Friday, February 8, 2008


From the beginning, law aka da rules, has been a means to keep peeps in line.

In the civilized West, the law has been constantly evolving and has progressed beyond religiosity. Western law is secular and rightfully so.

Some allowance can be made for local and/or religious custom. No one in the US could or would make a case out of the Amish punishment of shunning. Where is the harm?

But two entire sets of law within one nation, in which an individual may choose one or the other law on which to be judged?

'Sanity' is not a medical word--it is a legal term.

That the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, now advocates for Shari'a law in the UK is not simply insane. It is crazed.

1 comment:

dw said...

Well if we all have 'beliefs' as well as 'unalienable righs', something has to give. It is harmless to merely promote 'Islam' or 'socialism', yet a passive harmless person can initiate others to create a group that could grow in numbers enough to alter norms or cause violence.

Shunning is what would eliminate the Mexican invasion as well as preserve our culture and language. The Conquistadors will deport themselves if we all 'SHUNNED' them.

Shunning is the only term I have heard lately that represents our God given rights of association as well as property rights. Those rights alone are our peaceful, non violent tools for preserving what we have created out of a common good and common understanding and a common culture. BUT! We only shun until assimilation occurs and we openly denounce racism and race based discrimination. How could any people possibly be more peaceful, compassionate, tolerant or accepting than that? I mean if you consider the 'real world' we have in fact shown the world a 'Ne Jerusalem' but they don't want it. I wonder why?