OT: Old One - From Back on 23 August

[Guest guest]

Hey Rebecca,

 

> You sure know your historical facts.

 

I know some I reckon .. the older we get the less reading we have to do to know

historical facts. ;-p

 

> It's really interesting to see how there isn't total separation of church and

> state in the US, although it's sure better than most of the rest of the world.

 

Right you are .. the idea of separation was really built in as a knee jerk ..

part of

the rebellion against the Church of England as well as the treatment Louis of

France

was giving to non-Catholic French folks .. what we called Hugenots. And of

course,

the Spanish Inquisition was not all that ancient back then too.

 

> And, even if there was a total separation, I think there'd be a trickle down

> effect from the overlying patriarchal/christian belief system.

 

There must be .. like the feller in Alleybammer said .. the Code of Law in the

civilized world is based on the ideas behind the Ten Commandments.

 

> Up here in Mass you can't buy liquor on Sunday either, but, if you want to

drive

> up to NH, you can! And for those living by the border, it's up the street.

 

I hear you. My hometown of Guthrie, KY is also Guthrie, TN. The town is only

1,250

folks but its in Todd County, KY and Robertson County, TN. On the KY side

you can't get a drink .. its dry. Cross the railroad tracks and you are in TN

where

it is a wet county. Dumb it is .. and very Suthran Baptist it is. ;-p

 

> Also, you can go to a restaurant and have a drink if you want to, so, what's

the

> point of the Blue Laws anyway?

 

We need Blue Laws. What if a feller wanted to ride his horse into a bar .. we

got

protection from him doing that and hurting somebody. ;-)

 

> I mean, I guess they want you to get drunk publicly on a Sunday, rather than

in

> the privacy of your own home?

 

If you get drunk in public odds are you won't commit any of those despicable

acts of

sexual depravity that you would if'n you were at home .. Blue Laws protect you

from

all that and give you a better shot at getting to Heaven. ;-p

 

(Buncha snipping I did here)

> Recently, (on the radio) I heard a US soldier talking about being in Iraq, and

> complaining that it was the land of " In Sh'Allah " (I may not have the spelling

> right) meaning, " If Allah wills it " ,. meaning, it will happen if Allah wills

> it-meaning, they don't take much initiative. Just speculating.

 

In'sallah .. or in Turkish " Inshallah " is used in Moslem countries about the way

" Good Lawd Willing and the Creeks Don't Rise " is used in Suthran Fried Baptist

kuntry. Only the most fanatic Islamic or Christian would believe such things

can be

a substitute for initiative .. and certainly no boss would accept such crap from

an

employee as an excuse for non-performance. ;-p After being around Turkey for

a

long time I picked up on more than the spoken language .. there is a definite

body

language and also the hands play a part in speach. If I ask someone to meet me

at a

certain place at a certain time .. and they reply " Inshallah " I KNOW they AIN'T

gonna

be there. That's a Turkish way of saying .. Don't count on it. ;-)

 

> Butch, you probably know more about this-but wasn't the Roman army the first

army

> to have career soldiers?

 

Not really .. they were the first to have set enlistment periods. Their career

soldiers usually deserted cause they were often paid in garlic and salt. The

real

first career soldiers were the Spartans .. they joined up for LIFE. The

Spartans

were also the first group to practice close order drill and apply it to

battlefield

formations and such.

 

> And then of course the British Empire ruled for a long time-they werent'

secular > either..... But, they sure spent a lot of years burning each other at

the stake

> religion.

 

The idea of secularization or secularism is a new idea ... started by the United

States of America. History was full of monarchs and they were always leaders of

the

religions .. to include the popes who used to mount horses, wear armor and acted

more

like war lords more than they did religious leaders. But looking back at

history we

see that separation of church and state was good for the USA whereas total

control of

states by Spanish Catholic leaders ruined the countries of South America and

Mexico

for many years .. as did the leaders of Islam in Middle Eastern countries .. but

that

continues to a great degree in the Mid East. The ideas of freedom of choice and

democracy clashes with religion as a form of governmental control .. but during

certain periods of history it was religion and religious control that helped

bring

man out of various forms of barbarism .. and taught him to be a totalitarian.

;-p

 

> I guess what I mean is, even if you're an atheist, you are still deeply

> influenced by whatever are the overlying religious beliefs of the culture you

> live in.

> Rebecca

 

Right you are on that .. legislation can change events in a matter of hours if

there

is enforcement .. but legislation can't change the norms of a society.

 

Charismatic leaders can change the norms .. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was such a

leader

but when he died he was not followed by anyone who was near as great a leader ..

he

was the greatest leader of the 20th century .. says most historians. He managed

to

create an independent, secular and democratic nation from the ashes of an

Islamic

autocratic empire. He created a different language so as to take power from the

Islamic clergy .. outlawed the veil and poligamy and such .. for beginners.

 

Only two men in the history of the world have defeated a monarchy, created a

democracy and were democratically elected to serve as the first presidents of

those

democracies. Those two were .. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk .. and George Washington~!

 

Y'all keep smiling. :-) Butch http://www.AV-AT.com