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.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In 1770s America Thomas Paine made an enormous contribution to the Great Experiment by publishing pamphlets like 'Common Sense'. What is a blog if not a 21st Century pamphlet? Within every six year election cycle we have opportunities for the peaceful turnover--revolution, if you will--of our governance.
RoP Stats
About Me
- turn
- Divorced father of school-aged kids. Retired from entertainment career which allowed much time to pursue myriad interests. Now work behind a desk.
News Sources
Right Hemisphere
- American Thinker
- Anti-idiotarian Rottweiler
- Are We Lumberjacks
- Atlas Shrugs
- Black Five
- Captain's Quarters
- Curmudgeonly and Skeptical
- Dr. Sanity
- Familly Security Matters
- Gates of Vienna
- In from the Cold
- Jihad Watch
- Kingdom of Chaos
- LGF
- Michelle Malkin
- MNM
- One Cosmos
- Opinion Journal WSJ
- Planck's Constant
- Redneck's Revenge
- Seeds and Hammers
- Sigmund, Carl and Alfred
- Steyn Online
- The Gathering Storm
- The Other Side
- The Outraged Spleen of Zion
- The Vigilant Freedom/910 Group
- Theo Spark
- TNOYF
- USA Partisan
- Villagers with Torches
- Weasel Zippers
Get a Cash Advance
1 comment:
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?
Post a Comment