Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Do what you like, but I believe a liberal is someone who holds social and political views that favour progress and reform. That's near as damnit the definition of the word, so I'm afraid your 'conservative' King instituted liberal policy whichever way you care to look at it.
So how does the democratic vote for all situation I was describing relate to your example?
By the sounds of it you define liberalism to be a polar opposite of conservatism, and by the definition I just mentioned above, Conservatism in your world is abjectly opposed to progress and reform. Something doesn't quite sit right with viewpoint - do you disagree with the definition of the word liberal? In which case, how many other aspects of the dictionary have you re-written?
[/b]
I disagree with the notion that conservatism is opposed to progress and reform. Au contraire. Keep what is good, change that which is bad.
Lets look at the definitions then, since they seem to interest you so much. From the Cambridge dictionary:
liberal (POLITICS)adjective [not gradable]
(of a political party or a country) believing in or allowing more personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth and power within society
conservative (AGAINST CHANGE)adjective
tending not to like or trust change, esp. sudden change
It's an extremely conservative society - they're very easily shocked by anything different or daring.
I tend to be rather conservative in such matters and a bit suspicious about these supposed advances.
Compare liberal (SOCIETY).
I dont think liberal= change, nor do I think conservative=against change. My definition is more along the lines of
conservative=keep traditions, morals, values etc bla bla blah, change what is bad/must be changed, keep the rest.
The bible is a book of teachings, which happens to espouse equal rights - it was not followed at the time and can only truly be seen to have come to fruition in the 20th century, thousands of years after the bible was written. It is irrelevant in terms of practicality.
[/b]
Uh... I'm just trying to point out that some of the ideas that you might want to call "liberal" and you would like to credit to Adam Smith or whomever might actually be older than that, and you can find the core of those ideas in the Bible. The fact that man at the time did not want to live by those ideas has nothing to do with the fact that they are there.
Did you actually read the articles? What are your opinions on the validity of the letter?
[/b]
I only read the first article. In fact, I only saw one link. Am I wrong in my assumption? That there are no evidence besides that guy and what he thinks?
And your point is...? Those were acts of terror. They were terrorists. They may have worn a uniform but they certainly weren't soldiers.
[/b]
See, this is where you are getting into deep water. Apparently anyone who does something "terroristic" is a terrorist and not a soldier? Where does that leave the Nuremberg trials one might ask...were all those German soldiers "terrorists"?
On the subject of the Balkans - check out the clerics who used radio to incite ethnic cleansing. You see, Christianity has had it's dark moments, just like any other religion, including Islam.
[/b]
There is a world of difference between Christianity and Islam.
Allow me to quote an old article I have stored on my HD for a situation like this:
Islam is an imperialist religion, more so than Christianity has ever been, and in contrast to Judaism. The Koran, Sura 5, verse 85, describes the inevitable enmity between Moslems and non-Moslems: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans." Sura 9, verse 5, adds: "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]." Then nations, however mighty, the Koran insists, must be fought "until they embrace Islam."
These canonical commands cannot be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because there is no such science in Islam. Unlike Christianity, which, since the Reformation and Counter Reformation, has continually updated itself and adapted to changed conditions, and unlike Judaism, which has experienced what is called the 18th-century Jewish enlightenment, Islam remains a religion of the Dark Ages.
The 7th-century Koran is still taught as the immutable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is essentially akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism. It is true it contains many sects and tendencies, quite apart from the broad division between Sunni Moslems, the majority, who are comparatively moderate and include most of the ruling families of the Gulf, and Shia Moslems, far more extreme, who dominate Iran. But virtually all these tendencies are more militant and uncompromising than the orthodox, which is moderate only by comparison, and by our own standards is extreme. It believes, for instance, in a theocratic state, ruled by religious law, inflicting (as in Saudi Arabia) grotesquely cruel punishments, which were becoming obsolete in Western Europe in the early Middle Ages.
I thought your great intellect might have spotted a typo of that magnitude. In case you need it pointing out to you, replace 'terrorist' with 'terrorism'. I'm sorry for my imperfection - mea culpa.
Yes...I spotted that right away. But still the definition is rather weird.
"A terrorist is someone who uses terror or terrorism"
"Terrorism is 1) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal 2) act of terrorizing"
It doesnt really say much does it? Basically ANYONE could be a terrorist including the rapist (who is using violence to get what he wants [sex]) or the bank robber (who is using violence to get what he wants [money]) ...see what I mean?
Where did you get that definition anyway? Do you agree with it?