Jesus Akbar

Jesus Akbar

Recently a Yale theologian, Miroslav Volf, came to a Christian school, Lipscomb University, and talked about how Islam and Christianity can live in harmony and respect. He is part of a new industry in America, Christians constructing beautiful lies about Islam. Fundamentally, he says that we all worship the same god.

Volf says, "one of the best ways for people of different faiths to get along is to study their scriptures together."

If we want to get along, then looking at looking at scriptures is indeed a most excellent way to get to know each other. The problem is that the only scripture Volf wants to study is the Koran. Any time that someone wants to explain Islam by the Koran, you are dealing with someone who is ignorant or a deceiver.

The Koran proclaims in 91 verses that every Muslim is to model their life after the example (Sunna) of Mohammed, but the Sunna of Mohammed is found only in the Sira and the Hadith. The Koran is only 14% of the Islamic sacred texts. Mohammed, not Allah, is 86% of the textual doctrine. Volf, however, ignores Mohammed and only wants to talk about Allah. There is a very good reason for this. Allah is so conveniently abstract that he can construct his Allah-equals-the-Trinity-god by cherry-picking verses and muddle through as if he were in a dormitory philosophy bull session.

While Volf is comparing scriptures, he should point out that the Koran says that Jesus of the Bible is a fraud and that the Gospels, Psalms and Torah are corrupt. That inconvenient Koranic detail was not mentioned.

Volf ignores a 1400 year history of Islam and Christianity and all other religions. The jihad doctrine found in the Koran is the foundation for the murder of 270 million Kafirs (non-Muslims, including Christians). He also ignores the over 18,000 Islamic terror attacks since September 11, 2001. Why refer to a 1400 year history of continuous persecution if it gets in the way of your arguments? What are ugly facts in the face of a beautiful lie?

Volf: Two faiths, worshipping the same God, can work toward the common good under a single government.

Hello, the only government that Allah wants is the Sharia. The place for Christianity and Judaism in the Sharia is as the dhimmi, a semi-slave. History is very clear that when the Sharia is put into place, Christianity dies. It takes centuries, but Christianity is annihilated. Christianity can survive Communism and Nazism, but it cannot survive the Sharia. When Islam invaded what is now Turkey and installed Sharia, it was 100% Christian. Here is a graph of what Sharia law did to the Christian population.

Volf : Allah offers a constructive way forward by reversing the "our God vs. their God" premise that destroys bridges between neighbors and nations, magnifies fears, and creates strife.

Mohammed, the prophet of Allah, did not just destroy bridges, he destroyed civilizations. Mohammed attacked each and every neighbor until the day he died. That is the Sunna of Mohammed (perfect example of a sacred life). After he died, his Companions (Abu Baker, Umar and Uthman) followed his Sunna just as he demonstrated, and they killed Christians as fast as they could and placed them under Sharia law as dhimmis. By the time the Companion caliphs died, they had destroyed the classical civilization of the Greeks and Romans that was the matrix of Christianity. The classical church in the Middle East with its incredible variety of Christianity was annihilated by Mohammed and his personal students of jihad. The Christianity of today is a stump of the Christianity of the year 630 AD when jihad began. Whole forms of early Christianity were annihilated by Islamic jihad.

And the Koran spoke wonderfully of Mohammed's jihad. In the Koran written in Medina, about 24% is devoted to "fighting in Allah's cause", jihad.

Volf said, "Faith is often misused for political ends, which frequently leads to violence."

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years and garnered 150 converts. After he turned to politics and jihad and when he died every Arab was a Muslim. It was politics and jihad which made him successful.

The moral demand on Muslims is to practice jihad, deceive Kafirs and impose Sharia law. Islamic morality is dualistic. Islamic ethics have one set of rules for Muslims and a second set of rules for Kafirs. Ethics based on the Golden Rule have only one set of rules.

Thick spirituality, Volf said, is faith combined with morality, which treats all people as equal in God's sight.

Yet we have Allah who hates Kafirs and who does not have a Golden Rule. Only the Golden Rule makes people equal in God's sight. Allah denies the Golden Rule. Go ahead, plow through the Koran and find the Golden Rule. Do the same for the Sira and the Hadith. No, the way Mohammed treated you depended upon who you are. A Muslim is treated well, and a Kafir is treated to murder, rape, enslavement and deceit.

A religion of the Golden Rule can lead to peace. A religion of jihad and political Sharia leads to war. Islam will not admit to any fault or take any credit for 270,000,000 dead over the last 1400 years. Look at Islamic Turkey—Turkish Muslims murdered a million Armenians in 20th century, but will not admit to this annihilation and genocide.

Lipscomb professor David Fleer, one of the conference organizers, said that Volf's experiences in Yugoslavia and his scholarship made him the perfect speaker to address how religion and reconciliation intersect. "He set forth the theological foundation for us," Fleer said.

Exactly why is this man an expert? An expert is made only by studying the Sira, Hadith, Koran and Sharia—not his zip code. There is one, and only one criteria for being expert on Islam—knowledge about Allah and Mohammed. Volf only talks about Allah.

But the real tragedy is that a religion professor thinks that Volf's inventions are a solid foundation. Contemporary Christian and Jewish theology has become mere philosophy and has its foundation in Leftist social justice doctrine, not scriptures.

Volf said one of the keys to people of different faiths getting along is for each side to admit that those of other faiths are real members of the community. "It's not just creating space for them physically," he said. "You have to create space for them in your own cultural self-perception."

But Islam insists that Kafirs are not part of the umma (Islamic community) which is pure Islamic doctrine. There are 11 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not even the friend of a Kafir, much less a member of the community.

Islam comes into our civilization and demands the political Sharia. Notice that the accommodation is that we submit to the political Sharia and we have to create a space for it in our culture. And the political Sharia has a definite space for the Kafir, called dhimmi. What is disgusting is that Volf makes submitting to political Sharia seem like a blessing to us and our country.

There is a certain class consciousness in the article, Volf's Yale elitism is all over the copy. Why is it that the elites are such believers? Why do those who understand the threat of Islam and Sharia called "haters" by the media? The elites control the venue. There is no space in the print media, except for Islam and its apologists. The knowledgeable opposition never gets to debate, is never invited to the party. The elites have ruled that the only views that are legal are Muslims and apologists. Those who disagree are immoral bigots and Islamophobes.

Here is the final test of the "we-all-worship-the-same-god" school of theology. What was the last time that a Christian yelled, "Jesus Akbar" before he blew himself up? What was the last time that a Muslim yelled, "Allahu Akbar", before he murdered a Kafir?

Sure, all gods are the same.

 

---

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: Join YAL for Happy Hour on Thursday!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Corey Hubbard - YAL
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012
Subject: Join YAL for Happy Hour on Thursday!
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com

Join Young Americans for Liberty for happy hour this Thursday @ 6 p.m.! As always, we can promise food and drink specials, pool tables, and an awesome (and attractive) pro-liberty crowd!  As a special bonus, this time we're partnering with Liberty on the Rocks! Here are the details: WHEN:  Thursday, June 21 from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. WHERE:  Mad Rose Tavern, across the street from the Clarendon Metro Station in Arlington (map) WHO:  You -- and any friends you want to bring! WHAT:  Happy hour food and drink specials and lots of fun! HOW MUCH: FREE to attend; no cover charge We hope to see you there!  RSVP and learn more on Facebook here.   You are receiving this email because you subscribed to the Young Americans for Liberty website. Unsubscribe majors.bruce@gmail.com | Update your profile

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Secession Solution

And today,  as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to maintain the definition of marriage,  homosexuals are still guaranteed those same identical rights that you and I have.  Nothing's changed, other than North Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than I have, or that you have, because of their behavior.

 

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

North Carolina did nothing that was
discriminatory toward a class of people.  This was not an action
against a
religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
---
homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
the blacks

This was a
referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
---
their beliefs, reliious or not,  have no effects on the courts
decisions



On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well said Mark.
>
> We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers such as
> Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that was
> discriminatory toward a class of people.  This was not an action against a
> religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.  This was a
> referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define marriage.
> I see no other alternative.  The militant Gays and those that have been
> brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right"  need to be
> quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment...
> > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass
> > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > issue.
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > byChris Bassil
> > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North Carolina
> > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay marriage,
> > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by voters.
> > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the former
> > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of this
> > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else.
> > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this
> > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather that we
> > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of
> > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay
> > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that the
> > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of business,
> > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for collective
> > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common denominator
> > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's opinions,
> > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory though
> > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties to
> > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as
> > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity to lead
> > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to the
> > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the
> > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of freedom
> > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast has been
> > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a heterogeneous group
> > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows this to
> > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely
> > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical beliefs,
> > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact same
> > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence,
> > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also implies our
> > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all solutions to
> > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different
> > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for the
> > vote.)
> > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however,
> > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them better
> > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of the
> > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous
> > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the largest
> > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the smaller,
> > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek noted
> > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic process.
> > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the fact that
> > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in view and
> > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which the
> > existing states constitute."
> > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision making
> > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom now seem
> > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the state and
> > their fellow citizens.
> > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 is
> > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties that voted
> > against the amendment are all home to major universities:
> > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters have
> > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but at
> > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of their
> > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by the
> > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist interpretation
> > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral
> > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the graphics
> > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns -- and
> > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, educational, and
> > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of Hayek, as
> > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of democracy as a
> > process of collective decision making.
> > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they
> > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of college-going
> > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual testament
> > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to the
> > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and belief
> > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case,
> > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight of, it
> > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is clearly
> > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a
> > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better and not
> > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than those who
> > live in more rural areas.
> > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd different
> > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be enough to
> > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. Furthermore,
> > those living in city or college-town settings will be drawn toward
> > different programs than those who are not, and will often be incentivized
> > toward different behaviors and solutions. To lump these varying locales
> > together and put matters to a statewide vote, then -- in which every
> > personal preference, history, character trait, and bias becomes a variable
> > -- is something of an absurd version of "apples to oranges." Each city
> > voter attempts to impose his personal standards, goals, and solutions on
> > each voter from the outskirts, and vice versa. Each voter holds the entire
> > population of North Carolina to his own subjective, personal values scale,
> > with the result that 9.7 million of them end up unable to fulfill each
> > other's aims.
> > > This is one of the fundamental problems that Hoppe addresses
> > inDemocracy: The God That Failed. In relation to the question of
> > immigration, Hoppe makes a point that is well-taken here as well:Secession
> > solves this problem, by letting smaller territories each have their own
> > admission standards and determine independently with whom they will
> > associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate
> > from a distance.Hoppe's assumption is, of course, that large states bound
> > by democratic processes are unable, by virtue of the heterogeneity of their
> > populations, to reach uniform conclusions that please everyone. The
> > populations, then, would actually be better served by splitting themselves
> > into a series of smaller populations, in order that any methodology of
> > collective decision making might better approach the true will of the
> > citizens.
> > > As units of decision making get smaller and smaller, the variability
> > between these increasingly small states is likely to rise, and the varied
> > interests of a collection of diverse populations are increasingly better
> > served. "Secession," Hoppe elaborates, "increases ethnic, linguistic,
> > religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have
> > stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures." And, so long as citizens are
> > able to "vote with their feet," these increases in diversity actually put
> > pressure on communities to fashion themselves (and their policies, marriage
> > related or otherwise) in as appealing a manner as possible.
> > > There is a caveat that must be recognized here, and that is that, under
> > such systems of decentralized decision making, policies such as Amendment 1
> > would undoubtedly come to pass in many communities. It is true that,
> > without the constant threat of forceful intervention by state and federal
> > governments, certain communities might choose not to
>

> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: More United Nations Stupidity.

Now you see what fools we have to deal with .
---
few foreigners want to assimilate

On Jun 18, 12:06 pm, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *I should have noted that the bill was passed by the Liberal Party that now
> forms the government.
>
> It should also be noted that the Provence of Quebec is the only
> jurisdiction of it`s size in a democracy that has NO significant
> conservative minded party. There is one member who represents a sort of
> kind of rightish party.
>
> It has a long history of radical leftist politics. And it is a bit of a
> badge of office to be arrested in a protest that one needs to rise in
> politics.
>
> One member who has been arrested, along with his daughter, who is a muslim
> marxist (!). He is best known for going on one of those stupid flotillas to
> "Palistine". And for leading protests against a small family owned shoe
> store for having the nerve to sell shoes made in Israel. In a city where
> appx, 20% of the population is Jewish....LOL
>
> Now you see what fools we have to deal with .
>
> Bear
>
> *
> On 18 June 2012 12:24, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > socialist liberals will limit free speech and the right of assembly
> > and association if given the opportunity.
> > canada should resist these efforts with determination.
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:10 am, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > **
> > >  UN calls Quebec's Bill 78 alarming
>
> > >    - <
> >http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/un-calls-quebecs-bill-78-alarming-1>
>
> > >    -
>
> > >    -
> > >    -
> > >    <
> >http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/un-calls-quebecs-bill-78-alarming-1#>
> > >    -
> > >    <
> >http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/un-calls-quebecs-bill-78-alarming-1#>
>
> > >    [image: UN calls Quebec's Bill 78 alarming]
>
> > > The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has singled out
> > > Quebec's Bill 78 for criticism.
>
> > > Navi Pillay spoke out about the special law in her opening address at the
> > > UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, Monday morning.
>
> > > In a speech of five single-spaced pages, Quebec was mentioned in two
> > lines:
>
> > > "Moves to restrict freedom of assembly in many parts of the world are
> > > alarming," Pillay said.
> > >  "In the context of student protests, I am disappointed by the new
> > > legislation passed in Quebec that restricts their rights to freedom of
> > > association and of peaceful assembly.
>
> > > In the speech, Pillay also touched on many human rights hotspots around
> > the
> > > world including Syria, Mali, Nepal, Mexico and Russia.
>
> > > A UN watchdog group called UN watch issued a statement calling the
> > > reference to Quebec absurd.
>
> > > It pointed out that Bill 78 was passed by a democratically elected
> > > government and that opponents have the opportunity to challenge it in
> > > court.
>
> > > Student federations in Quebec have filed a legal motion to temporarily
> > > suspend the special law until July, when a court is expected to hear the
> > > groups' second legal challenge seeking to declare the law invalid.
>
> > > Executive director of UN Watch, Hillel Neuer, told the CBC he understands
> > > that there are issues about Bill 78 but said it shouldn't be a matter of
> > > urgent United Nations attention.
>
> > > "Let's keep some perspective," he said. "In Syria, there are people who
> > > demonstrate and get slaughtered. In Canada, legislation says you have to
> > > give police notice of the route you're taking."
>
> > > The group also said there are far more restrictive countries that Pillay
> > > failed to mention, including Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China.
>
> > > Bill 78 was the Quebec government's legal response to a student crisis
> > > sparked three months ago over planned tuition increases.
>
> > > It suspended the winter semester for striking students, and imposeds
> > strict
> > > limits on their protests, with restrictions guiding location, timing, and
> > > organization.
>
> > > Authorities had to be given a precise itinerary and eight hours' notice
> > for
> > > any protest involving 50 people or more, at the risk of heavy fines
> > running
> > > into the thousands of dollars.
>
> > >  1EE3A35F58E553A95E0F9EC3CDFD0.jpg
> > > 5KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Secession Solution

North Carolina did nothing that was
discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action
against a
religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.
---
homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and
the blacks

This was a
referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
---
their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts
decisions



On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well said Mark.
>
> We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers such as
> Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that was
> discriminatory toward a class of people.  This was not an action against a
> religious group, or a class of people such as blacks.  This was a
> referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North
> Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs.
>
> At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define marriage.
> I see no other alternative.  The militant Gays and those that have been
> brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right"  need to be
> quashed and shut down on this issue.
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th Amendment...
> > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral compass
> > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the
> > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give them
> > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well
> > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic
> > issue.
>
> > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012
> > > byChris Bassil
> > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North Carolina
> > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay marriage,
> > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed by voters.
> > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, the former
> > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but much of this
> > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything else.
> > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that this
> > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but rather that we
> > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means of
> > collective decision making in the first place.
> > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue of gay
> > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes that the
> > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of business,
> > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for collective
> > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common denominator
> > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's opinions,
> > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and contradictory though
> > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 counties to
> > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining seven as
> > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the opportunity to lead
> > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit.
> > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local to the
> > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, the
> > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss of freedom
> > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been cast has been
> > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a heterogeneous group
> > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting shows this to
> > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were entirely
> > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our identical beliefs,
> > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact same
> > actions and conclusions. The vote, by virtue of its own existence,
> > therefore implies our heterogeneity. On the other hand, it also implies our
> > search for -- or perhaps toleration of -- one-size-fits-all solutions to
> > our varied and diverse problems. (If we were content with different
> > solutions for different people, again, there would not be a need for the
> > vote.)
> > > As local backlash to the Amendment 1 decision has shown, however,
> > one-size-fits-all solutions tend to fit the mobs that instate them better
> > than the minorities that reject them. Put otherwise, the outcome of the
> > recent vote is not actually a uniform solution for the heterogeneous
> > population of North Carolina. It is a uniform solution for the largest
> > homogeneous community within that population, by which all of the smaller,
> > subordinate populations will henceforth be made to abide.
> > > The tension arising from this arrangement, as Friedrich Hayek noted
> > inThe Constitution of Liberty, is fundamental to the democratic process.
> > "The current theory of democracy," Hayek wrote, "suffers from the fact that
> > it is usually developed with some ideal homogeneous community in view and
> > then applied to the very imperfect and often arbitrary units which the
> > existing states constitute."
> > > Both the imperfection and arbitrariness of state-level decision making
> > have revealed themselves to progressive voters here, many of whom now seem
> > to be eager to distance themselves as much as possible from the state and
> > their fellow citizens.
> > > Take, for example, their observation that support for Amendment 1 is
> > inversely related to level of education, and that those counties that voted
> > against the amendment are all home to major universities:
> > > It is, of course, difficult to say exactly why it is that voters have
> > taken to invoking these relationships and sharing these images, but at
> > least some of them have done so as an assertion of the validity of their
> > position. In theirappeal to authorityrepresented, in this case, by the
> > ivory tower -- those who promote this intellectually elitist interpretation
> > of the outcome concern themselves too much with their own moral
> > superiority. In so doing, they overlook the true stories that the graphics
> > shown above tell, and the ways in which the depicted voting patterns -- and
> > their reality of an electorate fractured along religious, educational, and
> > socioeconomic lines -- crystallize the aforementioned ideas of Hayek, as
> > well as those of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, on the shortcomings of democracy as a
> > process of collective decision making.
> > > In other words, the above graphics are valuable, not because they
> > provide insight into the progressive voting tendencies of college-going
> > young people, but rather because they serve as a strong, visual testament
> > to the heterogeneity of North Carolina's (voting) population, and to the
> > ways in which a spectrum of varying backgrounds, upbringings, and belief
> > systems influence individuals toward differing -- and, in this case,
> > opposing -- conclusions. Although this point is easy to lose sight of, it
> > should have been obvious even without the graphic: after all, it is clearly
> > likely that, in many cases, those who live in close proximity to a
> > university may make decisionsdifferently-- not necessarily better and not
> > necessarily worse, both being subjective moral valuations -- than those who
> > live in more rural areas.
> > > For one thing, the presence of a universityattractsa crowd different
> > from the one drawn to the rural areas; this fact alone should be enough to
> > tell us that these two populations may not see eye to eye. Furthermore,
> > those living in city or college-town settings will be drawn toward
> > different programs than those who are not, and will often be incentivized
> > toward different behaviors and solutions. To lump these varying locales
> > together and put matters to a statewide vote, then -- in which every
> > personal preference, history, character trait, and bias becomes a variable
> > -- is something of an absurd version of "apples to oranges." Each city
> > voter attempts to impose his personal standards, goals, and solutions on
> > each voter from the outskirts, and vice versa. Each voter holds the entire
> > population of North Carolina to his own subjective, personal values scale,
> > with the result that 9.7 million of them end up unable to fulfill each
> > other's aims.
> > > This is one of the fundamental problems that Hoppe addresses
> > inDemocracy: The God That Failed. In relation to the question of
> > immigration, Hoppe makes a point that is well-taken here as well:Secession
> > solves this problem, by letting smaller territories each have their own
> > admission standards and determine independently with whom they will
> > associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate
> > from a distance.Hoppe's assumption is, of course, that large states bound
> > by democratic processes are unable, by virtue of the heterogeneity of their
> > populations, to reach uniform conclusions that please everyone. The
> > populations, then, would actually be better served by splitting themselves
> > into a series of smaller populations, in order that any methodology of
> > collective decision making might better approach the true will of the
> > citizens.
> > > As units of decision making get smaller and smaller, the variability
> > between these increasingly small states is likely to rise, and the varied
> > interests of a collection of diverse populations are increasingly better
> > served. "Secession," Hoppe elaborates, "increases ethnic, linguistic,
> > religious, and cultural diversity, while centuries of centralization have
> > stamped out hundreds of distinct cultures." And, so long as citizens are
> > able to "vote with their feet," these increases in diversity actually put
> > pressure on communities to fashion themselves (and their policies, marriage
> > related or otherwise) in as appealing a manner as possible.
> > > There is a caveat that must be recognized here, and that is that, under
> > such systems of decentralized decision making, policies such as Amendment 1
> > would undoubtedly come to pass in many communities. It is true that,
> > without the constant threat of forceful intervention by state and federal
> > governments, certain communities might choose not to
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.