending by making a law, but there is one staring God-awful gap in the proposed amendment. No version of the law, past or present, deals with or even mentions the existence and processes of bank of the federal government, the Federal Reserve. For the liars in Washington, D.C., both on the left and right, this failure to address the Federal Reserve is a very good thing. Running out of money? We'll "do you a favor" and print more!
In 1994, the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was the bank's Bifrons. Feared and powerful, moving corpses here and there, scaring all the chickens. It is unthinkable that a balanced budget amendment in 1994 would have addressed the Fed. Only Ron Paul, writing of gold and liberty and transparency, boldly spoke of the Bifrons, then and now. Today, a less impressive Bifrons exists, and Dr. Paul chairs the financial services subcommittee. He routinely takes on the corpse carrier – but still, Cantor and Goodlatte and the rest of the chicken-hearted, bird-brained "conservatives" in Congress cannot bring themselves to address the Fed in the language of the Cut, Cap and Balance Amendment.
Our feathered friends in Congress do enjoy their water drip and their never-ending free lunch. There is a solution, and it starts by not listening to dim-witted chickens trying to buy you one more drink before the bar closes. End the Fed and its interest rate fixing, repeal the 16th Amendment, repeal the 17th Amendment, bring the troops home, end the empire. Start with just these things, and watch the country's economy and its attitude soar, the young delighted that they actually have a hopeful and peaceful future, the old embraced and cared for, the middle generations employed and empowered. In parts and pieces, we can take back our country, and most of us will survive when the empire ends. I find myself oddly reminded of Hoover's purported campaign promise, and FDR's four freedoms. I, too, see chicken on the menu.
http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski271.html
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
It's All the Republicans' Fault
"But this will not happen, because the Republicans have absolutely no interest in cutting government. These are the clowns who nearly doubled it when they had the presidency in the 1980s and increased it by over half during the Bush years. They love big government about as much as the Democrats."
It's All the Republicans' Fault
by Anthony Gregory
If the debt limit is once again raised, guaranteeing more crazed deficit spending regardless of any promises accompanying the deal, blame should fall squarely on the Republicans.
The GOP controls the House of Representatives. They command the federal purse strings. Nothing can force them to raise the debt ceiling. There is no justification for raising it under any circumstances. Default is a perfectly valid option, discouraging lenders from continuing to enable Washington's gluttonous and destructive spending. Or the government can simply cut $1.6 trillion for the next fiscal year and operate according to its revenues.
The House Republicans can easily tell Obama: "We refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Period. Now let's sit down and talk about what to cut." And no matter what the president does, the House leadership can refuse to pay for his expensive programs. It is that simple.
Of course, the Republicans would need to propose real spending cuts -- not tens of billions or even hundreds of billions but over a trillion. The U.S. could go back to its penny-pinching budget of 2002. You know, back in the horse-and-buggy days of nine years ago, when the federal government remarkably managed to survive on a mere two trillion annually.
This could be done. Or the Republicans could say: "Let's slash all military-related spending by half, means-test Social Security and Medicare, cut the bureaucracy of every single department by 50%. It's either that or nothing. We refuse to vote to raise the debt limit."
But this will not happen, because the Republicans have absolutely no interest in cutting government. These are the clowns who nearly doubled it when they had the presidency in the 1980s and increased it by over half during the Bush years. They love big government about as much as the Democrats.
How else can we explain their failure simply to refuse to increase the debt limit? They won the 2010 midterm elections on an anti-government mandate. At least, that's what they claim. Indeed, a new Gallup poll indicates significant public support against raising the debt limit: "Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure."
The Republicans could marshal this public opposition to business as usual for a major political payoff, but instead they agree with the Democrats that the limit must be raised or else hell will break loose. In the end their major interest is in advancing the power and size of the state. As with the TARP bailout, they will ultimately demonstrate neither the will nor desire to stand with the public against fiscal insanity. Instead, we get the same old nonsense: Promises to balance the budget years from now, which has no relevance because Congress can only determine one year's spending at a time.
In particular, the Republican trick this time around is "Cut, Cap, and Balance." As Lew Rockwell notes, when Ron Paul, libertarians, or regular people talk about "cuts," they mean actual reductions in the budget compared to last year. Is this what most Republicans mean when they sign onto this? It's impossible to trust them.
Consider the substance of this scheme. We are to believe that some petty cuts and "enforceable" caps on future spending, combined with a Balanced Budget Amendment, are going to stop a catastrophe that has been in the making for decades, one that doesn't even touch on the many trillions in unfunded liabilities that will come to the forefront in future generations. Meanwhile, the bloated and growing military budget won't be touched at all.
A Balanced Budget Amendment is actually a bad idea. It is a potential excuse to raise taxes, despite any requirement of supermajorities needed to do it, and something that can't be passed without support from three-fourths of the state legislatures anyway. How can something contingent upon such a major process be a bargaining demand for a debt ceiling that has to be raised in the next couple weeks? This is all a smokescreen.
Twenty years ago, Congress thoroughly debated this stuff. It was clear the trainwreck would come. The Democrats did nothing. The Republicans did nothing. The GOP had Congress in the 1990s and did nothing. They had the presidency and Congress for a few years and again did nothing.
Actually, that's not accurate. When the Republicans ran the whole show they did plenty – way too much. After years of pleading for a chance to run the White House and Congress, they proved themselves spendthrifts across the board. Even before the excuse of 9/11, the Bush administration was readying its multi-trillion-dollar expansion of Medicare and vast expansion of the Department of Education. Under Bush, the Republicans voted to raise the debt limit over a dozen times. To say Republicans spend money like drunken sailors insults sailors and greatly exaggerates the effect of alcohol on financial judgment.
At least we are seeing the myth of gridlock, one of the last fallacies of democratic politics that libertarians tend to believe, come unglued. Eventually the two sides will come to a deal that will be bad for every normal American, concocted with one purpose alone: to give politicians on both sides of the aisle a way to win votes from their constituents. This economic crisis that should turn everyone away from electoral politics altogether and encourage a mass exodus from both parties will instead be spun to excite the base of both parties. From the deep state's point of view, higher voter turnout and strengthened partisan loyalties, along with more celebration for the prospect of partisan cooperation to move the country forward, are the best possible outcomes of a financial calamity that should instead turn all of society against the state.
Even if the Republicans were to draw a line in the sand and refuse to raise the limit while demanding a trillion and a half in cuts, it would be too little, too late, and they would not deserve the support of anyone seriously interested in limited government. But they won't even do that.
Don't be distracted by Republican schemes and sleights of hand. They are not victims of an unstoppable Democratic establishment or a public opposed to cutting spending. Their talk about a debt ceiling compromise attached to some meaningless vows to cut spending in the future should be dismissed outright. They need only to refuse to raise the debt limit and go from there. No matter what happens, they run the House of Representatives and could stop the spending any time they want. Any continuation of the unspeakable profligacy that has defined the Obama era must be blamed on the Republicans.
http://www.republicansforimpeachment.com/politics/4207/
It's All the Republicans' Fault
by Anthony Gregory
If the debt limit is once again raised, guaranteeing more crazed deficit spending regardless of any promises accompanying the deal, blame should fall squarely on the Republicans.
The GOP controls the House of Representatives. They command the federal purse strings. Nothing can force them to raise the debt ceiling. There is no justification for raising it under any circumstances. Default is a perfectly valid option, discouraging lenders from continuing to enable Washington's gluttonous and destructive spending. Or the government can simply cut $1.6 trillion for the next fiscal year and operate according to its revenues.
The House Republicans can easily tell Obama: "We refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Period. Now let's sit down and talk about what to cut." And no matter what the president does, the House leadership can refuse to pay for his expensive programs. It is that simple.
Of course, the Republicans would need to propose real spending cuts -- not tens of billions or even hundreds of billions but over a trillion. The U.S. could go back to its penny-pinching budget of 2002. You know, back in the horse-and-buggy days of nine years ago, when the federal government remarkably managed to survive on a mere two trillion annually.
This could be done. Or the Republicans could say: "Let's slash all military-related spending by half, means-test Social Security and Medicare, cut the bureaucracy of every single department by 50%. It's either that or nothing. We refuse to vote to raise the debt limit."
But this will not happen, because the Republicans have absolutely no interest in cutting government. These are the clowns who nearly doubled it when they had the presidency in the 1980s and increased it by over half during the Bush years. They love big government about as much as the Democrats.
How else can we explain their failure simply to refuse to increase the debt limit? They won the 2010 midterm elections on an anti-government mandate. At least, that's what they claim. Indeed, a new Gallup poll indicates significant public support against raising the debt limit: "Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure."
The Republicans could marshal this public opposition to business as usual for a major political payoff, but instead they agree with the Democrats that the limit must be raised or else hell will break loose. In the end their major interest is in advancing the power and size of the state. As with the TARP bailout, they will ultimately demonstrate neither the will nor desire to stand with the public against fiscal insanity. Instead, we get the same old nonsense: Promises to balance the budget years from now, which has no relevance because Congress can only determine one year's spending at a time.
In particular, the Republican trick this time around is "Cut, Cap, and Balance." As Lew Rockwell notes, when Ron Paul, libertarians, or regular people talk about "cuts," they mean actual reductions in the budget compared to last year. Is this what most Republicans mean when they sign onto this? It's impossible to trust them.
Consider the substance of this scheme. We are to believe that some petty cuts and "enforceable" caps on future spending, combined with a Balanced Budget Amendment, are going to stop a catastrophe that has been in the making for decades, one that doesn't even touch on the many trillions in unfunded liabilities that will come to the forefront in future generations. Meanwhile, the bloated and growing military budget won't be touched at all.
A Balanced Budget Amendment is actually a bad idea. It is a potential excuse to raise taxes, despite any requirement of supermajorities needed to do it, and something that can't be passed without support from three-fourths of the state legislatures anyway. How can something contingent upon such a major process be a bargaining demand for a debt ceiling that has to be raised in the next couple weeks? This is all a smokescreen.
Twenty years ago, Congress thoroughly debated this stuff. It was clear the trainwreck would come. The Democrats did nothing. The Republicans did nothing. The GOP had Congress in the 1990s and did nothing. They had the presidency and Congress for a few years and again did nothing.
Actually, that's not accurate. When the Republicans ran the whole show they did plenty – way too much. After years of pleading for a chance to run the White House and Congress, they proved themselves spendthrifts across the board. Even before the excuse of 9/11, the Bush administration was readying its multi-trillion-dollar expansion of Medicare and vast expansion of the Department of Education. Under Bush, the Republicans voted to raise the debt limit over a dozen times. To say Republicans spend money like drunken sailors insults sailors and greatly exaggerates the effect of alcohol on financial judgment.
At least we are seeing the myth of gridlock, one of the last fallacies of democratic politics that libertarians tend to believe, come unglued. Eventually the two sides will come to a deal that will be bad for every normal American, concocted with one purpose alone: to give politicians on both sides of the aisle a way to win votes from their constituents. This economic crisis that should turn everyone away from electoral politics altogether and encourage a mass exodus from both parties will instead be spun to excite the base of both parties. From the deep state's point of view, higher voter turnout and strengthened partisan loyalties, along with more celebration for the prospect of partisan cooperation to move the country forward, are the best possible outcomes of a financial calamity that should instead turn all of society against the state.
Even if the Republicans were to draw a line in the sand and refuse to raise the limit while demanding a trillion and a half in cuts, it would be too little, too late, and they would not deserve the support of anyone seriously interested in limited government. But they won't even do that.
Don't be distracted by Republican schemes and sleights of hand. They are not victims of an unstoppable Democratic establishment or a public opposed to cutting spending. Their talk about a debt ceiling compromise attached to some meaningless vows to cut spending in the future should be dismissed outright. They need only to refuse to raise the debt limit and go from there. No matter what happens, they run the House of Representatives and could stop the spending any time they want. Any continuation of the unspeakable profligacy that has defined the Obama era must be blamed on the Republicans.
http://www.republicansforimpeachment.com/politics/4207/
**JP** Pakistan's Sovereignty For Sale , Dollars, Drones and Development
By Jalees Hazir | July 17, 2011 "The Nation" -- -Last week, the United States of America threatened to hold back some $800 million it owes Pakistan in military aid. The move was aimed at pressurising Pakistan, or more specifically the defence and intelligence apparatus of the country, to unquestioningly execute plans and strategies prepared at the Pentagon and CIA and to start blindly obeying orders from Washington DC. To add to the pressure and give more teeth to this openly belligerent no-holds-barred US policy, the IMF also decided to further delay the release of its billion-dollar no-good loan instalments. From Afghanistan, the US-led NATO allies continued to send regular gifts of drones that attack our tribal belt with missiles and kill innocent Pakistanis. Lately, they have made it convenient for militant hordes to attack our security check posts and villages in FATA. Surely, these are no ordinary problems between two allies but signs of open hostility. The question is: Is it possible to reconcile the differences between the two countries? And more importantly, are we ready to defend ourselves? Against the backdrop of this heightened bullying by the doomed superpower, the never-ending rounds of meetings between the defence and intelligence top brass of the two so-called allies intensified, and according to latest reports, the two sides have decided to mend fences. Nothing official has been forthcoming about the agreements reached in the meetings if any. Even the information attributed to unnamed officials only talks about the points of disagreement. Yet, the impression created by these reports is that the two sides have managed to iron out some differences. As a proof of progress, the US would start releasing the funds that it had earlier threatened to withhold. In the absence of any authentic information regarding the rules of cooperation agreed upon in these meetings, it is difficult to say how long the precarious and superficial peace between the two sides would last. And given the essential divergence in the way the two sides would like to sort out the Afghanistan mess, it is not bound to last very long. Those arguing for a continuation of this roller-coaster relationship like to talk about the tensions between the two countries as if they were issues between a married couple. They say that the spouses will continue to bicker, but divorce is not a possibility. They say the two countries are indispensable to each other and, therefore, it is imperative that they find a way to reconcile their conflicting positions. The US needs Pakistan's cooperation to ensure a favourable end to the deathly game it has been playing in Afghanistan for a decade and Pakistan cannot be on the wrong side of the sole superpower that sponsors its civilian government and military operations with its dollars, they say. Actually, this is not a fair assessment of the relationship that was obviously not made in heaven. While the US is clearly dependent on Pakistan to fulfil its hegemonic designs in the region, notions about Pakistan's dependence on the global bully are exaggerated. When it becomes obvious that the continuation of a marriage would result in murder, a divorce is the only option. |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
What Gilligan’s Island Was Really About
What Gilligan's Island Was Really About
July 18, 2011 by Jeffrey Tucker
The creator of Gillgan's Island, Sherwood Schwartz, died last week, and the Washington Post asked Paul Cantor for his own interpretation of the television series, since Professor Cantor had written an entire book on the subject. The result is hilarious and interesting. Substitute the word Democracy for Freedom and we are getting somewhere.
xxx
What 'Gilligan's Island' creator Sherwood Schwartz was saying about democracy
By Paul A. Cantor, Published: July 15
Sherwood Schwartz, who died Tuesday at the age of 94 , will not be remembered as one of television's innovative geniuses. But he did create two of the most popular shows in TV history, "Gilligan's Island" and "The Brady Bunch." And he did something rare: He made people laugh, even in reruns.
But what did the sitcom king have in common with the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville? Answer: They both were interested in democracy in America.
In 2001, I published a book called "Gilligan Unbound: Pop Culture in the Age of Globalization." I wrote that "Gilligan's Island" reflected the political confidence of 1960s America in the midst of the Cold War. A representative group of Americans could be dropped anywhere on the planet and they would rule, creating a small-scale model of U.S. democracy and fending off a sampling of its enemies, from Soviet cosmonauts to a Japanese soldierstill fighting World War II to a Latin American dictator.
Gilligan is the perfect democratic hero because he has no claims to superiority. The Professor has wisdom; the Millionaire has money and social status; the Skipper has a kind of military authority as captain. Gilligan is the pure common man. And, of course, the only time the castaways hold an election, he is chosen as president. Throughout the series, Gilligan represents the triumph of the ordinary over the extraordinary.
Schwartz learned about my book and wrote to me to get a copy. He explained that he had always thought of "Gilligan's Island" as a show about democracy. His favorite episode, he said, was the one about the exiled dictator "because it's the most meaningful" and demonstrates how democracy can go wrong. He was particularly proud of the "dream sequence in which Gilligan realizes he's simply a puppet dictator of the real dictator."
Much to my gratification, Schwartz said all this before reading my book. Academics like me are always accused of just making up our interpretations. But mine was being confirmed by the highest authority the writer himself.
Once Schwartz had read the book, he wrote me another long letter explaining that it had always bothered him that people criticized "Gilligan's Island" for being silly; they didn't understand it, he said. "Not a single critic got it, with the basic concept of democracy staring them right in the face." He viewed my book as a vindication of his work: "I never thought I'd see the day when an English Professor of some note would use 'Gilligan's Island' as one of four pillars on which rest the liberal democratic view of the recent past in America."
I wrote back, thanking him for taking time out of his busy Hollywood schedule to correspond with me. I added: "I've written three whole books on Shakespeare and Mr. Big Shot Elizabethan Playwright won't even give me a call." It's not a great idea to trade jokes with a comedy writer, but I hope I gave Schwartz a chuckle.
In my correspondence with him, I was struck by his intelligence, his learning and his seriousness of purpose. Above all, he clearly knew what he was doing in "Gilligan's Island" and could articulate the thinking behind it.
Most people would never guess it, but maybe, of all the characters on the desert isle, Sherwood Schwartz was closest to the Professor. At least this professor thinks so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-gilligans-island-creator-sherwood-schwartz-was-saying-about-democracy/2011/07/14/gIQAVVrXGI_story.html
**JP** Follow the Islamic way to save the world,
From: hope4m@ 'Follow the Islamic way to save the world,' Prince Charles urges environmentalistsBy Rebecca EnglishLast updated at 1:46 AM on 10th June 2010 Prince Charles yesterday urged the world to follow Islamic 'spiritual principles' in order to protect the environment. In an hour-long speech, the heir to the throne argued that man's destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions - but particularly those of Islam. He said the current 'division' between man and nature had been caused not just by industrialisation, but also by our attitude to the environment - which goes against the grain of 'sacred traditions'.  Outspoken: Prince Charles speaks to Islamic studies scholars at Oxford. He argued that man's destruction of the world was particularly contrary to IslamThe prince was speaking to an audience of scholars at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies - which attempts to encourage a better understanding of the culture and civilisation of the religion. His speech, merging religion with his other favourite subject, the environment, marked the 25th anniversary of the organisation, of which he is patron. He added: 'The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason - and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us. 'Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.'  Bored: Not everyone in the audience was as interested as Prince Charles though Impressive setting: Charles spoke at Oxford University's Sheldonian Theatreولي عهد بريطانيا يطالب دول العالم بالاقتداء بتعاليم الإسلام للحفاظ على البيئة أثار امتداح الأمير تشارلز، ولي عهد بريطانيا، لتعاليم الدين الإسلامي والقرآن الكريم، حفيظة بعض الكتّاب البريطانيين، حتى وصفه البعض بأنه مسلم ولكنه يُخفي إسلامه. هذه الحكمة يحجبها الاتجاه المهيمن للمادية الغربية
|
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)