I was reading some statistics on the Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel and the numbers outlined the potential for a Jewish fundamentalist state within a generation. Consider the implications given that Israel is nuclear.

There are 8 million residents in Israel and 6 million of them are Jewish. Ultra Orthodox Jews represent nearly 15% of that number and the trend towards Ultra Orthodoxy is rapidly growing as the complacent attitude of the Israeli government to the the land grabs exhibit. Ten or more children are the norm in Ultra Orthodox families and that birth rate will give them a majority voting bloc in a generation.

It is a similar situation in most European countries with the Fundamentalist Muslims being the social engineers, using the birth rate as a natural progression to ruling via the ballot box in a democratic constitution. The issue is of course that the new rulers are totally alien to the existing secular minded citizens. New religious zealot based government will mean policed alien social laws along with religious and cultural indoctrination.

I can certainly see where and how democracy can destroy freedom. Where the will of the like minded are in reality the will of a small group of religious zealots. I think it might be time to appoint a benevolent dictator.

Does Democracy Destroy Freedom?

Yes, it has already !

Dear SOG,

You ask, 'Does Democracy Destroy Freedom?'

We first should define what we mean by 'Democracy.'

"Democracy" actually comes from a Greek word
meaning "rule of the people," and this is no doubt
what the American President Abraham Lincoln had in
mind when he defined democracy as the "government
of the people, by the people, and for the people."

In practice, no such system has ever existed.
Pure democracy would mean that every citizen would
have the right to participate in every decision, a
situation that would lead to complete chaos and
would leave little time for all kinds of other activities.

This ideal form of democracy has been approximated only
in very small communities such as the ancient Greek
city-states and in early New England towns in the US.
Even in these cases, however, the right of participation
was denied to certain people - specifically, both slaves
and women in Greece, and non-property holders and women
in New England.

In practice, the socieites we consider democratic are those
that have institutionalised procedures for periodically
choosimg among contenders for public office. They have a
'Representative Democracy.' That is, the voters elect
representatives who are responsible for making political
decisions.

In all democracies the right of the individual to choose
among alternatives is held in high regard, and this right
pre-supposes such basic civil liberties as freedom of speech
and assembly.

Democracy does not destroy freedom when several basic
conditions have been met:

1) Advanced economic development.
2) Restraints on government power.
3) Absence of major cleavages.
4) Tolerance of dissent.
5) Access to information.
6) Diffusion of power.

Most people tend to simply accept the system they've
been socialised to believe in. Extensive research
on political socialisation has shown that people take
the legitimacy of their particular political system for
granted very early in life, and usually adopt the
political views of their parents. By the time they're
in elementary school, children all over the world take
an overwhelmingly favourable view of their own
country's system and of its national leaders.

This is not an endorsement of dictatorship, merely a personal experience. I lived in Spain 3 years under the dictatorship of Franco, and know the history of the conflict which elevated him to this status.

A person - man or woman- was completely safe walking the streets at any time of day or night.

Penalties for lawbreakers were harsh. I was asked to visit an American young man who was imprisoned for a drug offence. He was in a cell with about 8 other prisoners. They had a bucket in the corner, and straw on the floor. The place smelled more like a zoo to me. They were provided with 1 meal per day, and then relied on friends and relatives for extra food or luxuries. The guards told me that recidivism was rare. There was also an English guy who used to brag that his burglaries in England financed his holidays in Spain. He made the error of being lazy, and did a burglary in Spain. This hardened English criminal, who had been in prison numerous times in the U.K., broke down and cried like a baby asking if I could help him get transferred to England to do his time.

Franco died, and within months there were reports of youths on 2 stroke motorbikes snatching tourists handbags, hate crimes against gays started, and the streets were no longer regarded as safe for women to walk alone.

To this day there are Spanish law abiding citizens who still mourn the death of Franco. It has forever changed their lives.

In certain circumstances maybe be one strong and unchallenged leader is a better choice than democracy as we know it.

Having lived under both ideaologies, all I can say is that I felt safe under Franco's rule. I still think our way of democracy applied by wise leaders could be equally beneficial for us. Right now I would say this is something we don't have.

sonofgloin,worldwatcher & Individual,

You are all definitely onto the new phenomena that is becoming more and more and serious not just here but in the West in general.

Democracy has become nutty - anything is tolerated thesedays. Western societies are becoming welfare communist/totalitarian states. Independant enterprise is no longer encouraged.

I've often thought the same about the positive effects of a benevolent dictator. Enough is enough.

Ww - you do know that the Spanish no longer call their children mama and papa but Progenitor 1 and Progenitor 2. I first heard this years ago when their Socialist govt came into power.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover031506.htm

We're surrounded by sleep walkers/stepford wives and fantasists, and dominated by the political elitist latte sippers. I don't know if this is the feminisation of society.

The lefty agenda it seems is now entrenched in our educational institutions and the mantra is western self loathing. Check out Celia Green in the UK - big problems there. I recently met a UK teacher who teaches on a Nigerian island because she can no longer stand teaching in the UK as the kids on the island are so much nicer and teachable.

Lexi again hits the nail on the head.

Democracy should perhaps be viewed as a scale of say, 1 – 10, against the attributes she suggests. Although I’m really disappointed about the “absence of major cleavages”.

If you were to then take western democracy as a scale in the middle, join Marxism to the left and fascism to the right you would have a pretty complete spectrum.

I think that western democracies have the basics of a reasonably balanced system however; I’m not comfortable with the socialization of many aspects of our lives. IMHO, it is this socialization that distorts and divides our communities, thus it is in conflict with democracy

Well the founding fathers of America certainly thought so all those years ago.

I'm sure you're all familiar with these famous quotes? I'll just include them here again for sentiments.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
- Thomas Jefferson

It would seem that Australia is well and truly on this path.

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
- Thomas Jefferson.

And I think it was Voltaire that said: Democracy only works until the people figure out they can vote themselves a free lunch. Another path Australia is well and truly traveling.

Lexi>> Democracy does not destroy freedom when several basic
conditions have been met:<<

Lexi I agree with your thoughts, that certain caveats with the aim of limiting the power of government are essential for freedom within a society bound by a democratically elected govt. As an example our current Labor party is actively attempting to stop free speech in our press, re the Bolt travesty.

The theme of this thread is focused on the evolving cultural mix that has altered the first world societies. Cultures built up over the past 200 years in the New Worlds and the European cultures that straddle a thousand years or more are in decline simply because of procreation rates.

A culture that manages to replaces itself with an almost static birth rate can survive; in fact that is what the sustainable earth crowd is chasing. But the same ideologues want, and have achieved a swamping of these first world nations with religious zealots who breed like they are living in the Old Testament.

I exampled the Ultra Orthodox Jews and the Muslims, the reason is that both the Zionists and the Arab Fundamentalists have a political agenda running side by side with their religious ideology. The immigrants from a hundred nations that formed societies in North America, Australia and New Zealand found cohesion because of religious freedom and a SECULAR state. Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants work towards a single religion state, as do the Zionists in Israel.

So my premise is that a democratically elected government of the persuasions I mentioned can and would strip the personal freedoms such as religious choice and freedom of association from the 49% that did not vote for them.

WW, you remind me of an old old German mate who said to me “at least when Hitler was in power you could leave your pushbike in the street overnight”.

A strange but valid comment, you couldn’t voice an opposing opinion on fear of death but you did not become a victim of material theft. I look at New York City, a zero tolerance to crime mandate has seen crime fall to 1960’s stats. Our governments can implement harsh zero tolerance policing and we can still keep our individual freedoms.

Constance and RM I agree with your thoughts.

Spndoc>> I think that western democracies have the basics of a reasonably balanced system however; I’m not comfortable with the socialization of many aspects of our lives. IMHO, it is this socialization that distorts and divides our communities, thus it is in conflict with democracy<<

Good observation SD, it is all about being as homogeneous on as many levels as we can, but allow individual freedoms such as religion and associaation. But if laws are broken, being a minority should not protect you as it certainly does in the Politically correct administrations of the first world.

RawMustard,

Thank you for the quotes. Personally, I had forgotten some, and didn't know the others.

Regardless, they all have the ring of truth, and yes, we are on the slippery slope as well. Obviously the welfare recipients want to retain their entitlements, and the growing number on welfare unfortunately will adversely affect the polls.

To be fair, there are those who would prefer to regain employment which they lost as a result of our economic downturn - a fact which has been denied by government, but nevertheless exists outside of the mining sector.

Conversely, there are also many who simply don't want to work, and are content to be supported by our taxes - in the form of subsidised housing, free medical assistance, etc. etc.

These long term drones should be forced to work for their money. The beneficial government we have are quite capable of initiating work for the dole.
We read of delays incurred in so many projects, especially our roads, new hospital and school construction delays, and so many other infrastructures now needed by our rapidly increasing population.

If nothing else, it would give back these drones the work ethic they have lost. Why should working people shoulder the burden of allowing these dole bludgers to be on permanent holiday?

So we are told we have low unemployment. If the drones were made to work 5 full days per week, theoretically this would reduce our unemployment rate further. There should be a cut-off date, i.e., after 1 or maybe 2 years the dole should be stopped completely. The drones would soon realise their halcyon days are ended when they know that no work, no pay is enforced.

To conclude, there should be no age discrimination against those who genuinely want to work. We should utilise they skills they have regardless of age. By raising the retirement age to 67, workers are forced to remain in the workplace longer. Could this be because we need their money to support the drones?

Here's a lengthy article on the seeming incompatibility between capitalism and democracy by Wolfgang Streeck - worth plodding through if you're interested in the subject.

http://newleftreview.org/II/71/wolfgang-streeck-the-crises-of-democratic-capitalism

"Suspicions that capitalism and democracy may not sit easily together are far from new..."

Dear SOG,

I find that the source of
difficulty lies in the way "freedom" is defined.
In our society we're primarily concerned with
freedom "Of": freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of
the individual to make a fortune.

Socialist societies - that claim to be "democratic"
although their political systems have few of the features
we would identify as prerequisites for democracy. They
are primarily concerned with freedom "from." Freedom from
supposed exploitation by people who want to make a fortune.
Or put another way,we interpret freedom as meaning :liberty."
They interpret it as meaning "equality".

Liberty and equality are uneasy bedfellows. In general, the
more you have of one, the less you will have of the other.
Your liberty to be richer than anyone else violates other
people's right to be your equal: other people's right to
be your equal violates your liberty to earn more than anyone
else.

The US has chosen to emphasize personal liberty, an emphasis
that can lead only to social inequality.

Socialist societies (like the former Soviet Union) had stressed
equality, an emphasis that as we know led to infringements of
personal liberty.

Most Western European countries have chosen a middle-way,
that of "democratic socialism"; as they attempt to balance
the demands of liberty and equality more evenly.

As I stated earlier, most people, of course, tend to simply
accept the system they have been socialized to believe in.

One final word - In a democracy, power is theoretically
vested in the people, who periodically delegate it to
their representatives. The difficulty is, of course,
that power may become vested in the representatives
themselves and in those individuals and interests who
have privileged access to the decision-making process.

Elites are present in all societies, communities,
amd organisations. Some people have greater skill,
determination, ambition, intelligence, or
manipulative ability than others, and they tend to
dominate the group. Political life is no different.
Of course in our political system - our system is
one that allows new rulers to replace old ones in
a continued "circulation of elites."

Lexi,

On that point, this is a great article on social democracy (from a lecture) by Tony Judt. I've posted it a few times before, however, IMO it's a good article:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

Sonofgloin,

Two very good illustrations,and both achieved results in very different ways, didn't they?

In the early 70's I remember Times Square as a seedy example which attracted the dregs of society. If I remember correctly, this was completely turned around in an exceedingly short period of time by one very strong and ethical mayor. Would love to see it now that it has become a family and tourist oriented area.

Your two examples just proves social change is possible. At this moment in time we Aussies are lacking in direction simply because our leaders are themselves constantly vacilating. We not only need clear directives - we should be entitled to them. As it now stands, we don't know from one day to the next what to expect. First we feel frustration, then the inevitable apathy sets in.

Worlwide we have been known for our optimism, enthusiasm and resilience, but this is now fast being eroded.
It is hard to find anyone on these threads who is upbeat about either the economy, our future, or our politicians. Very depressing.

I agree with the great Sir Winston Churchill on this topic:

>>Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.<<

Cheers,

Tony

Thanks Poirot,

Just finished the article. Found it very interesting.

Any form of regime is fine, democratic or otherwise, so long as it is voluntary, so long as the people affected have given their consent to be part of it.

This is not the case, in Australia and as far as I can tell, nowhere else (except perhaps in very small countries like Bhutan).

The problems start and end when an imaginary "social contract" is assumed. Any group of people may sign a social contract, and are entitled to join forces in order to defend themselves collectively, but while they may protect each other, they may not assume any right to protect others who have not signed their social contract and have not invited their protection. When a significant minority does not consent to join a given social contract, the best and most ethical way is to divide the land.

For your information, Sonofgloin, Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are a distinct group from the Jewish settlers - and most of them are not even Zionist. Israel is a strange place because it consists of very different groups of people, whose only common denominator, the only reason for huddling together, is their wish to defend themselves in fear of a new Hitler. Apart from a Palestinian state or two, Israel itself should be divided into 3-4 independent states.

Dear Poirot,

Excellent article Thank You.
As you probably know my husband and I lived
and worked in the United States for close to
ten years. So I was familiar with the points
being made.

What I would like to see happen in this country
would be a trend towards a dealignment of party
loyalties. A breakdwon of traditional loyalties
in favour of a more fluid party system, in which
people pick and choose among personalities
and positions with little regard for party labels.
It would be great if we were able to vote for
candidates of each party for different offices.
This surely would not be unexpected in a post-industrial
society whose hallmarks are individualism and choice.
But then I know I'm dreaming.

We in the West have never had true democracy.Mayer Rothschild,"Give me control of a nation's currency,and I care not who makes the laws."

The West and most of the planet is enslaved in debt.New money that represents our productivity and inflation is created as debt.Eventually all the money in our economies is equal to all the debt.USA debt is now greater than it's GDP.The same exists throughout Europe and we are headed that way.The debt becomes impossible to pay off since the debt becomes greater than our combined incomes.

So the assumption that we have a real say in our economies is false.We live in a de-mock-racy run by an oligarchy of bankers,oil barons,drug cartels,military ,arms manufacturers and compliant Govt.

Lexi>> I find that the source of
difficulty lies in the way "freedom" is defined.
In our society we're primarily concerned with
freedom "Of":

Socialist societies - that claim to be "democratic"
are primarily concerned with freedom "from."<<

Lexi, the above statement is concise and well thought through. Freedom of, or freedom from, vast difference, but both are sold as freedoms.

Yututsu >> For your information, Sonofgloin, Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are a distinct group from the Jewish settlers - and most of them are not even Zionist.<<

Y, thanks for broaching the example I gave. All others posters have run in a general tangent around the title of the thread....and there is no problem with that as the subject has more aspects than the examples I gave.

Yuyutsu, for your information.....Most settlers who squat on the Palestinians land are Zionists. The Ultra Orthodox is attracting more Israelis by the day from the ranks of:
Reconstructionist Judaism, Reformed and Conservative Judaism, Messianic Judaism, Sephardic Judaism, secular jews, etc etc.

As I mentioned it is a birth rate issue, one will come too demographically, and then democratically, rule the other. Ultra's have never voted en mass in elections, until recently...they are calling it the Jewish Spring. As Zionists and others adopt the Ultra Lifestyle they are no scared of the ballot box, in fact Haredi Jews are running for the Knesset....a first.

Don't know what the "for your information" was, but I have a grasp on the subject thanks.

The strongest argument I have seen that democracy does not protect freedom is by Robert Higgs in his book, 'Delusions of Power', published last year.

Higgs argues that the belief that it is the role of the state to defend the individual’s right to life, liberty and property is closer to wishful thinking than a description of how democracies have actually functioned. He notes that some major political decisions in the United States – such as involvement in the First World War and the expansion of federal government responsibilities during the great depression – were contrary to the political platforms of the presidents concerned in preceding elections. During war times and other crises, many restrictions on freedom that would not be tolerated during normal times have received strong public support. Having tolerated them, however, many people tend to regard them as normal or even desirable.

I hope Higgs is wrong about the idea that democracies defending freedom being just wishful thinking. Democracies do not have a particularly good track record in defending freedom, but as others have already mentioned in this forum, the alternatives are unlikely to be better.

In my view democracy is worth defending because it provides the potential for tyrants to be voted out of office.

I'm with you on this one Lexi,as I have often said that any democratic rights we may have are taken away as soon as we exit the polling booths.

A classic example was the 2010 fed election, whereby elected members of parliament decided who would govern, rather than the voting public.

In 07, an overwhelming number of voters voted for Keving Rud, only to see him chopped off at the knees, a move that has left many still complaining today.

Dear rehctub,

I guess that's the problem with the party system.
They can replace leaders as they see fit.
I think you'd need nerves of steel, thick skin,
and keep your mouth shut,
to survive in the game. I recently watched the
TV program "Kitchen Cabinet," with Annabel Crabbe
interviewing various pollies. It was interesting
to watch Julie Bishop being interviewed in her own
kitchen over cooking lunch. The lady made quite
an impression and was totally different from the
persona we see on "Question Time," in Parliament.
As she said - if you want to survive in politics
you "toe the Party line or else!"

Dear sonofgolin,

You wrote “So my premise is that a democratically elected government of the persuasions I mentioned can and would strip the personal freedoms such as religious choice and freedom of association from the 49% that did not vote for them.”

It seems a little hackneyed now but Churchill's quote that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." holds a truth.

We know that like with anything we need to guard against the excesses of democracy. We do this through maintaining a robust and separate judicial systems, a constitution, and for some, a Bill of Rights.

In Lebanon the offices of President and Prime Minister are shared between a Muslim and a Christian and in Iran representation of the Christian and Jewish communities in parliament are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Therefore I'm not sure the benevolent dictator is necessarily the only recourse.

If we value our democracy, and we should, then we should strive to be accommodating of the institution and make every effort to see that it works for us all. We can do this by not accepting that a simple majority is its only prerequisite.

Dear Lexi,

Nice post earlier on freedoms. Reminded me of Watkin Tench, an officer with the First Fleet who wrote; “The first step in every community which wishes to preserve honesty should be to set the people above want.”

democracy under a society based on Christian values worked extremely well. Crimmnals knew that they deserved punishment, children respected and mostly obeyed parents, people treated family and marriage seriously and by and large society was healthy. Under secularism minority groups infiltrated every part of society with their total lack of moral compass. Mental health, abortion and suicide are just a part of the abundant fruit produced by such immoral thinking. Intellectualism excuses every abomination, supports the crimminal above the victim, encourages the destruction of the family unit and champions anything anti Christian. It must be right because the UN report says so according to the socialist. The ' éxperts' love to demonise the policy makers of the past but are happy to see our youth full of alcholol and drugs, full of promiscurity and full of self. They are then dumb enough to ask why!

Does democracy ever represent the will of the people in first world countries?

Why I mention this is due to the U.N. protocols and mandates that our government signs on our behalf. Many of these protocols require a law change, or a new set of laws in the nation adopting them.

So on that basis does democracy represent the will of the nation? We are being directly governed by a body that we did not vote for.

Csteele>>Churchill's quote that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." holds a truth.<<

That is a truism, as is another of Winston’s pearlers:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Runner>> democracy under a society based on Christian values worked extremely well. Crimmnals knew that they deserved punishment, children respected and mostly obeyed parents, people treated family and marriage seriously and by and large society was healthy. Under secularism minority groups infiltrated every part of society with their total lack of moral compass. Mental health, abortion and suicide are just a part of the abundant fruit produced by such immoral thinking. Intellectualism excuses every abomination, supports the crimminal above the victim, encourages the destruction of the family unit and champions anything anti Christian. It must be right because the UN report says so according to the socialist. The ' éxperts' love to demonise the policy makers of the past but are happy to see our youth full of alcholol and drugs, full of promiscurity and full of self. They are then dumb enough to ask why!<<


I agree with all of that Runner, there is an ongoing agenda of social reforms that is certainly socialist based. The "internationalle" brotherhood of workers has morphed into an internationalle of social engineers and left wing acolytes.

Dear sonofgolin,

You wrote;
“Does democracy ever represent the will of the people in first world countries?”

I am interested in why the distinction of first world countries? Second and third world countries sign these accords too. The Millennia Goals adopted by Bangladesh have had an enormous impact of the birth rate and poverty levels within that nation and they have been embraced by the populace.

A more direct question for you is what do you expect from your democracy? Perhaps for some of us our expectations do not sit well with the capacity of the institution.

For instance to me a democracy performs well when everyone feels they have at least had a chance to put their case or have their say if they so desire, when minorities are protected, and when the powerful do not get an inordinately greater voice than the rest of us.

Dear CSteele ,

You wrote: “I am interested in why the distinction of first world countries? Second and third world countries sign these accords too”

Not necessarily.

There appears to be quite a number of accords/conventions that the non-developed world (that being the latest buzz word) did not sign or if they did sign they either received,or gave themselves, special dispensation.Take the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I distinctly remember when all our careerist politicians were rushing in to sign provisions that may come back to bite us badly in the future. The Indian representative statesmanly-like declaring: “All Indians are indigenous”

And when India did eventually sign it made it very clear the provisions were not going to apply to India:

“ Indian representative Mr. Ajai Malhotra, stated that India 'had consistently favoured the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights'. In the case of the right to self-determination, however, he noted that this would only apply to people under 'foreign domination' and not those living in sovereign independent states.2 In other words, the indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination would not apply to India” .
http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/IA_3-08_India.pdf

Another case in point is the signing of the Kyoto protocol (and related AGW 419 scams). There is a world of difference between what it means for Australia to sign up to one of these & what it means for a non-developed nation to sign up.For Australia it means a big pay out. For the non-developed nation it means a big pay cheque

As for: “The Millennia Goals adopted by Bangladesh have had an enormous impact...”
Bangladesh's biggest achievement has been growing from 100 million to 150 million mouths-to-feed in just over two decades:
http://tinyurl.com/ar5fagx

But don't fret, when they hit the inevitable pot hole in the road all they need do is cry: "Its AGW whats done it" --and thanks to all those wonderful accords --the money will roll in!

Csteele>> I am interested in why the distinction of first world countries? Second and third world countries sign these accords too. <<

C, this thread was spawned from an article regarding Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel. It went into the growth and revival of the Ultra and onto birth rate projections had them as a major minority in a generation. It then discussed the possible outcomes if Israel becomes a fundamentalist state.

A religion democratically overturns a secular state when the voters hit critical mass. Further to that I considered Europe and the new status quo when Muslims become the majority voting bloc.

>>A more direct question for you is what do you expect from your democracy? Perhaps for some of us our expectations do not sit well with the capacity of the institution.<<

This is my expectation:
For instance to me a democracy performs well when everyone feels they have at least had a chance to put their case or have their say if they so desire, when minorities are protected, and when the powerful do not get an inordinately greater voice than the rest of us.... C, I agree with you.

Any tangent on the name of the thread is fine, but what instigated me was the thought that a religious state could be instituted democratically, particularly a fundamentalist state that would demolish democracy.

Dear sonofgolin,,

You wrote;

“Any tangent on the name of the thread is fine, but what instigated me was the thought that a religious state could be instituted democratically, particularly a fundamentalist state that would demolish democracy.”

I felt I had understood where you were coming from which is why I have thus far raised three examples of states that are dealing with fundamentalist governments; Lebanon, Iran, and then Bangladesh – and looked at measures that had been taken to accommodate religion within their democratic structures. I could have included Egypt when a truly interesting and probably more relevant experiment is currently being played out, or even Turkey which has a fully functioning secular democracy now to some extent also wrestling with this issue. Therefore I was a little surprised to find you seeing these as tangents.

However as you have now raised Muslims in Europe I feel I am far better appraised of where you were wanting to take this. Having just batted that ball around the park in another thread I think I might, on this occasion, leave you to it.

Cheers.

Oh dear, sonofgloin.

>>A religion democratically overturns a secular state when the voters hit critical mass. Further to that I considered Europe and the new status quo when Muslims become the majority voting bloc... what instigated me was the thought that a religious state could be instituted democratically<<

Pity really, there were some interesting views emerging, but I think you might have put a stop to that, very effectively.

As you very well know, Adolf Hitler was "democratically elected", so the answer to your question is "yes, being a democracy does not prevent the emergence of a Dictator".

In reality - that is, in the real world inhabited by ordinary, thinking people - the likelihood of Islamic rule of countries like our own is about the same as that of the Brighton Ladies Lacrosse team winning the AFL Grand Final. That is, not completely impossible, but not worth putting any money on either.

But seriously, if you want a discussion on the possible emergence of an Australian, European or global Caliphate, at least have the intellectual honesty to declare it, up front.

Thanks to Lexi, by the way, for some very thoughtful contributions. Only one teensy quibble, Lexi, on your first statement...

>>"Democracy" actually comes from a Greek word meaning "rule of the people,"<<

"Rule of the people" is of course what we have come to understand the word to mean. However, the generally accepted components are "demos" and "kratos", and "demos" originally meant "district", specifically the districts within Attica. It survives in such words as "demographic", and "endemic". While "kratos" has been accepted as meaning "rule", its root is more closely associated with force, with a tinge of violence. Since it is unlikely the Athenians would have been super-keen on "governance of the people by force", linguists are now tending towards the view that a more appropriate root is "krisi", meaning "judgement".

So "demo krisi" would be "judgment of the towns", a concept far closer to the reality of the Athenian process.

But hey, it's only a word, and we all know what it really means, don't we.

Pericles>> Oh dear, sonofgloin.
Pity really, there were some interesting views emerging, but I think you have put a stop to that, very effectively.

But seriously, if you want a discussion on the possible emergence of an Australian, European or global Caliphate, at least have the intellectual honesty to declare it,<<

Pericles…..second paragraph of the opening thread:
>> It is a similar situation in most European countries with the Fundamentalist Muslims being the social engineers, using the birth rate as a natural progression to ruling via the ballot box in a democratic constitution<<

In fact the first paragraph carried an identical theme about the Ultra Orthodox Jews introducing a religious state.

I suppose I am just pondering the old Ballot Box or cannon scenario, and what comes after a ballot box victory that changes the social fabric of the Caucasian world.

This scenario on a micro scale is what set off Rabuka and his Fiji coups to reassert ethnic Fijian supremacy. I could understand Rabuka then and I understand now. Why should my blood line be swamped and ruled utilizing the terms of the current constitution by a SINGLE ethnic or religious import.

The days of colonization by cannon are over, it will be by sheer numbers using our democratic system to overcome us and institute a religious state, should we, like the Fijians, change the constitution to stop this event from occurring?

Pericles my less than liberal views on global social engineering have been exhibited on OLO from day one. Muslim immigration into a first world country where the inhabitants have a “replacement “birthrate of 2.2 will face the scenario I paint. If you think that the Muslim religious think tanks see you as anything other than vermin you are deluded. They meet daily all over Australia and in the moderate prayer rooms and in the firebrand prayer rooms they are taught that our society is decadent and wrong, while theirs is sacred. Muslims are a fifth column.

I’m innocent of intellectual deceit Pericles, moral deceit, interpersonal deceit….I’ve had my share of those.

Pericles,

"...the likelihood of Islamic rule of countries like our own is about the same as that of the Brighton Ladies Lacrosse team winning the AFL Grand Final..."

OMG - that's funny!

Line of year on OLO so far!

(I wish I'd had your wit on a recent incursion into whackamossie-land on the other thread)

Cheers

Poirot,

Even a phalanx of silver tongued I’ll-save-you John Symonds couldn’t have won the day for you.

Besides, as I recall that thread wasn’t about wackamossie --but rather, wack-an-ozzie (i.e. Belly).

Hey, just to show that there is no hard feels here’s a tip: I heard from a camp follower that the Brighton Women’s Lacrosse team is a good chance of taking out the next grand final of the AFL (i.e. the Australie Federation de Lacrosse) put some money on them.

Cheers

"Besides, as I recall that thread wasn't about whackamossie - but rather, wack-an-ozzie (i.e. Belly)

You're so right, SPQR.

Belly didn't start up that thread with the sole intention of denigrating Muslims and calling for a halt in Muslim immigration.

Belly didn't trawl through news outlets every morning so he could post the worst he could find in the Muslim world every day as fuel for his rants.

Belly didn't employ innuendo freely in regard to myself and csteele, surmising this and that about us.

Not much he didn't : )

It's a controversial and emotive subject. Please don't tell me that Belly didn't know what he was up for or that he didn't give as good as he got.

Good ol' "ozzie Belly" knew exactly what he was about in starting that thread - and yet seemed surprised that other Aussies might tackle him in his views.

He had a right to express himself (which he did expansively) - and we had a right to disagree...that's not whacking an ozzie.

Poirot,

<< It's a controversial and emotive subject>>

It’s only so because some are wont to play the role of the three wise monkeys: see no criticism, hear no criticism, and speak no criticism (of Islam).
Four wise monkeys, actually, if you add the one that wants to rip your arms off if you continue to post your thoughts on the issue--that was the one Belly had problems with.

It should be no more controversial and emotive than criticism of say… the catholic church, or Jews. And most of us seem to have no problem(s)on those fronts.

"It should be no more controversial and emotive than criticism of say.....the catholic church, or Jews. And most of us seem to have no problem(s)on those fronts."

That, SPQR, is an excellent point.

And the day Belly opens up the sort of speech he unloaded on Muslims in the direction of Catholics or Jews - I'll criticise his view.

The day he starts a thread to call for a halt in the immigration of Catholics and Jews on the grounds that they're not fit to be members of our communities - I'll criticise.

Careful, SPQR.

>>...here’s a tip: I heard from a camp follower that the Brighton Women’s Lacrosse team is a good chance of taking out the next grand final of the AFL (i.e. the Australie Federation de Lacrosse) put some money on them.<<

That could be construed as investment advice, so you had better be in possession of an AFSL.

For the record, the Federation involved is the Federation of International Lacrosse (FIL). So not only investment advice, but fraudulent advice too. Tut tut.

Your "follower" might just be a little too camp...

Not that there's anything etc.

Pericles,
<< That could be construed as investment advice, so you had better be in possession of an AFSL>>

Ai-yah!

I am registered with the National Halal Accreditation Board.

All my advice is 100% halal. That trumps any measly Australian Financial Services Licence .

Errr... SPQR,

>>All my advice is 100% halal.<<

I suspect that any form of gambling - even on a lacrosse match - is most distinctly haram.

Back to the drawing board, my friend. Your camp follower might be of some assistance with this, once his nail polish has dried.

Not that there is anything etc...

Pericles,

<< I suspect that any form of gambling - even on a lacrosse match - is most distinctly haram>>

Yes, you are absolutely right. Gambling is haram.

However, there is a big BUT (and it has nothing to do with the lacrosse camp follower).

Literally anything haram is permitted if it is done with the view to advancing the cause of Islam.
The 911 holy warriors for example were observed drinking alcohol,gambling, and attending strip-clubs

Well I guesss that settles it, democracy does take freedom from us while anarchy delivers it.