One nation is a solution for war

[Immanuel Can]

We should not force them. We should educate them.

They're already educated. China, India, Brazil, Yemen...these are not nations of fools. It's not ignorance that's the cause of their values, but rather the having of a very different view from you. What do you do about that?

They would accept the concept of one nation if they are educated enough.

So you think you can "educate" all the Chinese into preferring English, the Arabs into rejecting Islam, the Somalis into giving up child-brides and female circumcision, the aboriginals into abandoning animism, and the Indians into no longer being Hindu...you think that's how it's going to play out?

Other languages are important as well. There is a huge amount of literature on each language. People could still use the second language for poetry for example.

Oh. So they get their poetry, and we get to control all the business. They get their literature, and we get control of science. They get local get-togethers, and we get control of public education. They get their quaint festivals, and we get control of all the politics.

I see how this works: you give them the little things, and we take all the controlling concerns away from their language.

Yes, something like that.

"Something like?" No, it's going to be exactly like that.

But put the shoe on the other foot: if the Chinese tell you that all important functions will henceforth be done only in Mandarin, and English and the other languages are only to be used for local purposes, are you going to sit still for that?

Education is what is needed.

So your theory is that they are...what? Stupid? Ignorant? Uneducated? Uniformed? Unscientific? Illogical? Immoral? Naive? And if you can just "educate" them in what you want them to believe, they'll come around to it?

They are ignorant to the idea of one nation.

NOBODY is ignorant of that idea. What do you think the Third Reich, the Roman Empire, and The Triumph of the Proletariat were supposed to be? They were supposed to be exactly what you're campaigning for: one culture gets all the control, and the others have to fall into line.

It's going to take more than "education" to get that to happen. You're going to end up doing what all those empire-builders also had to do: use force. You're going to end up being a tyrant.

[Age]

From what i recall, which is very, very fallible, one where every one belongs to 'themself' alone, and, one where 'one' cannot touch or take the life, liberty, nor property of 'another'.

Nope. Wrong.

My right world is the real world, the one we're in, where you and I are free wills, each with a natural, moral claim to our own, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. There's no cannot in the world; there are ought nots, however.

Joe ought not murder Stan becuz Stan's life is his own. Joe however can certainly try to murder Stan. He may succeed, he may fail, but he can try.

Thank you for clarifying, and correcting me, here "henry quirk".

One issue I have here, however, with what you call the 'real world', the one that you say and claim we are in now, is if 'we' supposedly have a 'natural, moral claim to our own, and no one else's, life, liberty, nor property, then why can you take another's life, for example, for just touching a touch pick, which you want to claim 'is yours'?

Also, who decides on who claim of property is the True and Right claim.

From what I have observed and ascertained, 'the property' that you want to and try to claim is 'rightfully yours' was in loose terms 'stolen' from others.

Furthermore, in the 'real world' human beings, individually, do not have nor own 'property'. But then, different observers have different perspectives of what the 'real world' is, exactly, correct? you know, 'the one' that you are living in 'now' is very, very different from the one human beings in the past were living 'in', just like 'the world' that you were living 'in' back when this was being written is very, very different from the one 'we' are living in 'now', as well.

[Age]

They are the best at the current stage.

you forgot to mention and write, 'in your view'.

And, let us not forget how quickly things can change. Take, for example, did you see/saw 'conflict' in "germany" say only a few decades ago, or just one hundred or so years ago, from when this is being written?

So, how things appear to be 'civilized' 'currently' can very quickly change, for the better, or for the worse.

Yes, in my view, Social Democracy is the best type of government. Do you have a better example?

Yes.

Exactly as I said here previously. A 'Self-governed' society.

By convincing them.

So, you have to 'convince' one of some thing, which they would not have just agreed with, accepted, and/or followed with, voluntarily. Which is a great sign of what one thinks or believes others need to be 'convinced' of may well not be good and right, at all.

Here, I am just providing my opinion. People have the right to disagree.

Have you noticed all of the 'disagreement' and reasons 'why' you are receiving here?

If yes, are you taking notice of them, and considering why there are so many disagreements here?

Do you mean the type of government?

It was you who first used the 'one flag' words here, to which I asked the clarifying question to. So, when you used the 'one flag' words were you meaning a 'type of government', or something else, exactly?

I meant a type of government, Social Democracy.

So then my question still pertains to 'one flag', which to you just means 'social democracy'.

Which you, obviously, believe is the best type of government, correct?

If yes, then you will naturally keep arguing and/or fighting for your belief here, even if your belief is really that good an idea at all. This is just the 'nature of belief/the beast', itself.

Hopefully more as time passes.

But how come you do not 'naturally agree with' and do not 'want to live' within a 'one flag', 'type of government', nor 'one nation'?

I want to live within one nation.

But not 'the one' others have chosen, for you, have decided you should be educated upon and with, and who have decided you should agree with, accept, and follow also, correct?

Can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions now in your claims and beliefs here?

[Age]

Not only that, but the whole polity. For example, will your "one nation" allow sutee, and female circumcision, and slavery, and child brides, and blood sacrifice, and cannabalism, and theft by taxation, and revenge rape, and spiritism and ancestor worship...all these things are practiced by various cultures around the world; so which "nation" do we end up being?

In my opinion, they are not allowed. Most of what you mentioned are crimes to me, such as suttee, female circumcision, and the like.

Well, here's the problem: you may feel that way, but millions of people feel different ways about those things. If you're going to make us all "one nation," as you say, how do you justify shutting down and preventing all the things you don't like?

Which "nation," with which language, culture, laws, traditions, economic structures, and so on, do you want to force us all to become?

Yes, it inevitably has to mean that.

There are already many nations in the world that are multicultural, multilanguage,...

They don't function well. They break down along those lines. I know: I live in one of the most allegedly "multicultural" nations in the world. It's an unbelievable mess, because people need to be able to understand each other and work on common values, projects and structures if the nation is going to succeed. And we don't. So we're constantly on the verge of disaster because of our internal divisions.

Again, the 'break down' and being on a 'constant verge of disaster' is and was just caused by a forced so-called 'education-system' and by enforcement of 'indoctrinating beliefs' onto others, which completely go, and itself goes completely, against the natural order of things. For example, "christian teachings", (among all of the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect teachings that you adult human beings force onto and into children).

[Age]

In my opinion, they are not allowed. Most of what you mentioned are crimes to me, such as suttee, female circumcision, and the like.

Well, here's the problem: you may feel that way, but millions of people feel different ways about those things. If you're going to make us all "one nation," as you say, how do you justify shutting down and preventing all the things you don't like?

Those are barbaric! Do you agree with them? And yes, we have to shut them down!

Why do we, supposedly, 'have to'?

What will happen if we do not?

Which "nation," with which language, culture, laws, traditions, economic structures, and so on, do you want to force us all to become?

We could have a main language such as English and other languages as well. We could have a multicultural system. One law. The type of government could be Social Democracy.

This never has worked, and never will work, for obvious reasons.

However, very soon to become to you in the days when this is being written, 'new world' is One where absolutely no one is forced to follow nor do absolutely any thing, every one 'governs' "themselves", there are no 'laws' and no judging, punishing, ridiculing, nor humiliating. There is, however, One 'lore', which absolutely every one, voluntarily, wants to follow and abide by, and is done so very naturally.

This True and Right 'world' comes about after the knowing of thy, True and Real, Self is obtained and understood, and the 'type of government' in this new 'One world' is 'Self-governance', Itself.

There are already many nations in the world that are multicultural, multilanguage,...

They don't function well. They break down along those lines. I know: I live in one of the most allegedly "multicultural" nations in the world. It's an unbelievable mess, because people need to be able to understand each other and work on common values, projects and structures if the nation is going to succeed. And we don't. So we're constantly on the verge of disaster because of our internal divisions.

They would function well if people were open-minded.

But 'open-minded' is a misnomer. Mostly because there is only One Mind, which is always absolutely Truly OPEN.

[Age]

Those are barbaric! Do you agree with them? And yes, we have to shut them down!

I named them BECAUSE I personally find them barbaric. But that doesn't answer my question: how do you justify forcing these people from other cultures to do what you want, instead of what they want?

We should not force them. We should educate them.

But 'they', the ones that you want 'to change' because you, personally, do not like 'their practices', have already been so-called 'educated' to their 'current' way of thinking, and to looking at 'the world', exactly like you have already been so-called 'educated' to your 'current' way of thinking, and to looking at 'the world'.

What you do not seem to be understanding here is, 'Who is the one with the 'overriding knowledge' of what is the actual True and best way for all of you human beings?

Obviously, the only reason why you think you have and know the 'best way' "bahman" is because of what you have been taught, and learned, and unless you have had perfect past experiences, and thus a perfect 'education', your 'current' beliefs and/or ways here could be just as 'barbaric', and/or even worse, than some of the ones that you believe should be changed. See, just as others, to you, do not see that their so-called 'barbaric ways' are wrong nor bad, because of their own past experiences and teachings, you also "bahman" do not, yet, see how your very own 'barbaric ways' are wrong nor bad, neither. Again, this is just because of your own past experiences and teachings.

In fact all of you adults human beings, in the days when this is being written, were so badly blinded by your own past experiences, teachings, and learned ways, that none of you are still ready to be able to see and accept what the actual Truth is here.

But, just be content and happy in knowing that your proposed central or main idea here does in fact come to fruition. But just nothing like how you are proposing it could happen here.

We could have a main language such as English and other languages as well. We could have a multicultural system. One law. The type of government could be Social Democracy.

So English becomes the working language, the one in which people have all the primary power, economically, socially, in the media, in government, in education, and so on...and the other languages become...what? Curiosities?

Other languages are important as well. There is a huge amount of literature on each language. People could still use the second language for poetry for example.

Are you even remotely aware that unless you start teaching 'a different language' to the whole group of new born babies, then those babies are going to just grow up speaking their what is called 'native tongue'?

Also, what chance do you think you would have of removing, taking, and/or separating a whole group of new born babies from their mothers, fathers, and families, and teaching them all your 'chosen language'?

They would function well if people were open-minded.

They don't, and they aren't. So now what? Are you going to try to force everybody to accept your language, laws, culture, opinions, social practices and so on, and just expect them to come around to liking it one day?

Education is what is needed.

Why do you "bahman" always here in this forum go, in what is called, 'around in circles' and then end up actually 'justifying' your claims, nor explaining how those claims could actually come to fruition.

Now, 'the education of what', exactly?

What you 'currently' believe is best and right for every one? Or, something else?

If something else, then 'what', exactly?

[Age]

We should not force them. We should educate them.

They're already educated. China, India, Brazil, Yemen...these are not nations of fools. It's not ignorance that's the cause of their values, but rather the having of a very different view from you. What do you do about that?

They would accept the concept of one nation if they are educated enough.

So, the very reason you "bahman" cannot accept the concept of the Real and True 'One nation earth' is that you have not, yet, been so-called 'educated' enough, right?

you, obviously, have not, yet, learned how the True and Real 'One nation earth' concept could and does work.

your 'one nation' is based on what you, alone, accept and believe is right and good for every one. Which, blatantly obviously, would never ever work, in infinity.

So, what 'this' suggests is that you "bahman" need to be 'educated more, or further'.

Are you prepared and ready, OPEN enough, to be 'educated more and enough' here now? Or, would you prefer to stay with your 'currently' existing beliefs and views here?

If the latter, then would not every adult human being as well?

Oh. So they get their poetry, and we get to control all the business. They get their literature, and we get control of science. They get local get-togethers, and we get control of public education. They get their quaint festivals, and we get control of all the politics.

I see how this works: you give them the little things, and we take all the controlling concerns away from their language.

Yes, something like that.

Come on "bahman", you have to absolutely joking here now, right?

So your theory is that they are...what? Stupid? Ignorant? Uneducated? Uniformed? Unscientific? Illogical? Immoral? Naive? And if you can just "educate" them in what you want them to believe, they'll come around to it?

They are ignorant to the idea of one nation.

But you are showing and revealing here just how absolutely ignorant you are to the idea and concept of 'One nation earth'. Which, by the way, is and was the only 'one nation' idea that could, and actually does and did, work.

[Age]

They're already educated. China, India, Brazil, Yemen...these are not nations of fools. It's not ignorance that's the cause of their values, but rather the having of a very different view from you. What do you do about that?

They would accept the concept of one nation if they are educated enough.

So you think you can "educate" all the Chinese into preferring English, the Arabs into rejecting Islam, the Somalis into giving up child-brides and female circumcision, the aboriginals into abandoning animism, and the Indians into no longer being Hindu...you think that's how it's going to play out?

Also "bahman" do you think you can 'educate' all the "christians" into giving up child-brides, male circumcision, into abandoning their animism, and into giving up their child abusive ways?

Hopefully you can, and will do this. But I think, and know, that just more than you alone "bahman" will be needed here.

Oh. So they get their poetry, and we get to control all the business. They get their literature, and we get control of science. They get local get-togethers, and we get control of public education. They get their quaint festivals, and we get control of all the politics.

I see how this works: you give them the little things, and we take all the controlling concerns away from their language.

Yes, something like that.

"Something like?" No, it's going to be exactly like that.

But put the shoe on the other foot: if the Chinese tell you that all important functions will henceforth be done only in Mandarin, and English and the other languages are only to be used for local purposes, are you going to sit still for that?

So your theory is that they are...what? Stupid? Ignorant? Uneducated? Uniformed? Unscientific? Illogical? Immoral? Naive? And if you can just "educate" them in what you want them to believe, they'll come around to it?

They are ignorant to the idea of one nation.

NOBODY is ignorant of that idea. What do you think the Third Reich, the Roman Empire, and The Triumph of the Proletariat were supposed to be? They were supposed to be exactly what you're campaigning for: one culture gets all the control, and the others have to fall into line.

And exactly like what "christians" have been trying to do now for centuries, and especially to indigenous peoples.

It's going to take more than "education" to get that to happen. You're going to end up doing what all those empire-builders also had to do: use force. You're going to end up being a tyrant.

For the True 'One nation earth', the idea of 'one nation' is, and was, achieved and reached not through the 'type of education' being talked about and was used in the days when this is being written, but through 're-education' and going 'back to' what the word 'education' once meant, what was; to just 'draw out' 'the potential', within. Which just comes, naturally, with the learning, and/or finding, understanding, and knowing of who 'I' am, exactly.

[bahman]

They're already educated. China, India, Brazil, Yemen...these are not nations of fools. It's not ignorance that's the cause of their values, but rather the having of a very different view from you. What do you do about that?

They would accept the concept of one nation if they are educated enough.

So you think you can "educate" all the Chinese into preferring English,

Yes.

the Arabs into rejecting Islam,

What religion individuals have is not the duty of the government.

the Somalis into giving up child-brides and female circumcision,

That certainly is a crime.

the aboriginals into abandoning animism,

Actually, I think that everything experiences.

and the Indians into no longer being Hindu...you think that's how it's going to play out?

Again, religion is not the concern of the government.

Oh. So they get their poetry, and we get to control all the business. They get their literature, and we get control of science. They get local get-togethers, and we get control of public education. They get their quaint festivals, and we get control of all the politics.

I see how this works: you give them the little things, and we take all the controlling concerns away from their language.

Yes, something like that.

"Something like?" No, it's going to be exactly like that.

But put the shoe on the other foot: if the Chinese tell you that all important functions will henceforth be done only in Mandarin, and English and the other languages are only to be used for local purposes, are you going to sit still for that?

We can accommodate them in the nation if that is their only problem.

So your theory is that they are...what? Stupid? Ignorant? Uneducated? Uniformed? Unscientific? Illogical? Immoral? Naive? And if you can just "educate" them in what you want them to believe, they'll come around to it?

They are ignorant to the idea of one nation.

NOBODY is ignorant of that idea. What do you think the Third Reich, the Roman Empire, and The Triumph of the Proletariat were supposed to be? They were supposed to be exactly what you're campaigning for: one culture gets all the control, and the others have to fall into line.

It's going to take more than "education" to get that to happen. You're going to end up doing what all those empire-builders also had to do: use force. You're going to end up being a tyrant.

No force. Education is the way to go.

[bahman]

you forgot to mention and write, 'in your view'.

And, let us not forget how quickly things can change. Take, for example, did you see/saw 'conflict' in "germany" say only a few decades ago, or just one hundred or so years ago, from when this is being written?

So, how things appear to be 'civilized' 'currently' can very quickly change, for the better, or for the worse.

Yes, in my view, Social Democracy is the best type of government. Do you have a better example?

Yes.

Exactly as I said here previously. A 'Self-governed' society.

So, you have to 'convince' one of some thing, which they would not have just agreed with, accepted, and/or followed with, voluntarily. Which is a great sign of what one thinks or believes others need to be 'convinced' of may well not be good and right, at all.

Here, I am just providing my opinion. People have the right to disagree.

Have you noticed all of the 'disagreement' and reasons 'why' you are receiving here?

If yes, are you taking notice of them, and considering why there are so many disagreements here?

All I can do is to discuss. People either agree with me or disagree. Hopefully, more people get the idea after the discussion.

It was you who first used the 'one flag' words here, to which I asked the clarifying question to. So, when you used the 'one flag' words were you meaning a 'type of government', or something else, exactly?

I meant a type of government, Social Democracy.

So then my question still pertains to 'one flag', which to you just means 'social democracy'.

Which you, obviously, believe is the best type of government, correct?

If yes, then you will naturally keep arguing and/or fighting for your belief here, even if your belief is really that good an idea at all. This is just the 'nature of belief/the beast', itself.

Yes, I think that is the best government.

But how come you do not 'naturally agree with' and do not 'want to live' within a 'one flag', 'type of government', nor 'one nation'?

I want to live within one nation.

But not 'the one' others have chosen, for you, have decided you should be educated upon and with, and who have decided you should agree with, accept, and follow also, correct?

Can you, yet, see the hypocrisy, inconsistencies, and contradictions now in your claims and beliefs here?

This is just an idea. It either dies away or leads to a movement. My responsibility is to discuss it.

[henry quirk]

Thank you for clarifying, and correcting me, here "henry quirk".

*

One issue I have here, however, with what you call the 'real world', the one that you say and claim we are in now, is if 'we' supposedly have a 'natural, moral claim to our own, and no one else's, life, liberty, nor property, then why can you take another's life, for example, for just touching a touch pick, which you want to claim 'is yours'?

Well, let's look at the principle involved, Age.

Joe is the owner of his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. Stan wants to control those things. Stan wants Joe's X (X being Joe's property...mebbe Joe's toothpick, mebbe Joe's car, mebbe Joe's body). What should Joe do when Stan comes callin' looking to take that which is not his?

*

Also, who decides on who claim of property is the True and Right claim.

Who owns Joe's body? The answer seems obvious. Who owns Joe's car or toothpick? Joe sez he does. Unless Stan has evidence to counter Joe, don't we have to take Joe's word?

*

From what I have observed and ascertained, 'the property' that you want to and try to claim is 'rightfully yours' was in loose terms 'stolen' from others.

Your evidence? Who did I steal X (my body, my car, my toothpick, my...etc) from?

*

Furthermore, in the 'real world' human beings, individually, do not have nor own 'property'.

My first, best property is myself. I don't belong to myself? I grow tomatoes. That fruit isn't mine? The car I paid good money for: it's not mine?

*

But then, different observers have different perspectives of what the 'real world' is, exactly, correct? you know, 'the one' that you are living in 'now' is very, very different from the one human beings in the past were living 'in', just like 'the world' that you were living 'in' back when this was being written is very, very different from the one 'we' are living in 'now', as well.

We all live in the same world as always where water is wet, fire burns, and man, every man, any man, is a free will with a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

-----

I take it, Age, you don't agree that man, any man, has a natural right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. If you don't agree, then how do you judge rightness or wrongness? What's your measure for saying sumthin' is right or wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

They would accept the concept of one nation if they are educated enough.

So you think you can "educate" all the Chinese into preferring English,

Yes.

the Arabs into rejecting Islam,

What religion individuals have is not the duty of the government.

Unlike in the West, Islam does not accept any separation of religion and State. That's what Sharia is all about. How do you "educate" them to forget that, and act like Post-Protestant, Western believers in human rights?

the Somalis into giving up child-brides and female circumcision,

That certainly is a crime.

How do you make them agree with you about that? To them, these are sacred things.

the aboriginals into abandoning animism,

Actually, I think that everything experiences.

Oh? So you're an animist yourself? Well, how do you make people like me or like modern Atheists to agree to see spirits in trees and rocks?

and the Indians into no longer being Hindu...you think that's how it's going to play out?

Again, religion is not the concern of the government.

Every government is shaped around metaphysical beliefs of some kind. They may be unarticulated, or they may be stated; but they're always there. So you're going to have to force people to comply with your metaphysical beliefs, if you're going to make them one nation.

Yes, something like that.

"Something like?" No, it's going to be exactly like that.

But put the shoe on the other foot: if the Chinese tell you that all important functions will henceforth be done only in Mandarin, and English and the other languages are only to be used for local purposes, are you going to sit still for that?

We can accommodate them in the nation if that is their only problem.

It's not the only one. But it's a huge one. People are very devoted to their own language, and they fight vigorously to protect it. Look at the Quebeckers in Canada, for example, or the aboriginals: both refuse to be absorbed in an English polity, or to allow their languages to be relegated to a cultural curiosity rather than to any position of power.

You would feel the same, if somebody told you that your English was no longer any use for government, education, commerce, international affairs, and so on. If they took your language, they'd render you powerless in all these areas. You wouldn't sit still for that.

They are ignorant to the idea of one nation.

NOBODY is ignorant of that idea. What do you think the Third Reich, the Roman Empire, and The Triumph of the Proletariat were supposed to be? They were supposed to be exactly what you're campaigning for: one culture gets all the control, and the others have to fall into line.

It's going to take more than "education" to get that to happen. You're going to end up doing what all those empire-builders also had to do: use force. You're going to end up being a tyrant.

No force. Education is the way to go.

It won't happen. What "education" is going to convince most of the world's population to stop being Chinese or Indian or Spanish or African, either linguistically or culturally, and to convert to your national dream? It will never happen. And if it did, it would only be by way of tyranny. Nothing less would get that job done.

[bahman]

So you think you can "educate" all the Chinese into preferring English,

Yes.

the Arabs into rejecting Islam,

What religion individuals have is not the duty of the government.

Unlike in the West, Islam does not accept any separation of religion and State. That's what Sharia is all about. How do you "educate" them to forget that, and act like Post-Protestant, Western believers in human rights?

I was a Muslim first. Then Christian. Then atheist. And now I am agnostic. You see, everything is possible through proper education.

the Somalis into giving up child-brides and female circumcision,

That certainly is a crime.

How do you make them agree with you about that? To them, these are sacred things.

What is the difference between me or you and them? Education.

the aboriginals into abandoning animism,

Actually, I think that everything experiences.

Oh? So you're an animist yourself? Well, how do you make people like me or like modern Atheists to agree to see spirits in trees and rocks?

I said that everything experiences. That is different from everything has spirit.

and the Indians into no longer being Hindu...you think that's how it's going to play out?

Again, religion is not the concern of the government.

Every government is shaped around metaphysical beliefs of some kind. They may be unarticulated, or they may be stated; but they're always there. So you're going to have to force people to comply with your metaphysical beliefs, if you're going to make them one nation.

Again, forcing people does not work.

"Something like?" No, it's going to be exactly like that.

But put the shoe on the other foot: if the Chinese tell you that all important functions will henceforth be done only in Mandarin, and English and the other languages are only to be used for local purposes, are you going to sit still for that?

We can accommodate them in the nation if that is their only problem.

It's not the only one. But it's a huge one. People are very devoted to their own language, and they fight vigorously to protect it. Look at the Quebeckers in Canada, for example, or the aboriginals: both refuse to be absorbed in an English polity, or to allow their languages to be relegated to a cultural curiosity rather than to any position of power.

Yes, think of Canada for example. People have different languages and they gather under one flag.

You would feel the same, if somebody told you that your English was no longer any use for government, education, commerce, international affairs, and so on. If they took your language, they'd render you powerless in all these areas. You wouldn't sit still for that.

I would learn another language if it is necessary.

NOBODY is ignorant of that idea. What do you think the Third Reich, the Roman Empire, and The Triumph of the Proletariat were supposed to be? They were supposed to be exactly what you're campaigning for: one culture gets all the control, and the others have to fall into line.

It's going to take more than "education" to get that to happen. You're going to end up doing what all those empire-builders also had to do: use force. You're going to end up being a tyrant.

No force. Education is the way to go.

It won't happen. What "education" is going to convince most of the world's population to stop being Chinese or Indian or Spanish or African, either linguistically or culturally, and to convert to your national dream? It will never happen. And if it did, it would only be by way of tyranny. Nothing less would get that job done.

They could keep their language and culture. Regarding language, we encourage them to learn English so they can communicate with everyone around the world.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes.


What religion individuals have is not the duty of the government.

Unlike in the West, Islam does not accept any separation of religion and State. That's what Sharia is all about. How do you "educate" them to forget that, and act like Post-Protestant, Western believers in human rights?

I was a Muslim first. Then Christian. Then atheist. And now I am agnostic. You see, everything is possible through proper education.

I figured you were from a different culture. But you can't be an agnostic now, because you believe in "spirits," according to you. You seem to have become a sort of animist, too, since you think that rocks and trees have consciousness. Is that not right?

But then, you know the truth of what I'm saying. Islam does not separate religion and State. And that means that the only way you can include Muslims, or Orthodox Jews, or Marxists, or Catholics, or any other religio-political belief system is by "educating" them out of it...probably in "re-education" camps, like Mao set up.

But even Mao really failed at that. He only partially succeeded in brainwashing his victims, as recent studies have shown, and in most cases, only succeeded in psychologically damaging them.

That certainly is a crime.

How do you make them agree with you about that? To them, these are sacred things.

What is the difference between me or you and them? Education.

No. It's worldview. Many of them are highly educated.

Actually, I think that everything experiences.

Oh? So you're an animist yourself? Well, how do you make people like me or like modern Atheists to agree to see spirits in trees and rocks?

I said that everything experiences. That is different from everything has spirit.

If a thing has no spirit, then it cannot "experience." There's no consciousness, then, to process the "experience."

Again, religion is not the concern of the government.

Every government is shaped around metaphysical beliefs of some kind. They may be unarticulated, or they may be stated; but they're always there. So you're going to have to force people to comply with your metaphysical beliefs, if you're going to make them one nation.

Again, forcing people does not work.

Of course it doesn't work. And that's why your idea won't work, either. Because forcing them is what you're really going to have to do.

We can accommodate them in the nation if that is their only problem.

It's not the only one. But it's a huge one. People are very devoted to their own language, and they fight vigorously to protect it. Look at the Quebeckers in Canada, for example, or the aboriginals: both refuse to be absorbed in an English polity, or to allow their languages to be relegated to a cultural curiosity rather than to any position of power.

Yes, think of Canada for example. People have different languages and they gather under one flag.

With lasting dislike or hatred of one another. Canada's being torn into shreds, and has been under severe national tension for decades. It's the most allegedly multicultural country in the world, but also one of the increasingly most failing ones, exactly as immigration continues to diversify.

You would feel the same, if somebody told you that your English was no longer any use for government, education, commerce, international affairs, and so on. If they took your language, they'd render you powerless in all these areas. You wouldn't sit still for that.

I would learn another language if it is necessary.

Many would not want that. You won't find they'll do it at all, without force. And they'll resent it ever thereafter, even if you could make it happen.

No force. Education is the way to go.

It won't happen. What "education" is going to convince most of the world's population to stop being Chinese or Indian or Spanish or African, either linguistically or culturally, and to convert to your national dream? It will never happen. And if it did, it would only be by way of tyranny. Nothing less would get that job done.

They could keep their language and culture. Regarding language, we encourage them to learn English so they can communicate with everyone around the world.

Why English? Why should you and I rule? Why not French? Or Spanish? Numerically, we'd have to say it should be Mandarin. What gives us the right to impose our language as the powerful one, while all the others have to become second-class?

They won't like it. They won't sit still for it. You won't make it happen without a lot of force...and piles of dead bodies, if history is any indicator.

[bahman]

Unlike in the West, Islam does not accept any separation of religion and State. That's what Sharia is all about. How do you "educate" them to forget that, and act like Post-Protestant, Western believers in human rights?

I was a Muslim first. Then Christian. Then atheist. And now I am agnostic. You see, everything is possible through proper education.

I figured you were from a different culture. But you can't be an agnostic now, because you believe in "spirits," according to you. You seem to have become a sort of animist, too, since you think that rocks and trees have consciousness. Is that not right?

I believe in the mind with the ability to experience and cause. The mind is omnipresent and it is needed for change. So there is an experience wherever there is a change.

But then, you know the truth of what I'm saying. Islam does not separate religion and State. And that means that the only way you can include Muslims, or Orthodox Jews, or Marxists, or Catholics, or any other religio-political belief system is by "educating" them out of it...probably in "re-education" camps, like Mao set up.

But even Mao really failed at that. He only partially succeeded in brainwashing his victims, as recent studies have shown, and in most cases, only succeeded in psychologically damaging them.

Not in the camp. People should freely join one nation. The proper education, by which I mean to critically discuss with them and argue against their belief.

How do you make them agree with you about that? To them, these are sacred things.

What is the difference between me or you and them? Education.

No. It's worldview. Many of them are highly educated.

They don't have the proper education. Perhaps they know physics, chemistry, and the like. But this type of knowledge does not help to have a good lifestyle. They have to learn to respect other people's rights, their rights, and think critically...

Oh? So you're an animist yourself? Well, how do you make people like me or like modern Atheists to agree to see spirits in trees and rocks?

I said that everything experiences. That is different from everything has spirit.

If a thing has no spirit, then it cannot "experience." There's no consciousness, then, to process the "experience."

Mind is everywhere so there is experience everywhere.

Every government is shaped around metaphysical beliefs of some kind. They may be unarticulated, or they may be stated; but they're always there. So you're going to have to force people to comply with your metaphysical beliefs, if you're going to make them one nation.

Again, forcing people does not work.

Of course, it doesn't work. And that's why your idea won't work, either. Because forcing them is what you're really going to have to do.

All social movement is the result of an idea. My idea might die with me or maybe be accepted globally. Who knows. My responsibility is to talk about it.

It's not the only one. But it's a huge one. People are very devoted to their own language, and they fight vigorously to protect it. Look at the Quebeckers in Canada, for example, or the aboriginals: both refuse to be absorbed in an English polity, or to allow their languages to be relegated to a cultural curiosity rather than to any position of power.

Yes, think of Canada for example. People have different languages and they gather under one flag.

With lasting dislike or hatred of one another. Canada's being torn into shreds, and has been under severe national tension for decades. It's the most allegedly multicultural country in the world, but also one of the increasingly most failing ones, exactly as immigration continues to diversify.

I lived in Canada for several years. It is not like what you describe.

You would feel the same, if somebody told you that your English was no longer any use for government, education, commerce, international affairs, and so on. If they took your language, they'd render you powerless in all these areas. You wouldn't sit still for that.

I would learn another language if it is necessary.

Many would not want that. You won't find they'll do it at all, without force. And they'll resent it ever thereafter, even if you could make it happen.

The second language is taught in many nations. And people are not resisting it and quite oppositely are very welcoming.

It won't happen. What "education" is going to convince most of the world's population to stop being Chinese or Indian or Spanish or African, either linguistically or culturally, and to convert to your national dream? It will never happen. And if it did, it would only be by way of tyranny. Nothing less would get that job done.

They could keep their language and culture. Regarding language, we encourage them to learn English so they can communicate with everyone around the world.

Why English? Why should you and I rule? Why not French? Or Spanish? Numerically, we'd have to say it should be Mandarin. What gives us the right to impose our language as the powerful one, while all the others have to become second-class?

They won't like it. They won't sit still for it. You won't make it happen without a lot of force...and piles of dead bodies, if history is any indicator.

People in most countries learning a second language so it does not need pressure to learn a language which they can share their ideas with.