British Oath of Allegiance

[eagle]

Quoting campbell from 02:39, 13th Mar 2008s.
... a head of state wearing military uniform,

Heaven forbid!
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/51313708 ... B75F48EF45
[edit -can't get the image to display, but if you click it, then change " & " to just &, it works.]

government controlled press, etc etc

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/busin ... harry.html

[Campbell]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 03:40, 13th Mar 2008
We still have far far more liberty in the US than you do in the UK. Our press is free - no Official Secrets Act here. We have real seperation of church and state - why in the world you think you have that there considering the official relationship of the CoE and CoS to the government I'll never understand. And if you think European life embodies the American Dream better than American life, you have an incorrect notion of what the American Dream really is because European attitudes about the relationship of the citizen to the state are anathema to the American ideal.

I don't think i've ever disagreed with anyone more. I mean... what? You have real separation of church and state? Are you fucking insane? Oh but wait i'm not from america so i can't criticise it, i forgot. suck my balls.

[the Empress]

See, notions of 'Britain' are fluid, as is a sense of belonging to place. What it means to belong and what a place means to you will differ. An Oath of this kind is an oath to some 'official' Britain, which most likely wouldn't reflect that peron's relationship with their country. It's ridiculous to assume because this oath is objected to, it's because someone doesn't like 'Britain'. Chances are they don't like the symbolism of the oath and that it doesn't reflect their own relationship with Britain. And that that person should LEAVE their home and go somewhere else is ridiculous. For one thing, if it's the regime a person objects to, leaving would mean no change from within. It also suggests that only one vision, the offical oath vision, of Britain is acceptable. Further, Britain is fundamentally different from America in the way we express our identity and what that identity is. Britain is not a place of a single coherent identity, and the state hass been, will and should always be questioned. My earlier statement that ethics are more important than state policies is not an example of the pursuit of self-interest.

[quote]Quoting LonelyPilgrim from
03:40, 13th Mar 2008

What is so wrong with patriotism, anyway? A nation is a society, a community, and like all communities it depends upon a shared sense of identity and purpose to survive. You don't like Britain, fine... leave, find somewhere you do like. . . The notion that loyalty is owed only to the self is half of what's wrong with Western Civilisation today, we are social animals and we are only noble (not to mention happy) when we rise above our own narcissism.


[hr]

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting campbell from 13:29, 13th Mar 2008
I don't think i've ever disagreed with anyone more. I mean... what? You have real separation of church and state? Are you fucking insane? Oh but wait i'm not from america so i can't criticise it, i forgot. suck my balls.

The seperation of church and state does not and never has meant the separation of religion and politics. It simply means that we do not have a state supported, state sanctioned, official church. As long as religion remains an important part of a country's social fabric, it'll also be part of its politics. So... are you criticising America, or religion?

If you did live here, you'd know that organisations like the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) are quick to challenge any law that seems to infringe on the seperation. Sometimes their lawsuits are spurius, but when they aren't, the courts almost always straighten things out. Religious discrimination is illegal in the US as a matter of federal law. Does the law get broken sometimes? Of course, but legal recourse, both civil and criminal, is readily available.

You would also know that we have the most religiously diverse country in the world. Which particular religion was it you think is running the country? I live smack dab in the middle of what we call the Bible Belt... a collection of arch-conservatively Christian states, but I can drive an hour or say away (still in my state) and visit the Bahai'i National Temple. Practically next door to it is a mosque. So who's in charge? Are they speaking Arabic or Hebrew or Latin or Sanskrit, because I just don't know?

I'm guessing you're talking about the so-called Religious Right. I'll admit, I've been worried about their influence over the current administration - a lot of people have. And yet... 8 years on and abortion is still legal, mandatory prayer is still not in schools, and children are still getting sex ed (even if it's still just abstinence, abstinence, abstinence - but that problem predates Bush). About the only thing the Religious Right has managed to do is get stem cell research restricted... a subject so esoteric that it's hardly scarily apocalyptic. The current crop of presidential candidates - all three of them - have no love for the Religious Right, and I'm certain you'll see a serious decline in the mixture of religion and politics come the next administation regardless of who wins.

That doesn't mean you won't hear religious platitudes in political speeches - the US is still a predominately Christian country among the electorate. Which raises another point... Are you certain your perception isn't skewed by not telling the difference between real religious influence on the political process (rare) and politicians invoking God and Jesus and whatnot because it goes over well with their constituents (common)? It's okay... there's plenty of Americans who have trouble telling the difference too because they'd rather live in a perpetual state of fear and outrage *or* they'd rather believe their influence is more than it really is, but that's okay - free country and all even for nuts.

[hr]

Self-control is the chief element of self-respect; self-respect is the chief element of courage. - Thucydides

[Campbell]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 18:14, 13th Mar 2008
The seperation of church and state does not and never has meant the separation of religion and politics.

...what? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You would also know that we have the most religiously diverse country in the world.

is that not canada? maybe that's just the most culturally diverse. whatever. that's a meaningless statistic.

Which particular religion was it you think is running the country?

The fucking shintoists, same as everywhere

I live smack dab in the middle of what we call the Bible Belt... a collection of arch-conservatively Christian states, but I can drive an hour or say away (still in my state) and visit the Bahai'i National Temple. Practically next door to it is a mosque.

Being able to drive for an hour and find a cluster of 'diversity' does not prove any point other than the opposite of the one you're trying to make

(even if it's still just abstinence, abstinence, abstinence - but that problem predates Bush).

Maybe, but he has vetoed the government funding of a great deal (possibly all, i am not sure) of all AIDS=tackling programmes that don't involve abstinence. Being a retard in this case has contributed to the deaths of millions.

"I'm certain you'll see a serious decline in the mixture of religion and politics come the next administation regardless of who wins."

It happening not to happen for a while is not a solution

"It's okay... there's plenty of Americans who have trouble telling the difference too because they'd rather live in a perpetual state of fear and outrage *or* they'd rather believe their influence is more than it really is, but that's okay - free country and all even for nuts."

I am glad I have Americans to clear up what freedom is, or I don't think i'd know.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting campbell from 21:32, 13th Mar 2008

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 18:14, 13th Mar 2008
The seperation of church and state does not and never has meant the separation of religion and politics.

...what? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I thought my point was quite clear. You can not seperate religion from politics unless you are going to persecute religious belief and disenfranchise believers by creating a religious (or rather anti-religious) test of office. So long as politicians are free to have their own religious faith, and so long as citizens with religious faith are free to vote, religion will interface in some way with the practice of politics.

The idea of the seperation of church and state, on the other hand refers to something different. 'Church' and 'religion' are NOT synonyms. Neither are 'politics' and 'state'. The Seperation clause is meant to prevent a particular church (eg. the Southern Baptist Convetion) from having an official role in the structure of the government, whether Congress or the Administrative branch. For example, no members of Congress are automatically seated because they happen to be preachers. No religious veto over policy. No law-enforcement powers in the hands of the church, any church.

Compare that, if you will, to the British system, where the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England; where the Archbishops are automatically granted a seat in the House of Lords because they are archbishops; where the Archbishop of Canterbury can accurately state that the 'law of the Church of England is the law of the land'; or where anyone responding 'not religious' on the government census gets automatically counted as Anglican for determining the provision of state financial support to the church.

The 'seperation of church and state' was intended to mean the structural seperation of church hierarchies from what was designed to be a rational and secularly *structured* governmental system. It does not, and never has, and never was intended to mean the suppression of religious faith in the general population or in those who would hold elected or appointed office.

So, what exactly are you objecting to? If you're saying that the US has problems because of the prevalence of religion in the culture, fine... I disagree, but I'll grant you the right to believe it so. If, on the other hand, you think that the presence of religion in our culture is somehow automatically a violation of the principle of church/state seperation, you aren't understanding the principle in either its historic or current context.

Being able to drive for an hour and find a cluster of 'diversity' does not prove any point other than the opposite of the one you're trying to make

Hardly. The point I'm trying to make is that we are too religiously diverse to have a 'dominate' church controlling our politics. I don't even have to drive an hour... a mile away is an Orthodox church, across the street is a Methodist church, down the way a bit is a Baptist church, a few blocks further down is a UCC church, an Anglican church, a Presbyterian church, and a Catholic church. Drive just out of town and there's a Mormon temple, on the other side of town there's a Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witness, and so on and so forth. Our religious diversity, particularly the amount of diversity within Christianity in the US *precludes* undue religious influence on our politics, scaremongering about the "Religious Right" to the contrary. It's the same principle James Madison argued for concerning any sort of interest group - the more you have, the less influence they have, because they effectively cancel each other out.

When I came home from St Andrews I was convinced that the rise of the "Religious Right" was the single gravest threat to liberty and democracy in the US. Three years on, and after much closer attention to politics, I no longer believe that. Despite the rhetoric, they just don't have the clout. Consider that their number 1 issue for two decades has been the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the repeal of abortion rights. In twenty some years, they've made only minor gains on the state government level (which is an entirely different discussion) but Roe v. Wade still stands, and doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

In a battle over political influence big business and big money will win over religion every time. Politicians who want to stay in office need money more than they need salvation, after all. The God stuff is therefore mostly just rhetoric and pandering.

Maybe, but he has vetoed the government funding of a great deal (possibly all, i am not sure) of all AIDS=tackling programmes that don't involve abstinence. Being a retard in this case has contributed to the deaths of millions.

Yep, I agree. But the problem isn't the system, the problem is the individual president who is definately our worst in the last fifty years. He wanted to play domestic politics with our foreign aid budget, but that's nothing new, really. One of the real problems that we do have with our system is the tendency for our foreign policy to get hijacked by domestic politics, and therefore the end product of how we relate to the world is a) unpredictable and b) irrational. This problem isn't confined to religious influence, though, it's caused by a tendency, since the end of the Cold War, to believe that the US is immune to problems in the rest of the world. I think the American people understand that isn't the case, post-9/11, but Bush doesn't seem to have gotten a clue.

It happening not to happen for a while is not a solution

Yeah... in the real world, things take time, especially in democracies where there isn't someone who can threaten executions. Besides, the neo-cons need to leave office before anything constructive can be done - at this point even if they decided to be decent human beings, no one would co-operate with them.

I am glad I have Americans to clear up what freedom is, or I don't think i'd know.

Hardly. Most of the great thinkers about these sorts of things were English or French. Read some Mill, or Locke, or Hobbes, or Thomas Paine, or Montesquieu, Rouseau, Voltaire... add in Kant for the German perspective. The American contribution to thinking about liberty and freedom is narrowly confined to Jefferson and Madison who pretty much copied what had already been said and figured out how to make it practical.

I wish I knew where the idea, often present in The Sinner comments by Brits and Europeans, came about that a) people can't think for themselves, and b) believing something automatically makes you a zealot for it came about, because it justifies the notion that people need to be shielded from (potentially) bad ideas like religion in order to save them from themselves. I have more faith in human reason and common sense than that, but then of course I would... I'm one of those damned optimistic Americans after all.

[hr]

Self-control is the chief element of self-respect; self-respect is the chief element of courage. - Thucydides

[Campbell]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 22:37, 13th Mar 2008

Compare that, if you will, to the British system, where the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England

I assume you're talking about the Queen, who is about as much the head of state as i am (in terms of exercised political power). yes yes yes, i know in name she is, but that means nothing. I meant the head of state as defined by me, ie Gordon Brown. My objection is largely the open, frequent and flagrant use of god - and always a Christian god - in American politics. Whatever the historical place of the archbishops in the Lords or whatever, i don't think that the public here would put up with the amount of blatant and frequent Christianisation of politics that goes on quite obviously in the American system.

Hardly. The point I'm trying to make is that we are too religiously diverse to have a 'dominate' church controlling our politics. I don't even have to drive an hour... a mile away is an Orthodox church, across the street is a Methodist church, down the way a bit is a Baptist church, a few blocks further down is a UCC church, an Anglican church, a Presbyterian church, and a Catholic church.

THESE ARE ALL THE SAME. Well they all sing from the same songsheet, with choice historical events separating them. But it's still Christianity. Which is a definite and specific thing. That is not diverse, it's the product of a total lack of diversity if nothing else.


also i was being sarcastic about the Americans and freedom thing, as I think you know. I've personally never seen any evidence that America has ever led the field on freedom or self empowerment in any way. In fact only today the Guardian has an article (page 2 of G2 if anyone's still reading this) entitled "Can the US today really compare with Czechoslovakia in 1975?" which includes the following points

1975 Czech - free healthcare for all
2008 US - 47,000,000 Americans totally uninsured, further 16,000,000 underinsured

1975 Czech - the granting of visas to foreigners is arbitrary, with denials justified under the 'defence of national security'
2008 US - American government uses the Patriot Act to bar entry to foreigners on the basis of ideology

1975 Czech - torture, though not officially sanctioned, has become a covert tool of state policy
2008 US - torture officially sanctioned

Also very interesting - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment



And you seem to think it's not ok for people who haven't lived there to criticise America. I think in a world with one superpower, it is everyone's place to criticise that country, especially one as violent and misled (see Fox news) as the States. It's not that I hate every American or anything at all like that, far far far from it. But in terms of the institutions and misplaced sense of superiority, either historical or contemporary, I think we are all affected by the myriad mistakes that it has made so far this century and have every right to say what we think about that, and I think the only reason you're defending it so epically is because I wasn't born there

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting campbell from 23:36, 13th Mar 2008And you seem to think it's not ok for people who haven't lived there to criticise America. ... and I think the only reason you're defending it so epically is because I wasn't born there

I never said people who haven't lived here can't criticise America. I said that if you haven't lived here, you probably have no chance of correctly understanding the role of religion in American politics. More broadly, I think understanding American society is very very very hard to someone viewing it from outside. Hell, I know that my perception of it is coloured by where and when I've lived here. Your friend in Georgia may have a dramatically different experience from mine. I know my part of the country well, and I have ideas about other parts that range from pretty familiar (the South, Northwest, New England) to admittedly no clue (California, the Southwest, Texas). I know I'm on thin ice when I make assertions about "American culture", and I pay a lot of attention, both to current events and the history. Unless you happen to be a latter-day Alexis de Toqueville, I doubt your ability to understand this better than I do.

THAT SAID, I've never questioned your ability to comment or criticise particular policies, such as our cutting of aid to HIV education in Africa that teaches safe-sex practices or distributes condoms. You are absolutely right about that policy, and it is regrettable and reprehensible. But there is a difference between commenting on policy and trying to explain why that policy exists or more fundamentally what America really is all about.

Our respective lists about what the US does that is wrong, what our bad policy is, are probably pretty much the same, I'd wager. But the reason I'm disagreeing with you so 'epically' about the church/state issue and religious dominance over American politics and culture isn't because you aren't American, it's because you are, quite simply, wrong. Your not being American comes into the equation because I'm essentially saying that I do not expect to be able to convince you that you are wrong, because you would have to actually live here to grasp the nuances of how religion affects daily life for most Americans. It's just like learning a foreign language, you don't really 'get' it until you immerse yourself in it. Culture is the same way.

As much time as I spent in Britain, I figure I know it 'pretty well', certainly a lot better than most Americans. But as much as I learned in four years, there's ten times as much about your culture that I just scratch my head at. For example, I don't understand how football can be so important, (and not just in Britain) that people regularly get killed attending matches in fights or just by being crushed to death rushing the field. Why would anyone care that much?

THESE ARE ALL THE SAME. Well they all sing from the same songsheet, with choice historical events separating them. But it's still Christianity. Which is a definite and specific thing. That is not diverse, it's the product of a total lack of diversity if nothing else.

Sorry if my responding in reverse order in confusing. Anyway, these are not all the same. Bear with me for a moment and consider the differences between two denominations from a *sociological/psychological* viewpoint. Presbyterianism is a Calvinist faith, it teaches that God pre-determines who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. Those going to heaven are known as the 'Elect', and you know if you are a part of the 'Elect' or not, because if you are the Holy Spirit will prevent you from ever sinning for your entire life. If you sin even once, you know you are going to hell, but you should still do the best you can to live a holy life because... well I've never really understood why, but you should. There is no forgiveness in Calvinist theology. (incidentally, this is not something the modern Presbyterian church likes to talk about, for obvious reasons)

In Methodist theology, those who are saved and are accepted by God into the Church still sin, because that is simply human nature. It's only a problem if they are pursuing a life of sin or if they aren't sorry that it happened when it does. This theology emphasises forgiveness and God's grace. Traditionally, Presbyterians and Methodists don't get along all that well.

Okay, I'm going to assume that for all you care, both beliefs are equally invalid nonsense. But please take a moment and consider the psychological effects on individuals who are raised or who choose to believe one theology versus the other. Yes, they are both Christianity, but their worldview, and their idea of what it means to be a 'good' person and how they should relate to other 'not good' people is *radically* different.

Methodism and Presbyterianism are two of the more closely aligned churches in American religious life. Other groups like the Southern Baptists or the Jehovah's Witness or the Seventh Day Adventists are even more dramatically different. I think it's fair to say that in terms of how adherents view the world, there are more similarities between some branches of Christianity and completely different faiths, than there is between Christian denominations. If you see Christianity as one big cohesive homogenous entity, you're very wrong.

Besides, consider that 80%, roughly, of Americans consider themselves Christian, but we don't have a political party with 80% membership, now do we? There are as many Christians in the Democratic party as there are the Republican, not to mention independants. How can this be the case, if Christians are all supposed to be marching together in lockstep?

Or consider that the official position of the Presbyterian church, despite what you may think due to what I said above, is to *NOT* overturn Woe v. Wade and eliminate abortion. They oppose banning gay marriage, too, by the way. Of course, the media never report when Christians are being reasonable, so the unreasonable varieties are naturally perceived as being more prevalent than they truly are.

I assume you're talking about the Queen, who is about as much the head of state as i am (in terms of exercised political power). yes yes yes, i know in name she is, but that means nothing. I meant the head of state as defined by me, ie Gordon Brown.

Learn your own government. Queen Elizabeth II is your Head of State. Gordon Brown is your Head of Government. I'm sorry, you don't get to redefine those terms as you will. Besides, the fact that you don't feel that having your titular Head of State also be the titular head of the Church of England affects your society in any meaningful way wasn't my point. My point was simply that, constitutionaly speaking, the UK does not have a legal seperation of church and state while the US does. This isn't opinion. It's fact. Go ask a solicitor or your local MP if you don't believe me.

also i was being sarcastic about the Americans and freedom thing, as I think you know. I've personally never seen any evidence that America has ever led the field on freedom or self empowerment in any way. In fact only today the Guardian has an article (page 2 of G2 if anyone's still reading this) entitled "Can the US today really compare with Czechoslovakia in 1975?" which includes the following points

1975 Czech - free healthcare for all
2008 US - 47,000,000 Americans totally uninsured, further 16,000,000 underinsured

1975 Czech - the granting of visas to foreigners is arbitrary, with denials justified under the 'defence of national security'
2008 US - American government uses the Patriot Act to bar entry to foreigners on the basis of ideology

1975 Czech - torture, though not officially sanctioned, has become a covert tool of state policy
2008 US - torture officially sanctioned

This is an example of criticising specific policies, and I agree with every point. Well, in principle I agree. Strictly speaking we were denying entry on the basis of ideology since the Communist Revolution. You can't come in if you are a communist, you can't come in if you are a Nazi, etc etc. Nothing new about that in the Patriot Act, evil piece of legislation that it is.

And, strictly speaking, government provided health care has nothing to do with freedom or liberty. Going from not having healthcare to having healthcare doesn't make me more or less free, although it certainly improves my quality of life. Actually, if my taxes go up to pay for that government healthcare then you could argue it makes me *less* free... but that's a tradeoff I might be willing to make, personally.

And regarding us never leading the field... I suppose you don't count that we proved to the world that a large nation could exist as a republic, and therefore allow an end to monarchy and aristocratic privilege - an idea denied by every philosopher and theorist until James Madison. If you want to say we haven't led the way recently, fair enough, I agree. But the whole Western notion of human rights, individual liberty, and democracy does sort of owe its existence to our example. Not that we are therefore justified to do as we please today. And just so you don't think I'm being unreasonable patriotic, the idea of raping the resources of Third World countries and exploiting the Earth to the point of poisoning the air and threatening life on the planet all in the quest for the mighty dollar is also largely our responsibility.

[hr]

Self-control is the chief element of self-respect; self-respect is the chief element of courage. - Thucydides

[LonelyPilgrim]

One other thing... the article you linked to. I won't go so far as to say that she's wrong, but as a former IR student and someone who has been studying democratic political theory for the last year just for fun (and research for a book) I think I'm in a position to say that she's stretching for it.

Coups, revolutions, overthrows, almost always demand one other element - a charismatic and popular leader. Fascism, in particular, is all about the idea of a strong leader with a national cult-like following. Bush's approval ratings are nearly in the single digits. It is utterly inconceivable that he could pull off a fascist coup. And it's certain that the next president will not be of his ideological outlook.

Fair enough, she says that what's going on is a gradual erosion of our democratic way of life. I agree. But... I see no reason to panic and assume the trend is not going to reverse itself. The anger in this country at Bush's policies is so intense you can almost taste it - and that's saying something considering how traditionally conservative and Republican where I live is. The possibility that the American people will tolerate a continuation of neo-con policies after the next election is minimal. The People want Guantanamo shut down, they want the Iraq War to be ended, they want the Patriot Act repealed, they want the wiretapping to end, they want torture to be outlawed. If the next administration and the next Congress don't do these things, I think we're more likely to see popular riots and insurrections and mutiny in the armed forces than we are a fascist coup.

Now, should we be attacked again... with a dirty bomb, say, as she theorizes... well... okay, things might change. But I'm confused as to what we're supposed to do about it just now. The decision time is when such an event occurs and deciding how to react to it, worrying about it ahead of time is premature. What else are we supposed to do in the meantime? Democracies function through elections... giving the Democrats control of both the House and the Senate in 2006 was a step back from facisism. It's too bad that the White House has effectively blocked substantive reform, but the opportunity to change that is coming up in just a few months. There really isn't anything legal that can be done between now and then.

Like I said, I don't want to say that she's completely wrong to say that we've moved in a bad direction. I think she misreads the trend, though, as well as underestimating the awareness of the average citizen. I expect this year's election will signal widespread discontent with the way things have gone, and come the swearing in of the next administration and Congress, I expect to see a lot of changes effectively dismantling Bush's legacy. If that doesn't happen... that's when I'll get worried.

EDIT: Besides, the move from liberal democracy to fascism is always only one vote away, in any democratic society. The threat is *always* present and you can *always* make a rhetorical case that the change is imminent.

2nd EDIT: You might be amused to know, by the way, that I'm apparently on the list for special scrutiny in airports myself. I'm not certain why, but I *am* fairly certain I was put on that list at the request of Her Majesty's government, thank you very much.

3rd EDIT: The necessity of a charismatic leader for a coup to succeed is very important as I think about it. If someone as unpopular as Bush were to do the things she suggests are in the future (I don't debate the things she says are already here, it really is quite bad) and the National Guard were called out to enforce 'order' I think it likely they'd refuse, after a certain point. Even if they didn't, or private security companies were employed instead, on a wide scale, violent confrontation with public demonstrations would only be a matter of time. Rather than lie down and be meek after citizens were fired on in a high profile way, I'm certain there would be more riots, and the citizens would start to shoot back - that is the primary justification for our gun laws, after all, the ultimate check and balance in the US is the citizenry's ability, real and not just theoretical, to overthrow the state. An unpopular leader simply can't overcome that once it becomes obvious that the state is being openly repressive. I think we're at the limit of public tolerance right now... people do know what's going on, they just aren't quite mad enough to abandon normal operating proceedure yet.

4th EDIT: All of that said, I am sending this article to a few friends of mine over here, to get their take on it. I still think it's wrong, but I'll get some other opinions.

[hr]

Self-control is the chief element of self-respect; self-respect is the chief element of courage. - Thucydides

[exnihilo]

This is riveting, but I think both of you could stand to read a little more about the C of E and its relationship to government. Because as it stands you're both off the mark. Still, enjoy popping away at one another.

[Humphrey]

Quoting campbell from 23:36, 13th Mar 2008
[s]Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 22:37, 13th Mar 2008
1975 Czech - free healthcare for all
2008 US - 47,000,000 Americans totally uninsured, further 16,000,000 underinsured

Does anyone know where I can get some of this 'free healthcare' people keep going on about. I don't know about everyone else but I pay for mine through excessive amounts of taxation.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[fat bastard]

when you have to pay to get in an ambulance you'll understand

[Humphrey]

Quoting fat bastard from 10:40, 14th Mar 2008
when you have to pay to get in an ambulance you'll understand

Technically I do have to pay to get in an ambulance. Universal health care is a good thing but lets not pretend its 'free'.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Hennessy]

Yeah it's free at the point of delivery for foreigners too, hence the "health tourist" phenomenon of recent years. Not free if you're bled for the billions that have now been pumped into the NHS, with no real results, except a large increase in middle management and men with clipboards.
Tbh my whole family is on BUPA as well, who generally provide much better levels of service than our overcrowded NHS.

[hr]

"What happened to Spoon?"
"There is no Spoon"
Dog Soldiers

[Humphrey]

Quoting campbell from 23:36, 13th Mar 2008
Also very interesting - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

This article Campbell flagged up is very entertaining

"From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are 10 steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all"

The ironic thing is that if you read through the 10 steps and apply them to the United Kingdom, you can argue quite convincingly that New labour is implementing most of them right now, in some cases to a greater degree than the U.S. Especially:

'4. Set up an internal surveillance system'

ID Cards and DNA databases anyone?.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Guest]

yes well thats fine if you can afford it isnt it

Quoting Hennessy from 13:19, 14th Mar 2008
Yeah it's free at the point of delivery for foreigners too, hence the "health tourist" phenomenon of recent years. Not free if you're bled for the billions that have now been pumped into the NHS, with no real results, except a large increase in middle management and men with clipboards.
Tbh my whole family is on BUPA as well, who generally provide much better levels of service than our overcrowded NHS.

[hr]

"What happened to Spoon?"
"There is no Spoon"
Dog Soldiers

[novium]

I think LonelyPilgrim was responding to the idea that it's bad/wrong for the US to have the pledge of alligence, not necessarily arguing that britain or every country should have one.

More specifically, I think he was pointing out that patriotism and nationalism are different. I don't think he was really arguing "Love it or Leave it" as much as arguing that it is good to live in a place that has ideals you can believe in.
But I could be wrong.

Quoting the Empress from 14:26, 13th Mar 2008
See, notions of 'Britain' are fluid, as is a sense of belonging to place. What it means to belong and what a place means to you will differ. An Oath of this kind is an oath to some 'official' Britain, which most likely wouldn't reflect that peron's relationship with their country. It's ridiculous to assume because this oath is objected to, it's because someone doesn't like 'Britain'. Chances are they don't like the symbolism of the oath and that it doesn't reflect their own relationship with Britain. And that that person should LEAVE their home and go somewhere else is ridiculous. For one thing, if it's the regime a person objects to, leaving would mean no change from within. It also suggests that only one vision, the offical oath vision, of Britain is acceptable. Further, Britain is fundamentally different from America in the way we express our identity and what that identity is. Britain is not a place of a single coherent identity, and the state hass been, will and should always be questioned. My earlier statement that ethics are more important than state policies is not an example of the pursuit of self-interest.

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from
03:40, 13th Mar 2008

What is so wrong with patriotism, anyway? A nation is a society, a community, and like all communities it depends upon a shared sense of identity and purpose to survive. You don't like Britain, fine... leave, find somewhere you do like. . . The notion that loyalty is owed only to the self is half of what's wrong with Western Civilisation today, we are social animals and we are only noble (not to mention happy) when we rise above our own narcissism.


[hr]

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[ElStudente]

Quoting Odysseus from 19:40, 11th Mar 2008
I'd prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to Alex Salmond.





*Awaits rabid Unionist response*

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

Count me in.

[ElStudente]

To Lonely Pilgrim: I take it by CoS you mean Church of Scotland? The Church of Scotland is presbyterian-there is no input from its clergy in any decision-making process either in Westminster or in Holyrood other than that which might be pracitised by anyone else in this country. This is because the CoS believed in an egalitarian ecclesiastical framework with complete separation of church and state (in both senses which have been mentioned), right from its inception during the reformation around the reign of Mary Queen of Scots. If there is an issue with the separation of church and state, it's not Scotland's. On the issue of definitions of 'church/state separation', I have to say that I'd see separation of church and state as being both institutional and personal, both parliaments and Prime Ministers.
And, not to offend you (if I do I really do apologise), but you say you live in the Bible Belt. Is it not possible that the context in which you're writing these posts may affect the content, and alter the prism through which you decide your definition of 'blind patriotism'? A level of patriotism and national pride that might seem perfectly acceptable to some of the people you know might seem abhorrent to someone who is used to constantly, cynically and bitterly questioning every system upheld an political decision made in this country (i.e. me). I'm a Scot, a recently swayed nationalist, a radical socialist, a pacifist and a former Christian, and I'm fully prepared to admit that everything I write is formed with those principles in mind. That's why I take the view that I disagree totally with the US system of politics because it encourages people to believe in the American Dream (the word 'dream' being the operatve one), and base their beliefs and views on a piece of paper and a history full of myth, legend and convenient whitewashing. A bit like proud Scots like me, who are expected to view things through a prism of 'Britishness' we don't subscribe to. Just to put in my twae pence.

[Guest]

I get shat on literally every day by new regulations affecting business - relating to the industry i am in - literally thousands of new regulations a year, maybe tens of thousands and I have to have this knowledge and apply it to small businesses - the DTI will not fund an explicit all encompassing advisory section for businesses on the grounds that it believes it to be too costly to advise businesses on regulation - Yet the clients I advise get taken to the cleaners by the same people who think it is too expensive to advise on the regulations that their own department helped create.

The idea that I would swear allegiance to any symbol or person representing the government or sovereign of this country is completely abhorrent to me. I am disgusted and hate politicians and their ilk more and more every single working day.

Come the revolution of anybody motivated by sense I will support it. Quite simply, I as a middle class professional from a traditional background will not in this current day swear allegiance to an authority that I see shitting all over anyone who tries to employ people or set up a business. There really are not words I can use to express my complete and utter dissatisifaction with the shower of wank that currently fuck up this country.

I have spent my working life trying to mitigate government regulation to help small businesses employ people and to survive in business. In return the government shits on us. There are so many examples relating to so many varied pieces of legislation that do not in anyway perform the function that they were designed to do and ultimately only create more expense for businesses to comply with that it is impossible to list. This is why foundries and factories, print shops et al go to the wall. I see people get made redundant almost every week because of these wankers so they can fuck off.

Give me something to be proud of and maybe I won't mind swearing allegiance to it.