Conference back40::soapbox

	Rational as ever.  Agree with you 100%, Heiko.

	Diane

    Re .0:
    
    > (a) they are being put on a very high pedestal.
    
    As are Newton or Einstein or others who made advances.  Newton made
    advances in the sciences for which he deserves a pedestal.  Science has
    changed in ways Newton did not think of, yet this does not diminish
    Newton's accomplishments.  Similarly, the founders of the United States
    made great advancements in government and freedom, and continuing
    evolution since then does not diminish their accomplishments.
    
    > (b) they are used and IMHO frequently misused for
    > proofs-by-authority. The FF said/meant this and that, thus it	   
    > is correct.
    
    Whereas in the sciences we are bound by the laws of nature, and hence
    human authority is not greater than natural authority, in the matter of
    law the government is bound by its Constitution, and the authority on
    the meaning of that Constitution is its authors.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    a) In what way do you think mankind has changed since the days of the
    founding fathers?
    
    b) I think you need to provide examples of misuse of their words for
    "proof by authority." One must suppose that the tenets upon which this
    country was based, the Constitution which delineated the premises upon
    which this country was founded, and the beliefs which guided the
    founding fathers to be best expressed by the founding fathers
    themselves. So if your point is that you wish to ignore parts of the
    Constitution that you don't agree with, then nothing further need be
    said. If you think that we can consider the rules to be changed by
    virtue of "changing society" without making the effort to codify the
    new rules, then you are beggin us to subscribe to the chaos form of
    government. 
    
     My point is that when we get down to Constitutional arguments, if we
    cannot rely on what the writers said, then there's really no point in
    having a Constitution (which to many would be preferred, allowing for
    easier oppression and suppression of alternative philosophies.)
    
     So, Heiko, why don't you just explain what you're going on about.

       Well, to start with, the beloved and revered founding fathers
       figured it was ok if women couldn't vote or if people who didn't
       own land couldn't vote.  And they also figured that, in terms of
       proportional representation, a black man might count as 60% of a
       white man, depending on whether or not the former is a slave.
       
       So, how do you go about determining which of the FF's quaint ideas 
       were a bit misguided, and which of their ideas are the Bulwarks
       Upon Which This Great Country Is Built?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    There's error detection and correction built into the system.
    That, perhaps, was the greatest work of the FFs. The Constitution
    has been amended many times, even within our own generation.

    While the perception may be that many want strict adherence to the
    ideals of the FF, what we really want is strict adherence to the
    document itself. We acknowledge that the Constitution is a living
    document and that the FFs could not possibly have gotten
    everything right.

    If you were being intellectually honest about it, you would
    admit that trying to suggest otherwise is just another underhanded
    attempt to paint Constitutional Conservatives as the stupid
    backwards numskulls you would like us to be (so that we would
    not be so arrogant as to challenge your ideas.) That way, we
    would not so obviously tax your own abilities.

    -b

ZZ   a black man might count as 60% of a
ZZ         white man, depending on whether or not the former is a slave.
    
    Mr. Topaz:
    
    While I certainly agree with you on that point, I'd be very interested
    to know how you feel about gerrymandering of political districts and
    also how you feel or felt about Lani Guinier...considering she was just
    as bad in her philosophies on the other side of the spectrum of our
    FFs.
    
    -Jack

    Well, I'm of the mind that they may have had the right idea with
    regards to only property owners having a vote (please note that I am
    not a property owner, so there is no secret agenda here).  This would
    have eliminated the current situation of people voting themselves more
    money from the government (i.e. the American people) coffers.  It would
    also eliminate the critters who work to increase funding for these
    programs to get the welfare vote.
    
    Of course, it is my NSHO that federal welfare, in itself, is
    unconstitutional, so this *should* be a non-issue.
    
    As far as putting the FF on a pedestal, they are the authors of the law
    of our land.  When studying/arguing constitutional issues, it is
    necessary to read their comments on the subject, for proper intent.
    SCOTUS uses precedent to rule on cases, knowing that the closer you get
    to the source of the original intent, the better you can rule on a
    given issue.  This parallels my intent when quoting FF on
    constitutional issues.
    
    
    -steve

       re .6:
       
       Jack, while I'll account for your perverse and twisted screed by
       assuming that you may have inadvertently taken a double dose of
       your medication today (rather than wondering if you have a fixation
       on lithe African-American women), I would want to point out to you
       that Lani Guinier has about as much in common with the topic of
       Founding Fathers as she does with, say, train travel in Nepal.
       
       With all due respect (viz., virtually none), I recommend that you
       either work at whatever menial tasks you have been assigned, or,
       if Soapbox is to command your ill-fated efforts at paying
       attention, that you confine yourself to those innocuous,
       petting-zoo-type topics where you'll not stand out quite so much.
       
       Your pal,
       
       --Mr Topaz

	Steve, boy, do you rate! You have your own topic! :-)

>    Well, I'm of the mind that they may have had the right idea with
>    regards to only property owners having a vote (please note that I am
>    not a property owner, so there is no secret agenda here).  This would
>    have eliminated the current situation of people voting themselves more
>    money from the government (i.e. the American people) coffers.

What makes you think that said property owners wouldn't vote themselves perqs?

    The Constitution is supposed to protect against the "tyranny of the
    majority" by guaranteeing people certain rights.  But then, law tends
    to be a law unto itself....

    >Similarly, the founders of the United States made great advancements in 
    >government and freedom, and continuing
    >evolution since then does not diminish their accomplishments.
    
    This is very true. However it is inappropriate to continue to look to
    them as the authority related to the complex issues of this ever
    changing society.
    
    ...Tom

                     <<< Note 416.4 by CALLME::MR_TOPAZ >>>

>       So, how do you go about determining which of the FF's quaint ideas 
>       were a bit misguided, and which of their ideas are the Bulwarks
>       Upon Which This Great Country Is Built?
 
	The quaint ideas that have been reviewed and modified via the
	provisions of Article 5 (one of the quaint ideas that they DID
	have) can be ignored. The rest of their ideas remain as the
	supreme law of the land.

	Pretty simple, I'm suprised you didn't figure this out for yourself.

Jim (he's Baaack)

    
    This is silly.  In basketball, you "arbitrarily" have to bounce
    the ball.  In football, you don't.  In the USA, the only rules
    we have about our government are the ones in the Constitution,
    and they are just as arbitrary.  We also have arbitrary rules
    about changing the rules.
    
    I don't see any real philosophical basis for such a system.  But
    I also don't see any better philosophical basis for any other.
    
    People are venal.  For government to work, you have to assume that
    at any given time, somebody occuppying some position, will have
    extremely evil motives.  The trick is to set up arbitrary rules
    that prevent such a person from going unchecked.
    
    I do not even understand the argument that we should not follow our
    own constitution.  What else are we supposed to do ?
    
      bb

    ZZ       With all due respect (viz., virtually none), I recommend that you
    ZZ       either work at whatever menial tasks you have been assigned, or,
    ZZ       if Soapbox is to command your ill-fated efforts at paying
    ZZ       attention, that you confine yourself to those innocuous,
    ZZ       petting-zoo-type topics where you'll not stand out quite so
    ZZ       much.
    
    Topaz, you are most definitely a Piss Clam compared to the Digital
    Feats I pull.  Assuming you work at spitbrook, it may also be assumed
    that the liklihood of you being socially inept is more
    probable...therefore, you keep accolading yourself until you are blue
    in the face.  The bottom line is, I am direct labor...and I bring money
    into the company on a weekly basis...with no help from anybody mind
    you...in order to fund your state job down in Spitbrook.  You shouldn't
    ought to bite the hand that feeds you you weasel faced porcupine!
    
    Now to address the Lani issue.  First Mr. Topaz brings up a good point
    regarding the racist policies of our founding fathers...to which I
    openly agree.  When I then point out that Ms. Guinier, who openly
    supports the concept of one person many votes, is as bad as our
    founding fathers on the other end of the spectrum, Mr. Topaz goes into
    victim mode and disqualifies my question as nonsensical.  I submit to
    the Soapbox community that Senorita Topaz is the one with the
    medication problem...not me.
    
    So Mr. Topaz, why don't you go back to that hole you call an office and
    start running source code or some such.  I will remain here and make
    money for the company so's you can feed your face.
    
    Love hugs and kisses,
    
    -Jack

heiko, diane, i disagree completely! 

this is not a rational, this is an emotional issue!

kind of like talking about inerrancy of scripture!!! ;-)



andreas.

    re: Note 416.7 by CSOA1::LEECH
    
    You had to be a freeholder to vote.  That way you had a vested
    interest in the process and wouldn't vote yourself a handout.
    Look what happens when you do today.
    
    I think Heiko and the majority of the people who ridicule
    "constitutional crazys" get hung up because they WANT to interpret
    the constitution the way THEY THINK it should, irregardless of what
    the founding fathers thought about the subject.
    
    A Classic example is the 2nd Amendment.  The founding fathers wanted
    the people to be able to be the final check in the system.  They
    said that.  The way the 2nd amendment is worded, it _could_ be
    interpreted as pertaining to militias, because it says so right in
    there.  The fact that the militia is a supporting clause in the
    amendment seems to get folks all excited about how gun ownership
    doesn't really pertain to individuals, when in fact it does.
    
    Our founding fathers were also reverent, unlike today.
    
    Finally, if you think the constitution is outdated, then shut the
    hell up.  Computers, radio and TV didn't exist back in 1791.  

>    You had to be a freeholder to vote.  That way you had a vested
>    interest in the process and wouldn't vote yourself a handout.

Why not?  Tax everybody else, give yourself a handout.

    
>>    Finally, if you think the constitution is outdated, then shut the
>>    hell up.

	typically constructive advice.

    re: Note 416.19 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS
    
    Forgot the :^)  But you knew that.  I'm not such a tightass anymore.
    And I didn't have to switch to decaf to get that way either.
    
    Re: Sacks and Tax.
    
    Go see USC 26 to understand the (federal) tax code and how (if) it
    applies to you.  If you're wondering about local property tax, you're
    probably not a freeholder.  Not many folks are these days.  If they
    were, the government couldn't tax your private property (like a
    house/land).  Instead it is considered "personal property" and can
    be taxed.  Do you know the difference?  Do you know how to alienate
    your property so that you legally own it?

>>    <<< Note 416.20 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>
>>    Forgot the :^)  But you knew that.

	No, Mike, I didn't know that.  Thanks for telling me.
  

    Mike,
    
     You may aquire aloadial(sp) title to your property.  
    
    Paul

    
    Question? Could there have been an international conspiracy where some
    of the founding fathers who were of course state representatives that
    grafted the US Constitution? The reason why I asked, is because there
    is no documented proof that the people called for these representatives
    to convene in Philadelphia to amend and/or nullify the Articles of Con-
    federations. It seems to me these men known as the Founding Fathers
    took it upon themselves to engineer what we call today the Supreme
    law of the land. If this is true, then it is likely that covert 
    operations were being carried out for power elite members of
    secret societies. Recall, the Illuminiti was established on 
    May 1, 1776, just prior to the Declaration of Independence.   
    I think that there is a possible connection.
                                                

    >May Day!!! 
    
     Sounds like your ship is going down alright.

    There were some federalists of the day who certainly pushed for a
    bigger (read, more powerful) general government.  Whether they had ties
    to the Illuminati or other suspect group of globalists is anyones
    guess.  
    
    Luckily, these people did not get their way completely, or we'd already
    be citizens of the NWO.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

If I remember correctly from my tour of the building in Philly where the
Constitutional Convention met, they did meet in secret until they were
almost done.

/john

    Blaming the founding fathers for not giving the vote to women or blacks
    is like blaming Newton for not discovering General Relativity.  They
    went as far as they could with what was available and possible at the
    time.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Good point.

    Re: .17
    
    >You had to be a freeholder to vote.  That way you had a vested
    >interest in the process and wouldn't vote yourself a handout.
    
    Excuse me?  What's to prevent them from voting themselves a handout? 
    It happens all the time.  The big issue in the early years was tariffs. 
    Manufacturers wanted them, merchants didn't.  Merchants wanted to
    maximize their profits at the expense of revenue collection.  Not that
    much different than a handout.
    
    >the majority of the people who ridicule "constitutional crazys" get
    >hung up
    
    I have not yet ridiculed the "constitutional crazies, but I can't say
    I'm much impressed by them.  It's not so much the position as the level
    of emotion.  They can't just say something like, "It's time to
    reevaluate the role of the government in social policy" or "The
    government's powers have grown too broad."  No, they have to rail that
    the government is trying to take over everyone's rights and if we don't
    watch out, we'll have our Social Security numbers tattooed on our
    foreheads for surveillance purposes.  The level of emotion tends to
    preclude the possibility that they're discussing the matter rationally. 
    Also, they tend to use the same phrases and arguments, which makes them
    appear to have fallen under the spell of the same propaganda machines.
    
    Anyone who wants to be taken seriously shouldn't rant.

            <<< Note 416.29 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Anyone who wants to be taken seriously shouldn't rant.

	Or generalize.

Jim

    
    I didn't realize that women weren't available back when the founding
    fathers were around.  How did they get to be fathers?

    That's men's little secret ! :)

re .34

it is certainly the case that the american constitution had a profound impact
on the european republican movements of the 19th century - in the wake of the
republican nation states.

and in places, the consequences of the FFs ideals are still felt today.

right here, the swiss constitution (which followed the republican war in 1848)
was modelled very closely after the american constitution. with a federal 
system, incorporating a senate (2 'senators' per canton) and a house of 
representatives.

the unmatched 'worship' of individual freedom and self-determination was 
translated here as the (similarly sacro-sanct) right for each citizen to 
influence his/her government [hence the proviso of direct-democratic means 
in the constitution].

much like the US, these highly valued individual rights, make for an open 
and humanitarian society on the one hand, yet for a society closed to any 
outside influences which might curtail the rights of the individual.

similar to the US, the constitutional worship of the individual rights gives 
rise to popular resentment of outside influences: the united nations, the 
federal government, the european union.

probably the most profound change since the days of the FFs has been the
progressive submission of national sovereignty in favour of multinational 
agreements and alliances - GATT, NATO and in europe, the european union as 
the most notable examples.

submission of national sovereignty and possibly of individual rights all in
the interest of the community of nations and of peace. did the vision of the 
FFs include the prospect of world community and its consequences? or do we 
need new visions?



andreas.

re: Note 416.35 by HBFDT1::SCHARNBERG
        
>      	I did[n't] ridicule anyone.

You're right, you didn't, and I jumped on you.  Sorry.  There are too 
many people these days who suddenly discovered the constitution and how
they can use it to further their personal agenda.

>	Finally, who can interpret the Constitution the way the founding
>	    fathers thought about the subject.

Well, we can read what the founding fathers wrote.  Stuff like:

     "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...
     To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way
     to enslave them."
                                George Mason
     
     "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
     as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power
     in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the
     whole body of people are armed and constitute a force superior
     to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense,
     raised in the United States."
                                Noah Webster
     
     "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people
     of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping
     their own arms."
                                Samuel Adams
     
     "They that give up essential liberty to purchase a little
     temporary safety, deserve neither"
                                Benjamin Franklin
          
     "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."
                                Thomas Jefferson
     
     "Liberty and order will never be perfectly safe until a trespass
     on the Constitutional provisions for either, shall be felt with
     the same keeness that resents an invasion of the dearest rights."
                                James Madison

Now, if you were going to discuss the 2nd Amendment and how it only 
pertains to the militia... what would you think - based on Mason, Jefferson 
and Adams writing?
    
>       What the founding fathers thought about some subjects might indeed
>       be outdated. Some parts may be wrong. 
 
I disagree completely.  Notice my reference to computers, tv and radio.
It's all protected by the 1st Amendment.  Sort of.  You still need to
Kiss the FCC's bum to get a license to have a station.  That's not total 
freedom but it is regulation of commerce.  I suppose.  At one time
it served a purpose, since there were only so many frequencies available.
That is not the case today, and the FCC is trying to keep itself important.
The founding fathers had no concept of how the methods of communication
would evolve, however those methods fall under the protection of the 1st 
Amendment.    

The Constitution can be amended, and there is a process for amending it.
A classic knee jerk reaction produces things like the 18th and 21st
amendments.  That is why I personally am AGAINST the Balanced Budget
Amendment and Term Limits.  This stuff is already spelled out in the
Constitution and I don't TRUST federal agents with the responsibility to
modify the constitution AT ALL.

Today, we are so far out of line with what the constitution says wrt
Congress's power and jurisdiction that we are headed for serious problems.
IMO.

MadMike

| <<< Note 416.31 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Creamy Presents" >>>


| I didn't realize that women weren't available back when the founding
| fathers were around.  How did they get to be fathers?

	Deb, in those days women had much to say, but who would listen??? It's
kind of like being on a permanant date with a man! :-)

re: .37

Mike, that's a very well written reply.

Bob

  >  Blaming the founding fathers for not giving the vote to women or blacks
  >  is like blaming Newton for not discovering General Relativity.  They
  >  went as far as they could with what was available and possible at the
  >  time.

< Good point.

The above illustrates very clearly why I left the Catholic/Christian   
religion. Bunch of hypocritical claptrap.

What about their vaunted Bible? That should have given them a clue, doncha
think? They didn't need to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
   

    > Anyone who wants to be taken seriously shouldn't rant.
    
    I daresay the pot and kettle are now one.
    
    -b

> What about their vaunted Bible? That should have given them a clue, doncha
> think? They didn't need to unravel the mysteries of the universe.

the thought crossed my mind too. we might had never progressed from newton 
to general relativity had god not left politics!




andreas.

    Brandon:
    
    I think it's important to point out that most of the founding fathers
    were deists, and not necessarily Christians.  Secondly, I fail to
    understand why you seem to be blaming God for the stupidity of mankind.
    
    -Jack
    

    Humanity is stupid all on its own. It's also smart all on its own too.

    Re: 40
    
    If you have a particular beef about the Catholic Church and how it
    abused you or represented the ultimate hypocritcal organization, then
    that's your right.  Don't waste valuable space and time trying to vent
    your particular brand of anti-Catholicism in a note that has nothing
    whatsoever to do with Catholicism.
    
    The FF were intelligent enough to know that the world may change and
    that what was currently right and proper may change in the future. 
    That is why they created a document that could change through
    AMENDMENTS, not some legislator or judge finding rights where none
    exist or saying a right doesn't exist where one clearly does.
    
    If Americans want to make something Constitutionally protected then
    they should get an amendment, not through "interpretation".  There is
    nothing more hypocritical than your ranting about the FF and the
    Constitution, and then adding Catholicism in, when the abuses to the
    Constitution have come from thos eunable to gather any support for a
    position.
    
    If you can't add to a topic responsibly, then stay out and learn.
     

re:.45

I'll respond to a topic any way I wish.

You, nor anyone else will dictate how I interpret such dross. You can't stand to
have the historical hypocrisy pointed out, that's your problem, not mine.

I'm at MRO1-2/M16 If you care to come and make me "stay out".

re:.43

I wasn't "blaming God".

| <<< Note 416.43 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I think it's important to point out that most of the founding fathers were 
| deists, and not necessarily Christians.  

	Jack, does this mean you and everyone else won't be telling everyone
that the nation was founded on Christian values???? 


Glen

"Unable to gather support" 

Euphemism for:

		o  Having the military might

		o  Controlling purse strings

		o  Controlling bargaining chips

		o  Extortion.

Apply to U.S. political process accordingly.

    
    Come on Brandon, this puffing your chest out doesn't become you.
    
    
    Mike

Talk to blowhard Mike.

I didn't tell anyone to "stay out".

    
    
    Yabut dis is da box after all.  I just thought the wanna make me (get
    the pun?) thing was a bit much.
    
    
    Mike

To each his own.

re .45

maybe not a side-track.

consider this. the german constitution (grundgesetz) starts with 'in the 
name of god, the almighty...'.

considering that the numbers of germans who believe in god is declining 
rapidly (today only around half of all germans believe in god according to 
emnid, "spiegel" nr. 25/1992) how long can justifications for such offending 
openers in the constitution be upheld?


andreas.

re:.48

Thank you.

| <<< Note 416.50 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member" >>>


| Come on Brandon, this puffing your chest out doesn't become you.

	Brandon, Mike's just jealous cuz he ain't got no chest to puff out! 

| <<< Note 416.55 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>

| re:.48

| Thank you.


	Ahhh.... but will anyone address it????? 

ZZ    Jack, does this mean you and everyone else won't be telling
ZZ    everyone that the nation was founded on Christian values???? 
    
    The Founding fathers respected and paid homage to the values of
    Christianity...as Christianity was supposed to be.  I think what I'm
    saying here Glen is that the heavy amount of dysfunctionalism in todays
    America is something they would hope America stayed away from.
    
    Although Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian (by his own admission),
    he recognized the value of religion in general and had a high respect
    for it.  I personally find people in our society so deeply debased and
    so devoid of any direction or guidance that it is hard for me to call
    America one nation under God...of for that matter call ourselves a
    Christian nation.  
    
    I find it quite amusing the rhetoric going on in this conference...the
    sheepish doggeral amongst us of the terror ensuing us from the
    Christian Coalition and the religious zealots...while before our very
    midst is a nation going down the poop chute anyway...like the status
    quo is something to be revered and adhered to!
    
    -Jack
    

| <<< Note 416.58 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| The Founding fathers respected and paid homage to the values of Christianity
| ...as Christianity was supposed to be.  

	Respecting is one thing Jack. If they are not Christians, then why
would they back away from their own religion to found the nation on
Christianity? Does it make sense to do so? I respect your version of
Christianity Jack, but I don't believe it all to be true. I would never base
something on what I don't believe is the truth. 

| Although Benjamin Franklin was not a Christian (by his own admission), he 
| recognized the value of religion in general and had a high respect for it.  

	So why would he, a non-Christian, be one who would have founded this
nation, based it's morals, on Christian values? Why not ones he believed in?
True, while some may overlap, you can't lay claim that it was Christian values.
You yourself have said that one can do all the actions of a Christian (good
deeds), but without acknowledging Christ as their saviour, they aren't
Christians. So how can you now claim that they formed it on Christian values
when they weren't Christians?




Glen

    Re: .30
    
    >Or generalize.
    
    Au contraire.  Generalization is necessary to discussion.  Perhaps
    you're thinking of "stereotype," which is the inability to see beyond
    the generalization.  Certainly "constitutional crazies" don't rant all
    the time, and they don't rant about everything.  But the ones I've seen 
    all manage to work in a few riffs after all while.

    Brandon:
    
    If I made it a habit to go to Burger King every day...and they hired
    this new kid who acted stupid, discourteous, nasty attitude, etc.,
    what do you think would make more sense?
    
    1. Fold my hands and state, "I will never frequent BK again"!
    
    2. Report bad kid to manager and get him fired.
    
    Whether or not there are some bad apples in the church is not germane
    to the object of our faith which is Jesus Christ.  Christ is and always
    has been the focal point of the church.  If you freely left the church,
    you chose to do so because in my opinion you placed some sort of faith
    in frail man and got disappointed or turned off.   I understand you're
    turned off and I understand there a bad apples anywhere where human
    intervention is concerned.
    
    But for heavens sake man, if you're going to disavow yourself of
    Christianity, do so for the honorable reason which is that you don't
    accept what Christ was about.  Don't do it over silly hypocrisy.  It
    will have no significance in the eternal perspective!
    
    -Jack

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 416.60                   The Founding Fathers                      60 of 60
NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round"  3 lines 
12-MAY-1995 14:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's one thing to found a nation on the "inalienable rights of man endowed by
their Creator" and quite another to found it on "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me".

    Glen:
    
    Peace, patience, kindness, goodness...these are all qualities that are
    able to be emulated by christian and atheist alike.  Benjamin Franklin
    saw these values, I don't think the FF labeled them Christian values. 
    I believe it is something we tend to make a habit of ourselves.  
    
    I think the real difference is the deists of Franklins time held
    Christianity in high esteem...and actually found it something to be
    revered in an organized society.  I believe the deists of today...and
    of course many lobbying groups are violently opposed to
    Christianity...that's why I get a chuckle out of some of the entries in
    the notes conferences in general...lines like..."it would be terrifying
    if Christianity blah blah...!  It shows the sharp contrast of a lack of
    foresight between the generation of Benjamin Franklin and the slop
    opera mentality of ours...me included!
    
    -Jack

re:.62

You're preaching to the choir Jack. I can see the difference between philosophy
and practice just as I can see the difference between Christianity and
Catholicism.

I'm committed to philosophy. As some have already described here, there are
areas where a difference of opinion in interpreting that philosophy can be voted
upon. This does not apply in various sects. I guess that's why this country
isn't called "The United Sects of America".

> <<< Note 416.40 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>
>  >  Blaming the founding fathers for not giving the vote to women or blacks
>  >  is like blaming Newton for not discovering General Relativity.  They
>  >  went as far as they could with what was available and possible at the
>  >  time.
> ... Bunch of hypocritical claptrap.

Did you forget the 3/5 compromise was only wedged into an otherwise
consistent document at the insistance of (then) slave states?

Did you forget we fought a war of 3 million combatants with 600,000 butchered
to solve this very problem?

Differences that run that deep can't be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
Welcome to politics.

 >  Peace, patience, kindness, goodness...these are all qualities that are
 >  able to be emulated by christian and atheist alike.


"See! That's the result of Affirmative Action!!!"

>Did you forget the 3/5 compromise was only wedged into an otherwise
>consistent document at the insistance of (then) slave states?

Come now. Are you telling me that women and blacks were considered "men" at the
outset? From what I've heard, Thomas Jefferson did not have such a "consistent"
view as you allude.

>Did you forget we fought a war of 3 million combatants with 600,000 butchered
>to solve this very problem?

The Civil War was about States Rights...not about liberating slaves.

>Differences that run that deep can't be dismissed with the wave of a hand.
>Welcome to politics.

I know this. All I've said in effect is "there's many slip 'twixt the cup and
the lip".

| <<< Note 416.64 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Peace, patience, kindness, goodness...these are all qualities that are able to
| be emulated by christian and atheist alike. Benjamin Franklin saw these values
| I don't think the FF labeled them Christian values. I believe it is something 
| we tend to make a habit of ourselves.

	Then will those who say the nation was founded by Christian values be
not saying that anymore Jack? Will you point out to them that they are wrong if
they do?  

	I mean, think about it Jack. When talking about the Constitution, when
talking about this country, how many times does that phrase get used? Tons.
Does it make sense to use something that appears to not be true?



Glen

                   <<< Note 416.69 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Then will those who say the nation was founded by Christian values be
>not saying that anymore Jack? Will you point out to them that they are wrong if
>they do?  
    
    	No to the first question, and I can't answer for Jack, but as
    	for me, no to the second.
    
    	The nation **WAS** founded on Christian values.  You have managed
    	to twist history in your mind to fit your view.  Others don't
    	think like you do.
    
>Does it make sense to use something that appears to not be true?

    	It only appears that way to you.

><<< Note 416.68 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>
>I know this. All I've said in effect is "there's many slip 'twixt the cup and
>the lip".

No, what you said was "hypocritcal claptrap".

Which does, in effect, dismiss one of the greatest advances of human freedom
with a wave of the hand, because it had a couple of kinks which were, at the
time, unsolvable.

    Glen:
    
    The point is...They ARE Christian values.  Have you not heard of the
    Judeo Christian ethic?  They are Christian values yet as I said,
    anybody can practice them...even deists like Jefferson and Hamilton.
    
    Call them family values...call them Judeo values...makes no diff.  We
    use the term Christian Values because in this country, to act christian
    and to act good are synonymous.  This is why people get real offended
    when they are told they don't act christian.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .72
    
    >They ARE Christian values.
    
    However, they have been licensed to other religions.

            <<< Note 416.61 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>Generalization is necessary to discussion.

	No it's not.

Jim

>re:.71 No, what you said was "hypocritcal claptrap".

Same thing.

>Which does, in effect, dismiss one of the greatest advances of human freedom
>with a wave of the hand, because it had a couple of kinks which were, at the
>time, unsolvable.

If any hand waving is being done it is by those who wish to gloss over the
realities, which legacies are with us even now.

    Re: .74
    
    >>Generalization is necessary to discussion.
    >
    >No it's not.
    
    Fine.  Then let's see you go a week without it.

    	It seems that he went the whole month of April (at least)
    	without generalizing here.  :^)

| <<< Note 416.70 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| The nation **WAS** founded on Christian values. You have managed to twist 
| history in your mind to fit your view. Others don't think like you do.

	Joe, I was basing it on what Jack has stated. That's why I asked him if
he would point out this flaw if others stated that this country was founded on
Christian values. I guess your note would be one he would have to do this to.



Glen

    What I'm saying Glen is...call it whatever you like.  Remember that 80+
    percent of America (I think it's that) profess themselves to be
    Christian.  Had this been Israel, our FF would have founded America on
    Judeo values.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 416.72 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| The point is...They ARE Christian values.  

	Jack, I am not viewed as a Christian by many who perceive themselves to
be one. I could follow a lot of what they do, but still not be considered a
Christian. Am I following Christian values or someone elses? Can you see this
point? One isn't allowed to be a partial Christian, are they? Don't people say
that person X isn't following God, but A god? How can someone who is not a
Christian base something on Christian values? In other words, can one be a part
time Christian in the eyes of those who perceive themselves to be full time
Christians or not? 

| Call them family values...call them Judeo values...makes no diff.  

	It does matter Jack. When the Right is saying this nation was formed on
Christian values, and then uses that as a/part of a reason to change X or Y,
then it matters a great deal.

| We use the term Christian Values because in this country, to act christian
| and to act good are synonymous.  

	Christian and act good don't always go together Jack. 



Glen

 ZZ   "See! That's the result of Affirmative Action!!!"
    
    Then how come Affirmative Action is under such negative scrutiny...from
    peoples of all colors and genders?
    
    -Jack

.72> The point is...They ARE Christian values.  

nothing wrong with that. though more correct would be to say that these 
values are shared by some christians, some jews, and some non-religous folk 
alike... :-)

getting back to the constitution.

do you think references to 'god' are justifiable when around one fifth 
of the US population does not believe in the judeo-christian god?


andreas.



Source: National Survey of Religion and Politics 1992,
University of Akron Survey Research Center.

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION  (U.S.)
---------------------

	Nonreligious				18.5%

	Evangelical Protestants			25.9%

	Mainline Protestants			18%

	Black Protestants			 7.8%

	Roman Catholics				23.4%

	Other Christians			 3.3%

	Jews					 2%

	Muslims					  .4%

	Hindus					  .2%

	Buddhists				  .2%

	Other religions				  .3%

| <<< Note 416.79 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| What I'm saying Glen is...call it whatever you like. Remember that 80+ percent
| of America (I think it's that) profess themselves to be Christian.  

	Jack, why do you quote that #? Do you believe that all 80% are
Christians based on your interpretation of it? While true, it's my opinion that
your numbers would probably be higher than some others in here, I still don't
think you can even come close to that 80%. 

Glen

    Glen:
    
    If you profess Christianity as the foundation of your faith and do not
    act in accordance with your faith, then you in effect have voluntarily
    opened yourself to the scrutiny of the church.  I am no stranger to
    rebuke and scrutiny Glen...just as you may not be either.  The bottom
    line is, are you willing to confess your weaknesses and repent or are
    you going to be as the adulterer in the Corinthian Church who would
    not.  
    
    And remember, I have to ask myself the same question too!
    
    -Jack

    See .82.  I added them up and it comes to 77.6%  I would say my guess
    of 80% is quite accurate!
    
    -Jack

                   <<< Note 416.78 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, I was basing it on what Jack has stated. 
    
    	Jack has allowed you to twist his words too.  Compounding that,
    	Jack has allowed you to back him into defending a misstatement.
    
    	You are basing your argument on errors.  If your point is to
    	discuss truth, you are on the wrong trail.  If your point is
    	to make Jack look foolish, that says more about you than about
    	the history you pretend to discuss.

| <<< Note 416.84 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| If you profess Christianity as the foundation of your faith and do not act in
| accordance with your faith, then you in effect have voluntarily opened 
| yourself to the scrutiny of the church.  

	When I stop doing that Jack, I'll call ya!!! :-)  I think we both try
to do what He wants us to. We may not get it right all the time, but we do try!

| I am no stranger to rebuke and scrutiny Glen

	I could be wrong, but didn't you write the book??? :-)

| The bottom line is, are you willing to confess your weaknesses and repent or 
| are you going to be as the adulterer in the Corinthian Church who would not.

	Jack, this is an everyday occurance. I do it in my prayer. 

	I guess I am not sure what it is you were trying to get at.


Glen

    <<< Note 416.82 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>do you think references to 'god' are justifiable when around one fifth 
>of the US population does not believe in the judeo-christian god?
    
    	No, because the references to 'god' are not specific to the
    	Judeo-Christian God.

| <<< Note 416.85 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| See .82.  I added them up and it comes to 77.6%  I would say my guess
| of 80% is quite accurate!

	Jack, anyone can be <insert religion>. But out of the 80%, how many
would really be saved? 

> <<< Note 416.75 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>
>If any hand waving is being done it is by those who wish to gloss over the
>realities, which legacies are with us even now.

Well, hey, if you're looking for instant gratification, the socio-political
development of humankind probably ain't the place...

We've quite possibly reached an era of peace and freedom unmatched in human
history, but by all means let's pick nits with those who started it all.

You can't build the house until the foundation is in place.

                   <<< Note 416.89 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Jack, anyone can be <insert religion>. But out of the 80%, how many
>would really be saved? 

    	You've already stated elsewhere that this question can't be 
    	answered, so why do you keep asking it?

re:.81

I guess you missed the sarcascm.

I was emulating you -- who most always resorts to that blanket condemnation --
especially when a black person is in some sort of controversy. I was wondering
what you'd attribute to the OKC bombing...but nothing similar issued forth. I
guess that was a "individual" thing, huh?

At the same time I was highlighting the absurdity of your .64 in relationship to
this topic since a.) I don't think you practice what you preach and b.) If these
attributes were part and parcel of the structure of this government/country we
wouldn't have ever needed a thing like AA in the first place.

    >The nation **WAS** founded on Christian values.  You have managed
    >to twist history in your mind to fit your view.  Others don't 
    >think like you do.
    
    Wow, not only does Joe have 100% knowledge but he knows everything about 
    the past (present and future also I presume) as well. I'm closer to 
    worshiping him every minute!
    
    ...Tom

Methinks this has become YATT (yet another thumper topic).

| <<< Note 416.86 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Jack has allowed you to twist his words too. Compounding that, Jack has 
| allowed you to back him into defending a misstatement.

	Ahhhh.... glad ya know what Jack thinks. 

| You are basing your argument on errors.  

	They are only in error if one can be a part time Christian. If one is
not Christian, they can have similar beliefs as a Christian, but where there
are some that are different, you can't say this person based the country on
Christian values.

	But with other things you have a point there Joe. My argument on how 
many people claim to be saved, and how many of those are perceived as being 
saved from other Christians could fit the error thing. An example:

	Joe Blow says he is saved

	Joe Hack who says he is a Christian says he is not. 

	Joe Hack can't possibly know what is in Joe Blow's heart, but based on
Joe Hack's beliefs, Joe Blow is not saved. Apply this logic to those who would
quote that 80% of the people are Christian, and you can see the point. Of
course I was using logic from others (not all who claim are) to prove it.

| If your point is to discuss truth, you are on the wrong trail.  

	Then what trail should I be on Joe?

| If your point is to make Jack look foolish, that says more about you than 
| about the history you pretend to discuss.

	Wow..... make Jack look foolish. When I want to make him look foolish,
I'll let him know. If I disagree with him, and point things out to him, I am
discussing my beliefs vs his. Nothing more, nothing less. 


Glen

re .90

> We've quite possibly reached an era of peace and freedom unmatched in human
> history, but by all means let's pick nits with those who started it all.


that's a positive attitude! i share your feeling. over the last ten years or 
so, the world has moved forward in giant strides.

but what is it all leading up to?

and will it be what the FFs envisaged?

to reiterate the question from .36

          ... these highly valued individual rights, make for an open 
and humanitarian society on the one hand, yet for a society closed to any 
outside influences which might curtail the rights of the individual.

...

probably the most profound change since the days of the FFs has been the
progressive submission of national sovereignty in favour of multinational 
agreements and alliances - GATT, NATO and in europe, the european union as 
the most notable examples.

submission of national sovereignty and possibly of individual rights all in
the interest of the community of nations and of peace. did the vision of the 
FFs include the prospect of world community and its consequences? or do we 
need new visions?



andreas.

   <<< Note 416.94 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>Methinks this has become YATT (yet another thumper topic).

    	You realize how unfair this statement is, don't you?  The
    	religion discussion was the result of a direct attack upon
    	religion circa .40.  Do you expect that those expousing what
    	was attacked should just sit quietly and ignore it.
    
    	Frankly, many of the "thumper" entries in this conference --
    	even new topics -- are a result of attacks on religion.

                   <<< Note 416.95 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| Jack has allowed you to twist his words too. Compounding that, Jack has 
>| allowed you to back him into defending a misstatement.
>
>	Ahhhh.... glad ya know what Jack thinks. 
    
    	No.  I'm commenting on what Jack has done.

>| You are basing your argument on errors.  
>
>	They are only in error if one can be a part time Christian. If one is
>not Christian, they can have similar beliefs as a Christian, but where there
>are some that are different, you can't say this person based the country on
>Christian values.

    	Sure, I can say it.  And I can be correct.  And I am.
    
    	Christian values are not distinct to Christianity.
    
>and how many of those are perceived as being 
>saved from other Christians ...
    
    	Other Christians simply have no way of knowing.  They may 
    	think they do.  Drop your defensiveness here and see that I
    	am agreeing with you.  OK?
    
>Apply this logic to those who would
>quote that 80% of the people are Christian, 
    
    	The statistics are quite valid if they are concerned about
    	Christians in name, or by birth.  But even if they don't
    	closely practice their respective faith expressions, that
    	doesn't mean that they do not hold Christian values in
    	general.  And it is not a far stretch to imagine that even
    	more people (as a percentage) held those values in 1776 than 
    	they do today.

re:.97

I stated what *my* assessment of beliefs and their predicates were and how *I*
viewed them (which was so magnanimously accorded as my right -- even though in
the next breath I was not allowed to _express_  that opinion -- and so much as
told to shut up and "learn". All that was missing was the "<insert group> Only"
sign being hung up.

I did not "attack" religion. If anything, I was attacking the gap between
lip-service and action.

.98, couldn't agree more with you joe.

now do you think united nations, world community and all that (.96, .36)
agrees with christian values, resp. with the spirit of the FFs and the
constitution?



andreas.

    re: Note 416.96 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER
    
    re: the last part of your note.
    
    If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd probably already
    be on the war path.  They're probably spining in their graves,
    or holding their heads in disbelief ("WTF ARE THEE DOING?)
    

    Glen:
    
    Point is whether the 80% of professed Christians are saved or not is
    not germane to this discussion.  80% believe they are
    Christians...hence in a professed christian majority, the term
    Christian Values are more inclined to be bantered about.  In Israel, it
    might be Jewish values...no biggie.  
    
    -Jack

    
    re: .101
    
    MadMike....
    
     and probably be arrested for it too....
    

    I'm with Gerald on this.  This is SOAPBOX folks, not the
    CHRISTIAN conference.  If 'boxers want to debate religion on
    here I don't see why it can't be confined to, well heck I'd
    settle for discussion being confined to 2 or 3 topics.
    
    Every time some 'boxer tries to explain that some of us find
    the subject of religion/Christian values popping up in so many
    different topics tiresome (or even offensive) we're accused of "attacking"
    someone or not valuing diversity.
    
    Well, how about valuing the NON-Christians in here!!
    

.101, ::m_maciolek, your brief note is fascinating!


you mean the FFs would have never driven the creation of the UN, NATO
and such like? 

or do you mean they'd scold you for not having done more?

what do you mean and why?


andreas.

ps. glen, jack, would you please give us a break! thanks!

    Okay Brandon, let's take this a step further.  You claim I don't
    practice what I preach and I would lkike to know specifically what you
    are referring to.  As far as the Affirmative Action thing, I'm a bit
    surprised at your response...considering I feel that liberal whitey has
    sold society a bill of goods that government programs are the answer to
    all problems...and how the minority in number left winged black
    leadership in this country keeps insisting upon shoveling this upon the
    masses.  The founding fathers have definitely some ugly skeletons in
    the closet no doubt...and perhaps Affirmative Action would not have
    been needed had they started out correctly.  
    
    I still stand on the fact that color does not preclude ability. 
    McGoverniks are telling you differently.  They're denying it no doubt
    but the fact is they are the worst racists of all.   The sad thing is
    they have no realization of this and honestly believe in their hearts
    they are doing the various peoples a favor!
    
    -Jack

    Karen:
    
    Since you ask, the issue of religion was in the context of the
    philosophies of our founding fathers.  Most of them were not
    Christians...as was pointed out in my last replies.
    
    This may be a thumping topic but it was spurred by both non believers
    and believers replied.  
    
    So to answer your question, I place HIGH value on non Christians here. 
    If I didn't, I would have hit next unseen.  Furthermore I am holding
    our FF who were non Christians in high esteem for their attitudes.  So
    the real question is...how are non believers not being valued here?
    
    -Jack

re: .106

Please don't use the term "whitey" in discussing this with me.

You're not speaking "my language".

As for what I am referring to, you may reread the first paragraph of .92. if
you want.

| <<< Note 416.102 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Point is whether the 80% of professed Christians are saved or not is not 
| germane to this discussion. 80% believe they are Christians...hence in a 
| professed christian majority, 

	Jack, I FULLY understand this. Where I am stuck is there would be
Christians who would use the above numbers as proof that Christians are in the
majority, but would turn around on a different subject and say not everyone who
claims to be a Christian. How can one use the numbers in one, but destroy them
in another?



Glen

        <<< Note 416.107 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    philosophies of our founding fathers.  Most of them were not
>    Christians...as was pointed out in my last replies.
    
    	I'm curious about this, Jack.  I'll agree that some of the more
    	high-profile ones were Deists, etc., but I think you'll find
    	that most were Christian of one faith expression or another.
    	And you'll have to remember that the founders of this nation 
    	were more than just those who signed the Declaration of
    	Independence or worked on the Constitution.  They were the
    	state and local leaders too, many of whom were ministers.

                  <<< Note 416.109 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>Christians who would use the above numbers as proof that Christians are in the
>majority, but would turn around on a different subject and say not everyone who
>claims to be a Christian. How can one use the numbers in one, but destroy them
>in another?
    
	Not all challenges to one's claim to Christianity should be 
    	construed as an attempt at destruction.  More times than not
    	they are challenges to the person to adhere to the theology
    	to which they claim allegiance.

    re: Note 416.105 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER
    
    > .101, ::m_maciolek, your brief note is fascinating!
    
    Ya, that's me.   Short and to the point (usually).
    
    NATO is a military alliance.  I suppose that's ok.
    The UN is a governing body, who's values and positions (usually) 
    conflict with the ideals of the government our founding fathers 
    set up.  So, I reckon our founding fathers would be very carefull
    in dealing with the un.
    
    IMO:  I think the UN has a purpose.  A meeting place for all sovereign
    nations to discuss common issues.
    
    I think today, the UN is trying to govern sovereign nations, and
    possibly set up "world government" or a "new world order" as GHWB
    so fondly called it all the time.  And I couldn't help but have my
    ears perk up everytime I heard Truman say it, on a show about the
    Korean Conflict.  Boy... while we're talking about the UN....  
    
    On top of this, the US Taxpayers pay a BIG chuck of the funding for
    this boondoggle.
    
    People in this country forget, this country has a constitution, which
    is supreme law.  What the UN wants or trys to dictate is irrelevent..
                                              
    MadMike                         

| <<< Note 416.111 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Not all challenges to one's claim to Christianity should be construed as an 
| attempt at destruction. More times than not they are challenges to the person
| to adhere to the theology to which they claim allegiance.


	Again Joe, you have applied your version of it to everyone. If they
believe they are Christians, then more times than not they are adhering to the
theology to which they claim allegiance. It might not be = to your version of
it, but it is one they believe. 


Glen

    Brandon:
    
    No offense intended.  My use of the term "whitey" was not directed at
    your "language".  My use of the term whitey was perjoratively used
    toward the uppity elitist liberal establishment in this country...since
    in their eyes white males are the cause for every single problem this
    country has ever faced and they are the great Satan while every other
    category in this country is a downtrodden minority.  
    
    No Brandon, I am not a hypocrite.  I speak my mind, I don't dance
    through hoops.  It seems to me that you could at least give me credit
    for forthrightness and honesty....unlike the PC society we live in
    where everybody lives in fear lest they offend other parties!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 416.114 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| My use of the term "whitey" was not directed at your "language".  

	Jack... you're obsessed with Whitey Bulger!!!!!  :-)

| No Brandon, I am not a hypocrite.  

	I will vouch for this!!!!  Now if you could just word your notes so
they didn't sound like you are! :-)

| I speak my mind, I don't dance through hoops. It seems to me that you could at
| least give me credit for forthrightness and honesty....

	Jack, if he thought you were being hypocritical, he may not have given
a damn if you were being honest or not.

| unlike the PC society we live in where everybody lives in fear lest they 
| offend other parties!

	Jack, you'll never be part of that party!!!!! :-) :-)



Glen

    ZZZ        Jack, you'll never be part of that party!!!!! :-) :-)
    
    You gaat it!!!!!!

well glen and jack, one day you two will have to stand in front of the
creator and justify having rat-holed the discussion in this topic!!!!!

WHAT do you have to say to that! ;-)


andreas.

    Ha ha...I can just see it now.  Our Lord pointing the finger at us and
    purging the sin of ratholing a Soapbox topic!  
    
    -Jack

	I think that will be happening to more than just us Jack... :-)

      re: .44
    
      But, not wise all on its own.

    Boy, stay away for a couple of days and you really fall behind.
    
    Re: 46
    
    Boy I must have touched a nerve. Let's see the base note and the
    replies preceeding yours dealt with the topic and did not introduce
    anything related to Christianity or Catholicism.  Then your entry comes
    along to enlighten us about  the "histoical hypocricy" of the Catholic
    Church and, by inference, Christianity.
    
    You introduced a whole new topic to a reasonable discussion to vent
    your particular personal problems.  As I said, if you have your own axe
    to grind because of your personal circumstances, feel free to enter
    them in any topic you so chose..  Just don't expect that they should be
    considered as adding anything to the discussion.  Just a greater
    insight into your own bias and prejudice.
    
    I get real tired of the religion/anti-religion notes entered into so
    many topics, but to have this particular brand of bilge pumped in out
    of left field, and then attempted to be justified, is too much.
    
    Also, the juvenile threats contained in your note rank right up there
    with holding your breath till you turn blue, daring me to cross a line
    on the ground or knocking a stick off your shoulder.  Your response and
    follow-ups show that it is clear that you are unwilling or unable to
    "learn", you prefer to rant and attempt to intimidate.  typical.
      

>I get real tired 

Well I hope you enjoy your semi-somnambulism, 'cause as long as I stay within
the boundaries of PP, I'll continue to clutter this file with my 'ignorance'.

I don't give a _ what you think.

re .112

>   The UN is a governing body, who's values and positions (usually) conflict 
>   with the ideals of the government our founding fathers set up.  

how do the values and positions of the UN conflict with the ideals of the 
government the FFs set up? what were the FFs thoughts on international policy?

is this not an area which has changed so dramatically since WW2, that
any association with the FFs thoughts is difficult at best?


>   I think today, the UN is trying to govern sovereign nations, and
>   possibly set up "world government" or a "new world order" as GHWB
>   so fondly called it all the time.  

it is interesting how the UN is perceived in different parts of the world.
during the gulf war for instance, many arabs and africans which i spoke to, 
saw the UN as american dominated and as the prolonged arm of the US.

it is true that the influence of the US on the UN is substantial. as reported
by AP, the US pays about a quarter of the $1.1 billion UN budget and some 30 
percent of the separate peacekeeping budget, which came to about $3.5 billion 
last year.

but why should you as an american see the organisation as such a threat,
when it is you who has most of the say in it? i don't get it.

and i always thought the human rights charter on which the UN is based
had a lot in common with fundamental american ideals...



andreas.

    
    Come to think of it - what's the problem with a 'world government' ?
    
    Down with the borders. No more 'countries'.
    Let the US constitution be valid for the planet earth.
    And I don't care if the government will be calles US goverment or
      UN government.
    
    Of course, the 'world government' will be a huge mass of bureaucrats,
    but I doubt it would outnumber the single governments. 
    
    For a man in Anchorage, where's the difference between being governed
    from Washington or NYC.
    
    Heiko
    

re .124

>   Of course, the 'world government' will be a huge mass of bureaucrats,
>   but I doubt it would outnumber the single governments. 
    

NOT if you extrapolate from our experience in europe! the bureaucracy of
the european commission is less than that of a mid-size european town!
(vienna, austria, was an example recently cited)



andreas.

    And how do you hold a world government accountable?  I mean, if it
    controls all the armies, what does it care if you don't like its
    policies?  
    
    -steve

>    And how do you hold a world government accountable?  I mean, if it
>    controls all the armies, what does it care if you don't like its
>    policies?  
    
with a world government, the only armies we'll need, is to fight off aliens!

we can junk most of the armies.

otherwise i suggest the US first incorporates the european union and its 
already well established rules for power sharing, accountability and such,
before taking on the rest of the world...


andreas.

    
    gag
    

    
    No no Brian, that's "gak".
                         

    The concept of a world government, at this point in time, is
    ridiculous.  Look at the voting record of the members of the UN and see
    just who controls the UN.  We may pay for it, but we sure don't get any
    benefit from it.
    
    The Gulf War was a perfect example.  The casual observer know that
    Sadam and Iraq was a terrorist and the response should have been
    immediate and thjorough.  Instead the US had to argue to get the rest
    of the UN to support what was the charter of the UN at it's inception.
    
    It is best if the US cooperate with other nations, but at no time ever
    even consider giving over 1% of our soveign operations to anyone other
    than US citizens.  We amy not be perfect here, but we sure beat the
    next alternative.
    

    
    No, that's most definitely gag, as in what I do when I read horse
    manure like .127.
    

    Agreed.  I actually believe we should remove ourselves from the United
    Nations and terminate our lease in New York as soon as possible.
    
    -Jack

    Total centralization of power = very bad idea.
    
    Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I don't like the
    idea of any one group controlling everything.  Can't anyone else see
    the potential for abuse?
    
    And FWIW, all armies would NOT be done away with, they would be under
    the banner of the world governing body.  How else could they govern
    with any authority?
    
    Orwell's fantasy would not even scratch the surface.
    
    
    -steve

    >And FWIW, all armies would NOT be done away with, they would be under
    >the banner of the world governing body.  How else could they govern
    >with any authority?
    
    They couldn't, because governments, whether it be US, Russia, China,
    world or whatever, must force their authority upon the populas in order
    to govern. Why, because we wouldn't use their inferior service
    otherwise.
    
    ...Tom

    Re: .123
    
    >what were the FFs thoughts on international policy?
    
    International policy dealt with very different matters back then.  Most
    of the world was managed by empires, although they were starting to
    dissolve at this point.  Napoleon was on the loose, which occupied a
    lot of the international agenda in Europe.
    
    For the most part, international policy for the US meant trade issues: 
    who charged what kind of tariffs on our goods, and what kind of tariffs
    we would charge them.  That was our primary interaction with other
    countries.  Being geographically separate from most European issues, we 
    didn't have many interests in common.  Just the border disputes with 
    Canada (Britain) and Mexico.
    
    The US was really the only new kid on the block for quite some time,
    and wasn't much of an international power for several decades.  Monroe
    first drew a line in the sand on international matters, but the Monroe
    Doctrine (essentially, "leave this hemisphere to manage its own
    affairs") didn't become important until several years later; nobody
    really noticed it in Monroe's time.
    
    >when it is you who has most of the say in it? 
    
    Actually, it's not clear that we do.  Just because we pay a large
    portion of the bills doesn't mean our money gets to talk.  

    Re: .126
    
    >I mean, if it controls all the armies
    
    The US government controls all the armies in the US.  I guess that
    means we can't possibly hold the US government accountable.

    re: .136
    
    You assume that you would have a form of regress against a world
    government.  
    
    
    -steve

    redress. /hth

Regress is what some people do when they step into the 'box.

the idea has it's merits. 

democratically mature nations joining up in peace.

you can't just talk of peace, one day you must learn to make it happen.
that's what the arch-enemies, france and germany, set out to do years ago.

i am still amazed how far we've evolved in europe just 50 years after 
the most devastating war. with the fifteen member european union now 
preparing to welcome the eastern european countries as its new members
in the next round of expansion (the eastern europeans have to prove they 
are democratically sound first).

perhaps the US should join in and create a transatlantic union at some point? 
that would be nice.


andreas.

    
    Somebody asked how different the UN and the US are.  They are VERY
    different.  The UN has no power to tax, and none of its officers
    reports to the people.  They have in common the idea of a written
    constitution, but it is hard to imagine a document as different
    from the US Constitution as the UN Charter.  For example, the UN
    Security Council of 9 members includes 5 permanent members - UK,US,
    Fr,China,Russia, all with a complete veto on all substantive matters.
    
      bb

    re: .138
    
    Oops, typo alert!

    Re: .137
    
    >You assume that you would have a form of regress against a world
    >government.  
    
    And you assume you wouldn't.  I think my assumption is more likely.

    Well, we disagree on this one.

    Are we surprised?

You guys schizophrenic or sommat?  Or is that the royal we...  :)

Chris.

    Yes.

    No.

    Maybe.

Sorry I asked!  Hope you're all doing well (or not as may be your
wont)  :)

Chris.

    
    Re: 416.140
    
    wrt one world government, how do you propose to create such a
    government? with more that 2/3 of world population in asia, africa 
    and the americas, can you picture a world government created on 
    the basis of one person one vote. 
    
    re US joining with europe in some sort of transatlantic union, you
    are living in the past. US demographics is much changed now from
    the days of WW-2. asian, african american and south american population 
    is growing faster and so is their influence on the power structure. US 
    trade, commerce and investments within the americas and asia are growing
    much faster compared to europe. Besides, european obsession with
    socialism and restricted trade policies stand in total contrast to
    American character. in another 20 years US relations with western 
    europe will be same as eastern europe. notice that it was VP Gore who
    went to recent european V-E day celebrations while US President went to 
    Russia instead.     

    Re: .151
    
    >asian, african american and south american population is growing
    >faster and so is their influence on the power structure.
    
    This is also true for Europe (except they don't get many South
    Americans, and they get Africans instead of African Americans), so I
    don't see why it's a bar to some kind of union.
    
    Let me take a moment for an ounce of prevention.  Past experience leads
    me to conclude that some bozo will take the previous paragraph and
    interpret it as support of the idea of a transatlantic union, and then
    proceed to be on my case about it.  So take note:  I DID NOT SAY THAT A
    TRANSATLANTIC UNION WAS A GOOD IDEA.  I said, "Your assertion does not
    support your position."  In other words, do a better job making your
    argument.  As for a transatlantic union, I have not given the idea any 
    thought, and therefore I do not have an opinion.

you are right, .140 is certainly euro-centric and the thought of transatlantic 
union may well be outdated, NATO as a case in point. my intention was to 
extrapolate from the european union 'experience' by considering what a 
'merging' of NAFTA and the EU/EEA/EFTA would do. a bit enthusiastic no doubt!

as you indicate, the US is increasingly orientated towards asia and western 
europe is preoccupied with its eastern european neighbours. these are two 
different orientations.


>	with more that 2/3 of world population in asia, africa 
>    and the americas, can you picture a world government created on 
>    the basis of one person one vote. 

a daring vision. but why not? 

i also believed in one wo/man one vote for south africa back in 1983, when 
the prospect seemed very unlikely. and back in junior school, twenty-five 
years ago, a politically united europe was presented as utopia!

it all happened. why shouldn't we look forward to a world community?

now, that an all destructive world war is less threatening as it once was 
during the cold war, pollution, overpopulation, poverty and limited natural 
resources have become the threats to our collective well-being. 

these are pressing global issues. what better way to address these problems 
if not as a world community?

a stronger motivator than these negative environmental issues, should be the
shrinking world as a global market place. the large multinational corporations
have long created the world community! 
it is only a matter of time that our governments catch up and begin harmonising 
laws on trade and commerce in order to make trade more efficient, and to gain
some legal controls over large multinational corporations. it is in the interest
of the consumor that quality standards for products apply globally (as in the
case of pesticides or medicaments for instance.) 
if you extrapolate from the european union experience, we as individuals will
benefit from such a world community based on a common market and a shared law.
with freedoms of travel, of taking up employment, studies... and perhaps even 
some harmonised labour laws to protect against the worst excesses of 
unregulated work (child labour for instance).


this is well beyond the scope of this topic! 
i'd be interested to hear your views nonetheless.


andreas.

    RE: .153
    
    I think such a dream would soom become a nightmare.  The goals are good
    ones, but such idealism places too much faith in government.  Placing
    multinational affairs under the control of one governing body would
    create a monster that no one could hope to overthrow when things go
    sour.  No checks and balances whatsoever, especially since the trends
    of the world show that it is in the process of disarming the
    "peasants".
    
    Don't let idealism blind you to the reality of human nature.  Power
    corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    
    Just my two pennies.
    
    
    -steve

>   Don't let idealism blind you to the reality of human nature.  Power
>   corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

it really does depend on who has the power and on who's side the government 
is on.

here in europe, our governments are increasingly ineffective when intervening 
on the money markets in an effort to support their currency or to prevent a
change in the interest rate.

what's more, the governments admit openly that they can no longer take on big 
business. all powerful big business can also develop into a nightmare. who,
in the end, runs the country?

today, in the international markets, it is a fairly open playing field.

what i said in .153, essentially, is that the impetus for harmonising laws
covering trade comes from the governments. this is in the interest of its
citizens, to protect against the all-powerful multinationals (corporations
which are only accountable to share-holders and who cannot be expected to
act in the various national interets of the countries in which they operate.)



andreas.

    
    Wow, what an interesting string we have here. 
    
    re "World Government" 
    
    A 'World Government' would, of course, not be organized as the UN
    is, with veto rights and such. I do see the danger of absolute
    corruption, but I do not see in how far the situation would be
    different from today. The governments are held accountable by their
    citizens. The goverments are *not* held accountable by other
    governments. Eventually, one country invades another country. In these
    cases it may happen that outside forces will enter the scene. 
    I can not remember one single case, when a democratic nation started a
    war. I can also not remember a case when a democratic nation turned
    totalitarian. No, wait, I can remember Germany '33 and Iran. And I see
    the fundamentalist notions in Egypt and Algeria. The Egyptian
    government is strong enough to maintain its stabilty, I am confident, I
    am not so sure about Algeria. But I digress. 
    
    
    You (the Americans) are governed by the American government. The
    American goverment is held accountable for its work - by the citizens. 
    No outside force can or may influence your domestic affairs. 
    	
      If one agrees to this, where is the difference in the following  
      paragraph ?
    
    You (the world population) are governed by the world government. The
    world goverment is held accountable for its work - by the citizens. 
    No outside force can or may influence your domestic affairs. 
    
    
      Could it just be true, that the US population is more nationalistic
      than the average European ? That they don't trust anybody else ?
    
      Intended digression (sp?): Andreas mentioned the new friendship
      between the French and the Germans. Care to have a closer look at the 
      Germans, for instance ? If I remember correctly, Prussia and Bavaria
      were in war in 1865. For several centuries there was just a virtual
      German nation. In fact, it was a conglomerate of sovereign states:
      Prussia, Bavaria, Hessia, Saxony, Anhalt, Baden, maybe Bohemia,
      sometimes the Alsace. The happily went to war against each other. 
      But starting 1871 it became a single nation. And wait another 10
      years and it will a single nation again (when the Wall in the heads
      is down as well).
    
      It is time for the people to get rid of nationalistic prejudice. 
      When pondering the future of the world, it appears to me that most
      (if not all) of the problems are global problems. It doesn't make
      sense for single nations to 'do their own business'. It doesn't make
      sense to ignore other nations' problems. They will sooner or later
      affect everyone. 
    
    Heiko
    (who could continue for hours and hours with this unstructured
    diatribe)
    
    
    

    
    it would also be nice to have frictionless bearings.
    
    we see how 80+ years of Red communism couldn't submerge
    the nationalism of the Chechens, Georgians, etc.

"nationalism is the precursor of democracy" is what the chief soviet ideologer 
(i forgot his name) warned in the mid-eighties. this man predicted the pending
disintegration of the soviet empire once it was freed from the yoke of 
authoritarian rule.

to use an outdated vocabulary, the "soviet imperialism" was a seamless 
continuation of the "tzarist[sp?] imperialism". the resurgence of nationalisms
in eastern europe is a necessary step in their becoming democracies.

the overcoming of petty nationalisms and the joining up of nations in a 
community of common law is only possible in democratically mature countries, 
as the european union experience demonstrates.

no, the average american is patriotic but not nationalistic. as far as i can 
tell, the exaggerated american fear of giving up sovereignty comes from 
hanging on to what are perceived as outstanding constitutionally guaranteed
individual rights (i adressed this in .36, a country which also 'suffers' from 
similarly outstanding constitutionally guaranteed individual rights is 
switzerland, hence, switzerland's reluctance to join the european union, let 
alone the united nations!!)

if we all agree that the 'world government' can only become reality when all 
nations have become democratically mature, then, would there be any reason to
fear the 'world government'?



andreas.

Subj:	Current State of Suspended Constitution

Goto: The American Freedom Coalition,
      http://www.metronet.com/afc/afchome.html

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: War Powers Act
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 03:45:29

FOUND ON INTERNET
Please distribute freely

From: atlntech@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Ashford)
Subject: War Powers Act, FDR, Presidential Dictatorship!
Date: 13 Apr 1995 01:19:49 GMT

Notice to citizens of the United States of America. The Constitution has
been suspended for over 62 years and we have been living under what amounts
to a Presidential Dictatorship. Before you call me a fruitcake check out
this WEB PAGE!:

The American Freedom Coalition, http://www.metronet.com/afc/afchome.html

If you read the reports you will feel the chills runs up your spine. This
is some of the most informative and, I believe important, information I
have ever seen -- all documented by congressional record, senate reports,
the United States Code, and Presidential Proclamation and Executive Orders.

Once an national emergency has been declared, there is no Constitution! We
have been living in a state of declared national emergency since May 9,
1933. Every President since FDR has signed an Executive Order declaring or
extending the state of emergency.

Senate Report 93-549 produced in 1973 states "Since March the 9th, 1933,
the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency" and
later in the same report "This vast range of powers, taken together, confer
enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal
constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the
President may: seize property; organize and control the means of
production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute
martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication;
regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a
plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

All this power was conferred to FDR through his deception of Congress and
its subsequent amending of the War Powers Act of 1917 (The Trading with the
Enemy Act) which had EXCLUDED AMERICAN CITIZENS to then INCLUDE ALL
CITIZENS OF the U.S. In essence, we became the enemies of the United States
and subject to all the powers inferred by the original act.

It is crucial that everyone in the U.S. is made aware of this treason and
that we demand back our personal freedom and the sovereignty of our
individual states. After many of you visit the above WEB site you will
understand just how heinous our government, and all its secret agencies
are. You will understand how the Federal Reserve stole the gold owned by
the citizens of the U.S. and how FDR protected these crooks with the power
of the U.S. military. A previous post asked "Where did all the gold in Fort
Knox go"? It was legally stolen and sold and the FED replaced it with
worthless paper. READ THE WEB PAGE AND ITS ARTICLES!!!!!!

Don't bother with flames and arguments until you are informed. You can get
informed without reading the WEB page by reading:
1) The Original War Powers Act of October 6, 1917
2) The Amended War Powers Act as of March 9, 1933
3) FDR's Proclamations 2038, 2039, and 2040 dated early March 1933
4) Senate Report 93-549, 1973
5) Executive Orders as signed by every President since FDR that extend the
   state of national emergency.

    
    Now, when the USA is reluctant to become a member of the United States
    of the planet Earth, how about everyone joins the USA ?
    
    There's probably a part in the Constituation regulating the treatment 
    of new member states. What if all other 120+ countries joined the USA ?
    
    That could be a reasonable 'World Government' for me. 
    
    Heiko
     

i think the USA has just been declared a dictatorship (.160)

which must mean that it is a threat to the outside world or to itself,
or perhaps it means that the people no longer live in the USA or maybe
just that they don't know it...... it is clear that the conspiracy of 
FDR, eisenhower, truman, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, 
bush and clinton meant that dictatorial powers have been passed by 
clandestine and evil means, that the citizens of the USA have been made
utter fools off and that this grand nation is but a peace of paper.

how can anyone join it, how can it join anyone, at this point?


.160, you're hysterical! 


andreas.

    .160 isn't hysterical.  This is the complex bunch of laws which are
    interesting to study.
    
    Is this a devious plot?  Probably not, but if the "state of emergency"
    isn't "legally" continued each year, a WHOLE BUNCH OF PORK gets
    unfunded.  And if you want to get the pork back, guess how you do it?
    CONGRESS has to debate it, and put it into law... which means public
    scrutiny... which means.... sign the eo to continue the emergency....
    otherwise, it's gone.
    
    Next issue is to see what statute this stuff is specified under.  If
    it's non-positive or prima facie evidence as to its legallity, the
    crap only applies to the federal zone.  But if it involves our banking
    system.... and... what a house of cards....  Now you see why people
    eat lead for trying to expose this mess. 

no. imo, whoever wrote that text in .160 was very definitely hysterical. 
he wouldn't be screaming like this and use words like dictatorship and 
such waffle if he wasn't!

these hysterical types are dangerous. 

take a bunch of them, next thing you know it's mass-hysteria and then 
you'll get your dictator!



andreas.

	Just a little remark from a swiss reader. 
	Our little country exists now for over 700 years. But our actual 
	constitution is only 150 years old. That means, the US constitutuin
	is about 70 years older. But I think, in general, it is a lot better 
	than ours. I don`t know a better constitution on this planet than
	the one of the US of A. And it is timeless !! So I really under-
	stand everone who defend it, defend the original.

	Please dont get confused by other european noters. ;) 	

	Heiko wrote a few relies back:
    
>    I see a distinct difference in the way the member states of the
>    USSR were "unified" and the way the member states of the EU unified.
    
	Pardon me, how is the way the states of the EU were unified ?
	Fear another war in Europe. Assemble a whole lot of commercial 
	and industrial power (France, Germany, BeNeLux). Then they can
	dictate any new want_to_be_EU_member their rules and requirements
	they want. Poor or not so wealthy countries (Portugal, Spain,
	Greece) have to agree to everything. Well, this countries will
	get a compensation in the form of subventions for each and
	everything; billions and billions every year. To be honest,
	quite a lot of this money goes to the more or less corrupt "leading 
	party" and their "leaders" and the family members of the leaders 
	and the friends of the leading party and to the friends of the
	friends and......I think you get the picture. Just for example:
	more than 10 billion US$ dissappear only in the department of
	agriculture, year for year. Unbelivable ? No no, this money
	is a good investment in comparison to the power the central
	EU government gains !!! And there are no control of this 
	EU Government. Even the the session of this government are
	non public and some of them are even secret.
	What about countries which want to join but have some reservations
	to how the rules are set up in the EU like England or Switzerland ??
	The EU now uses their full ecconomical power to force this countries
	under the EU rules. Unfortunately England had some ecconmical
	problems when they (have to ?) join in. When the swiss citizens
	votet NO to the EU one and a half year ago, what happend ? The
	EU...... you guess it..... set Switzerland under enormous 
	ecconomical pressure, short of an ecconomical war. Not easy for
	a small country of 7 million which is now encircled by EU members.
	 
	So the difference between the "unification" of the USSR and the
	"assembling" of the members of the EU is only the time. Then
	they did it with military power, now we do it with ecconomical
	power.

     *	So please, NEVER ever take the EU as an example. Probably at the
     *	cost that you or your children have to liberate Europe again, 
     *	this time from itself.

	Kurt

	PS: Sorry, as you probably realized, my nativ language is not
	    english.

    
    
    
>	PS: Sorry, as you probably realized, my nativ language is not
>	    english.
    
    	Actually, your note was very well written .
    
    
    jim

    Kurt, an interesting insight into the EU. Thanks!

    
    Kurt, 
    	can you back up your claim that billions and billions of dollars
    	go to the leading parties/families of the EU member states ?
    
    	
    As to the difference between the EU (which *unified* (active) not
    *was unified* (passive)), well, as to the difference between the EU and
    the USSR - you just gave the perfect example. CH and NOR simply decided
    to stay out. The Baltics would have liked to stay out of the USSR but
    could not. POL, CZ and others *want* to join. They don't have to. 
    
    Speaking of the economical pressure: That is life. 
    Look at the US/Japanes car-war. 
    You have trading restrictions and tariffs everywhere. Unless you are
    in a free-trade zone. Like the EU.
    
    Heiko

      re: .164
    
      I completely fail to understand your reasoning Andreas.  The note
      IS extremely significant if it is true and it is not if it is
      not true.  I don't know how you define hysterical, but I believe
      Jefferson, Revere, and others would be rolling in their graves
      right now.
    
      You seem to make light of .160 and yet you don't give a single 
      shred of rational thought as to why it should be taken lightly.
      NOT ONE.
    
      I tend to believe that some power(s) has the executive branch
      by the balls.  I suppose it might be considered hysterical, but 
      my hunch is that the Fed Reserve could pull the country right out
      of its economic rug so to speak - cause some dire economic condi-
      tions.  I don't see much of a possibility that all these presidents
      are conspirators, I rather see that they are placed between a rock
      and a hard place.                             
    
      Anyway, I don't see it as 'calm' news the fact that my federal govt.
      may legally consider me to be an enemy of my own country.
    
      Your reasoning (or lack thereof) completely baffles me.
    
    							Tony

re .169


tony, thanks for that honest critcism! i appreciate it alot.

it must be part of the game to make a lot of noise in order to get 
the attention. seems to be.

please don't misunderstand, but i sincerely hope this type of hyped 
up communication doesn't make it's way over to the old continent.
i have difficulty getting used to beefed up allegations which often 
turn out to be unfounded.

unfortunately, in this very country (switz.), the right wing poulpists 
emulate a lot of the same chest bashing and saber rattling which appears
to be customary in the US. kurt's note (.165), might fall into this
category - i don't know where he gets the ideas from that the EU is
dictating its terms to switzerland or that the EU is buying influence 
in spain, portugal and greece. 



andreas.

	re: .168 

	Heiko

	It is simpy called corruption. A very good examples is ........
	...=>   tatatata ... Italy. To get an EU related contract you
	have to know somebody who knows somebody in the ministry which
	place the contract. The bribe often is up to 50 % of the contract.
	The bribemoney (?) goes to the man who knows the man in the 
	ministry, the man in the ministry, to the superior of the man
	of the ministry and to the ruling party. But there is a much more
	important question ! How the hell can an EU contract be
	attractiv to a company, if they have to calculate, that half
	of the contract is used as bribe ?  Well, we are of the topic.

	The EU is a monster. No visibility. No control. The citizen is
	not even allowed to ask questions. People are just used as work
	force for the ecconomical power of the EU. Talk about security.
	Inter_country computerbased policesystems for each and every thing.
	Or talk about guns (very popular in this Notes Conference).
	Each gun in the EU, handgun or rifle, has to have a gun passport.
	The intention is clear: disarm the people. Question from a swiss
	citizen: why ?
	Why does the EU parliment deal with lobby_representants and not
	with the citizens ?
	I could raise questions for hours.

	To make it short: Where are the personal rights of the EU people ?
	Where is the EU constitution ??

	.170 Andreas (about my chest bashing and saber rattling reply .165)

	Well, I know you like the idea that Switzerland should go to the
	EU at ANY terms. I dont like to idea to unconditionally surrender
	my rights to the EU. If you dont like to think about whats happen
	in Europe, so be it. But please dont label people who dont agree
	with your ideas as right wing populist. This behavior is now very
	common from people (mostly socialist and so called "liberals") who 
	like to join the EU at all COSTS. 
	Just a question to you Andreas. What about your political activities?
	You could forget it under the EU flag ! Ever thought about ?

	I have no problem if the EU countrys like to join the Swiss 
	Confederation.  

	Kurt                                                   

kurt, the swiss have got to be the most stubborn in the world for guarding
their consitutionally guaranteed rights - we're so paranoid about them, we 
won't even join the UN (let alone the EU), yet we host the bulk of the UN 
organisations in our own country!

we could've joined the EEA at least (the economic agreement between EFTA/EU) 
and like norway, have stayed out of the political process.

but no, not even that. instead, we choose to continue paying 40% more for 
goods and services (as a 1992 OECD study has revealed) when we have to adapt 
our laws and quality standards to fit the EU *at_any_rate*, so that we can 
stay competitive.

look what we have now. not being a member, we have no say as EU law is shaped,
yet we have to dance to the fiddle of our biggest trading partner anyway. the
investment focus of our largest companies has shifted to abroad - and we can
pay for our stubborness with unemployment rates hitherto unknown in this
country. whilst young EU professionals can travel freely and seek employment
in any EU country our youngsters don't even get the chance to work abroad to 
gain that valuable experience needed in the internationalising business place.

honestly! we're the laughing stock of europe!

>   Just a question to you Andreas. What about your political activities?
>   You could forget it under the EU flag ! Ever thought about ?

the EU is not a homogenous body of civil law. in some EU countries you're
imprisoned for smoking a joint in public, in others you can trade small
amounts of heroin freely!



andreas.

re .171

>	The EU is a monster. No visibility. No control. The citizen is
>	not even allowed to ask questions. 

the EU bureaucracy employs less staff than what the town administration of 
vienna, austria, employs (vienna has less than 2 mio inhabitans). 

to this day the EU remains an economic community.

policy is set by the council of ministers in which each member government
is represented. the member governments are accountable to their citizens.

the process of political union (maastricht) is still in the first stages.
it is clear that the legislative organ of the EU needs to be empowered 
as political union progresses. this is the subject of the 1996 summit.

as you can tell from the indecisive response of the EU to the bosnian war,
the EU is not a political monster, it is a politcial midget.




andreas.

	Andreas, your .172

> kurt, the swiss have got to be the most stubborn in the world for guarding
> their consitutionally guaranteed rights - we're so paranoid about them, we 
> won't even join the UN (let alone the EU), yet we host the bulk of the UN 
> organisations in our own country!

	You took off your mask. Defending constitutionally garanteed rights
	is stubborn behavior ? Well, you could call me stubborn. 

> we could've joined the EEA at least (the economic agreement between EFTA/EU) 
> and like norway, have stayed out of the political process.

	Did you ever had a look into that 1200 pages "agreement" before you 
	went to the ballot box ? Probably not. I did and I said NO.

> look what we have now. not being a member, we have no say as EU law is shaped,
> ......

	Do you really think that 7 swiss representants in 500+ head parliment
	could change a bit or could influence the process ? I really like
	your deeeeeep blue eyes. ;@)

> honestly! we're the laughing stock of europe!

	I dont know why people like you always try to make our own system
	ridiculous. I personally know several people from different 
	european countries, which said is was clever to stay out at
	the offered terms. No one of them was a politican. The EU politican
	do not laughing at all. They are all angry because they could
	not add this little country to their booty. And no, I dont like
	to be a hostage of anonymous political body far far away.
	
	Kurt

	PS: Try to address the US noters which like and defend their
            constitutional rights as a bunch of ridiculous stubborn
	    paranoids. Do it and then take shelter.
                          

    
    So Andreas, Heiko, Kurt - I'm taking a Swiss vacation 7/11-22/95.
    
    Other than the mountains, what's good for a Yank to see ?  I'm glad
    to hear you have a feisty streak - de rigeur in all we Republics !
    
      bb

    Hi bb
    
    You must be an DEC VP ;^)
    
    At the actual change rate $/Sfr if easily could be come an expensive
    pleasure.
    
    But anway. You are welcome. 
    
    Take a look at central Switzerland. It's really nice. You know;
    mountains, lakes and such. And not to forget: it's the spot of
    the swiss founding fathers !
    
    Kurt

    
    >I really like
    >your deeeeeep blue eyes. ;@)
    
    
    Is this some sort of Swiss insult 8^)?

.174,

kurt, i believe in give and take. the swiss could well join in a bit more
in the international community - they get enough out of it. our constitutional
crazies may well be paranoid - they can afford to drive the country into 
isolation. a little country such as ours, noone gives a hoot.

the US is a giant by comparison. and whatever strings the isolationist forces 
pull there, there is sufficient counterbalance to keep them at bay with all of 
americas business interests abroad.

> Defending constitutionally garanteed rights is stubborn behavior ? 

i am quite a fan of our consitutionally guaranteed rights. i even tried
selling the idea of direct democracy topic 412. but to the extend to which 
we make use of our rights, when every major government initiative risks
being overturned, it renders government ineffective!


ok, this is the wrong topic and we shouldn't hog it.


andreas.

>  Other than the mountains, what's good for a Yank to see ?  

i could show you where half the world's illegal money is stored 
and where comrade lenin wrote his memoires... ;-)


seriously, let me know, i enjoy showing folks around in zurich!
:-)


andreas.

    Maybe we can extend that topic with the swiss foundig fathers.
    It would be very interesting. Both, the US and the swiss 
    founding fathers had the same reasons to declare independance.
    Only 485 years apart.
    
    Kurt

    
    So, who were the Swiss founding fathers ?  bb
    

    Fondling fathers?

proud, upright mountain folk, them were, in those days.....aye, son.

    Kurt, Andreis(sp)
    
      I personally love the constitution of your country, I beleave I read
    where you can call a general election on an issue and overturn a 
    parlament decision on 65,000 petition signitures.  Personally I beleave
    our constitution is timeless but I really like what you have in yours
    also.  Long live the Swiss as an independant nation and not a EC
    lacky.
    
    Paul

on second thoughts, we could always become americas 51st state, just 
to spite the EU...... i mean, seems like our FFs gave us a pretty similar 
bunch of historical liability to carry :-)



andreas.

    
    
    re .*416
    
    
    I wonder what kind of reviews the founding fathers would have given
    this documentary?
    
                                 Jeremiah Films
                                    presents
                             THE CLINTON CHRONICLES
    
                                 1-800-828-2290   

    
    Hey, bb,
    
    me no weird swiss type geezer. 
    me fishhead. 
    
    me still wondering why tourists prefer to go to rhineland, bavaria,
    austria and switzerland. always. some day must be the day when you've
    had it with castles, yodling and weissbier. 
    then it is time to turn to the north. the country of halibuts and
    herrings, pharisaer and real myns' beer, and sheep.
    
    Heiko

       
       re .187:
       
       Maybe because the average cost/day for a tourist in Scandinavia is
       about $2,364?
       
       Besides, Swizzerland is ok, esp. if you hang out in Ticino.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    wot ?
    
    We spent a whole 2 weeks in Sweden for about $2,500. Two persons that
    is.
    
    Besides, Schleswig-Holstein is not Scandinavia. :-)

                    The Price They Paid

    Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who 
signed the Declaration of Independence?
    Five signers were captured by the British and tortured, 
before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and 
burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary Army, 
another two had sons who were captured. Nine of the 56 
fought and died from wounds or from hardships experienced 
in the Revolutionary Army.
    They signed and they pledged their lives, their 
fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were 
they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were 
merchants. Nine were farmers and large plantation owners. 
They were men of means, well educated. But they signed the 
Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the 
penalty would be death if they were captured.
    Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and 
trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British 
Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and 
died in rags.
    Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was 
forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in 
Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. 
His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his 
reward.
    Vandals or soldiers, or both,. looted the properties of 
Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Rutledge, 
and Middleton.
    At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., notes 
that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the 
Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged 
General George Washington to open fire. The home was 
destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
    Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.. 
The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few 
months.
    John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was 
dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields 
and his grist mill were laid waste. For more than a year he 
lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife 
dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died 
from exhaustion and a broken heart.
    Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
    Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American 
Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing 
ruffians. They were soft spoken men of means and education. 
They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing 
tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:"For the 
support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the 
protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to 
each other out lives, out fortunes, and our sacred honor."
    They gave us a free and independent America. We intend 
to keep it! Will you make that commitment too?

    I think you Muricans should sue the British Government for compensation.
    
    
    

    
    re 190.
    
    What happened to the many thousands of American loyalists after the
    revolution?   
    
    We were told that many were imprisoned and many died in salt mines in
    New York, Others had all their property seized and fled to Canada along
    freedom trails and safe houses identified by pine trees.  I'm willing
    to bet that it's just propaganda.
    
    Regards,                         
    
    Colin
    

    
    
    	>                  -< Of course, you would not stoop so low? >-
    
    	When you say "you" I really don't think you mean "me" personally,
    do you? If you are referring to the early American people, then yeah, I
    believe they would stoop so low. Hell, "we" came in and nearly killed off
    an entire race of people (the American Indians) to take over their
    native land. Snuffing a few loyalists would hardly have been a big
    thing.....
    
    

    So (gasp) it wasn't just on the winning side that people risked and
    lost position, property and lives?
    
    - Stephen

    
    No, not you personally.

    
    
    >    So (gasp) it wasn't just on the winning side that people risked and
>    lost position, property and lives?
    
    	quite a revelation eh?
    
    

   
>     	quite a revelation eh?
    
    
    To some it might be.  
    
    (My sarcasm wasn't aimed at the person who entered the note on the
    Loyalists, if that wasn't clear.)
    
    -Stephen

    
    >    (My sarcasm wasn't aimed at the person who entered the note on the
>    Loyalists, if that wasn't clear.)
    
    crystal...
    

The Founding...

SNARFers

    
    I didn't take any of it as sarcasm - just another pov.
    
    My point was that this was war and terrible things were done,
    even between native-born Americans. (Many Loyalists agreed strongly
    with the notion of no taxation without representation, but vehemently
    disagreed with separation.)
    
    Back in my hometown we have a statue of one of our "local heroes"
    Dafydd (David) Williams, which bears on the inscription:
    
    	"...he wrote many books and drafted the first constitution
    of the French revolution.  He shielded Benjamin Franklin and
    other friends of freedom from persecution..."
    
    Not all Brits opposed separation either, particularly in the Celtic
    fringe where there was considerable opposition to equally tyrannical
    English rule.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
                 

 ZZ   My point was that this was war and terrible things were done,
 ZZ   even between native-born Americans.
    
    Colin:
    
    I must take exception to this...and this goes for everybody else.  
    Native-born Americans in the context you used it is a non sequitor.
    I was born in Needham, Massachusetts and have a Irish/Scottish
    heritage.  
    
    American Indians, be it a thousand years ago, immigrated to North
    America from Asia.
    
    The term Native-born to be used exclusively for those of
    American-Indian heritage is Politically Correct jargon.  Please stop.
    Your catering to the sensitivity crowd.
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

    That's a tough one.  If I stop then I'm catering to the sensitivity
    of people who abhor politically sensitive speech.  But you are
    correct: The term "native born" was redundant.  

    Maybe...but truth always rules!
    
    I was born in Needham, Massachusetts.  I am a native born American.
    
    -Jack

        <<< Note 416.204 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

Well, Jack, we can certainly count you among the primitives. :')

    Loyalist refugees were the 1st big group of English-speaking settlers
    of what is now Canada..."founding fathers" if you like.
    
    -Stephen
    
    

      I know its off the topic, but I'd like to add another thought
      to the term 'native American.'
    
      I can't help but give some significance to the fact that the
      American Indian was here first and in that sense, they were
      'native' possessers of this land.  In that same sense, I was
      not.
    
      Part of the heritage of some Europeans is that they came and
      took the land.  
    
      So anyway, when I think of the term 'native American' as applied 
      to American Indians, I think of the notion that they inhabited 
      this land until it was taken from them.  And if one gives that
      meaning to the term, they are native Americans and I am not.
    
      Part of the reason for my residence here is the fact that one
      day someone stole this land from its previous owners.
    
    		       				Tony

           Cazart!

re:-1

Please. It's enough to have to encounter the word 'snarf' around here...

Please don't start any new trends...

    
    207 
    
    Dougo says it's OK if its more than 50 years ago.

It's okay 'coz you can blame it on the British.  I thought that was
what most Shermans did, anyway.

Chris.

Nah, I just couldn't remember how to spell it...

Chris.

    They're too difficult to drive.

And you can't pull a bird in a Septic, either (is that another East
European car manufacturer?)

Chris.

    >Dougo says it's OK if its more than 50 years ago.
    
    who is this smurf::walters bird, anyway?  what are you talking about?
    
    DougO

    
    Aw Doug.  Do I not measure up to another of your criteria?  Who do I
    have to be?
    
> They have only been separate for less than 50 years.

    >   Aw Doug.  Do I not measure up to another of your criteria?  Who do
    >   I have to be?
    >
    >> They have only been separate for less than 50 years.
    
    What *are* you talking about?  I hadn't written *any* notes in this
    topic until you brought my name in.  If you're quoting me, its from
    another topic, and I don't recall the context.
    
    DougO

    
    
    	If anyone wants them, I have taken the liberty of downloading a
    copy of the entire FEDERALIST PAPERS to my directory. The file is
    2289blks long and you can retrieve it from:
    
    	SUBPAC::DISK$SUB_USER9:[SADIN.TOOLS.FIREARMS]FEDERALIST_PAPERS.ALL;
    
     	Please try to keep copying to off hours (after 5pm EST). thanks.
    
    jim

	Jim, doesn't Steve have the originals?

    Not any more, Glen.  The Tri-Lateral Commission took them from me.

    The Tri-Lateral Commission deflated my tyres once. Those jokers.

But they only deflated the tyres on three sides of your car.

    Yes, that is their trademark, and my spare was deflated.

    
    >The Tri-Lateral Commission deflated my tyres once. Those jokers.

    
    	No, that's
    
    "The Tri-Lateral Commission deflated my tyres once.  ONCE."
    

    Those bastiges!

    fargin ice holes...
    
    

    Jim, where on the network do you get all this cool stuff?

    Have you ever seen how fast he can type? 
    
    the man is a machine! ;')
    
    He throws a mean frisbee too.

	But no one catches them like Leslie does... what style, what flare...

    
    The bottom line -
    
    With a few good search engines, you too can be just another unapologetic
    diseminator of lies, lies and more lies.
    
    								-mr. bill

    If you had a search engine in your car, would you ever need directions?

    
    If Mr Bill doesn't see it that way, it lies......

    <----
    
    Damm, you beat me to it ! ? ! ?
    
    :-/
    Dan

    
    I'm sorry, but facts are stupid things.  Much of what Jim posts here
    are lies.  Sadly, he finds lies interesting.  So too do many of the
    folks praising him.
    
    For every useful pointer to Federalist Papers, there's hundreds of
    lies deposited here.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
>    I'm sorry, but facts are stupid things.  
    
    	that about sums up Mr. Bills outlook. Don't confuse the issues with
    facts...
    
    	
    	have a nice day Mr. Bill,
    
    	
    	jim

|    	that about sums up Mr. Bills outlook. Don't confuse the issues with
|    facts...
    
    I look at facts when deciding issues.
    You ignore facts.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    How do you know they are lies, Bill?  They are theories, just like any
    other theory.  I forget, if it ain't coming from slick or one of the
    libs, it can't have any truth to it.
    
    Mike

    Re .236:
    
    > For every useful pointer to Federalist Papers, there's hundreds of
    > lies deposited here.

    Please stop writing so many notes.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>   <<< Note 416.236 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>    For every useful pointer to Federalist Papers, there's hundreds of
>    lies deposited here.

For instance?

>   <<< Note 416.236 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>    For every useful pointer to Federalist Papers, there's hundreds of
>    lies deposited here.

I think mr. Bill has a point here. There is plenty of conflicting information
in this conference (it can't all be true :-) coming from a variety of sources 
which cannot be classified as always accurate.

However, I think his use of the word 'lie' is a little strong, since the
person repeating the misinformation (if in fact it is) is not deliberately 
trying to deceive, but just conveying what they heard (from yet another 
wide variety of sources).

The misinformation may have started out as a lie or a misunderstanding or just
one mans interpretation. 

Just because I disagree with Mr. bills interpretations does mean I think he
is spreading lies  :-)

Keep up the good work Mb.

Doug.

>Just because I disagree with Mr. bills interpretations does mean I think he
>is spreading lies  :-)

huh?

    re .238

    mr bill, need I point out that you NEVER DID EXPLAIN what crime Mrs.
    Weaver committed ? ! ? !

    I was taking your silence as an admission of inability to answer, but
    if you start calling other people liars, I am forced to call you on
    your own, shall we say, misinformation.

    :-)
    Dan

    
    
    MR. BILL 
    
    If these notes that Jim posts are lies and you have FACTS to refute
    them please post these Facts for all of us to read. If you can not
    refute Jims postings and you still say there lies I can only belive
    that your full of hot air..
    
    
    Dave
    
    
    Mr. Bill don't let an alligator mouth overload a canary ass!

Just because I disagree with Mr. bills interpretations does 

***NOT*** 

mean I think he is spreading lies  :-)