Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Posted By Rich On December 12, 2000 17:43:19

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mohammad Isa Mirsiam on December 12, 2000 21:56:59 UTC

I shall try and answer you; friend:

This will be a start on a foundation which I shall build my arguments for (a few at a time please). For the statements below I will compile further data and post them slowly.

Best Regards
Jisbond


you wrote:
"Marx - I think an atheist - invented model of evolution for government. "

One can/should not recognize the achievements of Carl Marx because his policies were detrimental most who applied it.

"Freud - Atheist, though Jewish - Turned psychology from a myth into a science."

Although Freud did contribute to society he did not do it unaided; another words he must have used
scriptural/biblical/cultural knowledge in order to
have come up with the thesis that he cam up with. i.e. He too was once a child and attended a school of though which based it's education on the principals of religion of some sort. He may have just at some point decided to plagiarize and adapt the scriptural writings in to a more modern thought format to the point where he could call it his own.

"Darwin - Don't really know what he believed in - invented evolution. "

I shall quote from "The Revelation Of Truth" by: Pastor John Hagee:[words in brackets are mine]

'"In the beginning God created ..." That simple statement completely refutes the theory of evolution. If you believe that billions of years ago light shone upon a stagnant pool of water, and somehow that light (which itself must have a source) sparked life in a single cell, and that cell grew legs and crawled up out of the water, then climbed up a tree and grew fingers and toes and finally evolved into a man - Well, belief in that scenario requires far more faith than I have! I find it much more logical and sensible to believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'

'Lately some unexpected voices have been supporting me [John Hagee] in that belief. A few months ago, the Hubbell space telescope sent infrared images to scientists here on earth. These photographs, of scenes that no human eye had ever glimpsed, revealed galaxies possibly more than twelve billion times six trillion miles away. After learning of these astounding pictures, columnist George Will wrote:'

"Someday, if Congress thinks spaciously (thinks of things greater than ethanol subsidies), even better telescopes can peer into the remotest - What? edge?- of the universe and see galaxies being BORN [FROM NOTHING]. Looking deep into space is looking back in time. Hubbell may have seen light emitted when the universe was 5 percent of its present age (it is approximately 13 billion years old), LIGHT CAST BY STARS MATERIALIZING IN THE FORMLESS DARK THAT PREVAILED AFTER THE INSTANT OF BRIGHT LIGHT CAST BY THE BIG BANG. #1

The Big Bang theory asserts that from a pinpoint of compressed potential, something sent a cosmos spiraling outward at unimaginable speed. Rather than refuting the existence of God, The Big Bang seems to point to Him."

George Will explains:

"If the Big Bang had been slightly less violent, the expansion of the universe would have been less rapid, and would have soon (in a few million years, or a few minutes- in any case, soon) have collapsed back on itself. If the explosion had been slightly more violent, the universe might have dispersed into a soup too thin to aggregate into stars. The odds against us were - this is just the right word - astronomical. The ratio of Matter and energy to the volume of space at the Big Bang must have been within about one quadrillionth of 1 percent of ideal.

This good news - that in the meaning of "Gospel" -
from science suggests... "a buoyant view of our being." Life is so improbable it must somehow be favored by something. By some First Cause, "to which," said Aquinas, "everyone gives the name of
God." #2

#1: George Will, The Gospel from Science," Newsweek, 9 November 1998, 88.
#2: Ibid.
__________________________________________________
[to be continued:]

Rich wrote:
Lets do that, shall we instead of just making a blanket statement. Archimedes - Believed in many gods - Invented statics. Einstein - Believed in one god - invented relativity. Darwin - Don't really know what he believed in - invented evolution. Freud - Athiest, though Jewish - Turned psychology from a myth into a science. Galileo - Christian - Decided sun was center of solar system, was banned from church. Marx - I think an athiest - invented model of evolution for government. Jesus - Jewish - World's first advocate for socialism. Confucious, though I like Lao Tzu more - Asian - alot of work in philosophy.
Socretes - Polythiest - huge philosopher. Everyone came from him. Shakespeare - Christian - World's best writer EVER! Related real life to his stories. They still live today and will always live.
__________________________________________________

MY FRIENDS:
THIS NEWS ITEM IS GOOD TO READ.
"The international law under which we still operate dates from the aftermath of the Second World War."

IT SHOWS US THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW SUCKS!

THERE IS UNFORTUNATELY NO MENTION OF LEGALIZED MASS MURDER OF THE UNBORN IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE! IN THAT IT IS A HUMAN SACRIFICE AND IT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMANDMENTS! THE RESULT IS YOU GET TO HAVE MORE CEMENT HIGHWAYS OR ROADS AND MORE NON-BENEFICIAL SHORT- TERM COMFORTS (ILLUSIONS OF); WHICH CONSEQUENTLY:

1) DEPLETED THE RESOURCES;
2) TERRITORIAL DISPUTES WILL FORM;
3) WARS WILL OCCUR; MORE PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED;
4) TIME AND RECOURSES WILL BE DIVERTED FROM SPACE EXPLORATION;
5) THE PLANET WILL BE DIMINISHED OF ITS RESOURCES;
6) HUMANITY WILL BE TRAPPED ON EARTH WITH NO RECOURSES TO SUPPORT IT'S GREEDY NEEDS;
7) PEOPLE WILL KILL MORE PEOPLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN LIFE JUST A LITTLE LONGER; 8) ALL WOULD CONSUME ITSELF SOONER OR LATER UNLESS THE BIBLICAL LAWS ARE OBEYED.

A) OBEY THE BIBLICAL LAWS FROM A. TO Z. NOT BY EXAMPLE OF THE STORY OF THE LIVES OF THE PROPHETS WHICH ARE ALTERED BY MAN BUT BY THE LAWS THEMSELVES WHICH REMAIN UNTOUCHED SO THAT YOU CAN BRING RESPECT BACK TO THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST:
1)THE PRISONERS,
2)THE POOR & DESTITUTE,
3)THE SICK,
4)THE HANDICAP,
5)THE UNEDUCATED, THE BLIND RULERS AND JUDGES AND DOCTORS OF TWISTED LAWS,
6)THE LABORERS IN THE FALSE INDUSTRY WHO WORK FROM HAND TO MOUTH AND HAVE NO GUARANTEE OF BENEFITS THAT CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY CORRUPT LAWYERS WHO MAKE THE TWISTED LAWS SO TO HOLD POWER BY GIVE POWER TO THOSE WHO DEFEND THE POWERS OF THE LAWYERS WHICH FEED THE INDUSTRY BY THE RULE OF TERROR IN THAT THEY MAKE INDUSTRY AND TAXES AND COMMERCE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE WITHOUT SACRIFICE IN ONE PLACE OR IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN AS MUCH AS IF EVERY HUMAN WAS GIVEN A LAND TO PLANT IN AND LIVE IN AND KEEP ANIMALS IN AND SEE LIFE AND POLICE ITSELF; THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR CORRUPT LAWYERS AND ENFORCERS OF THE TWISTED LAWS.

B) SHARE THE PLANET EQUALLY, TRAVEL FREELY.

C) SLOWLY DISARM ALL GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE BIBLICAL LAWS AND HAND THE POWER OF THE ARMY TO THE EXECUTOR OF THE BIBLICAL LAWS WHO (MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL)BY SHOWING MERCY WILL EARN THE POSITION. DO NOT USE VIOLENCE TO DISARM THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD. USE REASON AND SHOW GENEROSITY AND MERCY IN YOUR OWN LANDS AS YOUR PROOF. (be careful of the lawyers that send there warriors to bring disorder in your lands; patrol your borders and villages by day and by night in groups keep the laws and Allah (God) will shield you from their evil plots. face your accusers in their own courts and make everything heard by the people of their lands because they too suffer from oppression and injustice)

D) FORM COMMUNITIES. AND PLANT VINEYARDS OF FRUIT BEARING PLANTS.

E) SLOWLY CHANGE YOUR DIETS AND BECOME VEGETARIANS. USE YOUR ANIMALS WISELY FOR LOGGING OR TRANSPORTING THINGS IN THE COMMUNITIES.

F) USE TRUCKS, TRAINS, AIR TRANSPORTS FOR TRANSPORTING TRADED GOODS BETWEEN ONE PROVINCE AND ANOTHER. USE YOUR LIGHT UTILITY TRUCKS TO DISSEMINATE THE TRADED GOODS EQUALLY AMONGST YOURSELVES AND YOUR RESERVES.

G) BY IMPLEMENTING THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS ONE PERSON AT A TIME ONE DAY EVERY ONE WILL LIVE WITH FAMILIES AND WORK THE VINEYARDS AND HAVE LITTLE
OR NO TIME OR REASON TO COMMIT CRIMES FOR CRIME IS COMMITTED BY THE NEEDY AND THE GREEDY SO SHOW GENEROSITY AND MERCY AND GENERATE SELF- REGENERATING VINEYARDS IN YOUR COMMUNITIES AND YOU WILL NOT NEED A DEFENSE MECHANISM AND YOU WILL NOT SUFFER YOURSELVES TO COMMIT CRIMES WHICH TAX YOU OF YOUR LIFE AND SOLE AND RESOURCES WHICH IS YOUR ENERGY.

WHICH IS BETTER?

1)POLLINATING THE PLANTS AND WATERING THE FIELDS AND MAINTAINING THE LIFE OF THE PLANET WHILE LOOKING TO FIND WAYS TO GIVE LIFE TO THE NEAR PLANETS TO COLONIES LATER?

2)DRAINING YOUR ENERGY AND LIFE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ILLUSIONS OF COMFORT IN CEMENT BUILDINGS AND DEAD HIGHWAYS THAT KILL TOO AND GIVE NO LIVING BENEFITS EXCEPT ANGUISH AND SUFFERING WHICH BENEFITS THE INDUSTRY BY REASON OF DEATH AND TAXATION WHICH IS ITS EXCUSE TO SELL PROTECTION FOR THE FEW WHO ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN AND LANDS ALIVE WHILE THE POOR AND DESTITUTE ARE KEPT IGNORANT FOR FEAR THAT THEY MAY DEMAND EQUALITY AND REAL JUSTICE?

YOU HAVE TO ASK: WHICH IS BETTER?

1)A COMMUNITY WHICH HAS TO CONFORM TO THE TWISTED LAWS OF INDUSTRY? (force is used to police the conformity, warped laws etc.)

2)A COMMUNITY WHICH CONFORMS TO THE LAWS OF LIVING BENEFITS? (generosity is used to teach mercy which produces safety)



The international law under which we still operate dates from the aftermath of the Second World War.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/speechtext.asp?3989

SPEECH BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY, ROBIN COOK,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION LUNCH, QEII CONFERENCE
CENTRE, LONDON, WEDNESDAY 19 JULY 2000

Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am glad that so many of you have crossed the Atlantic to be with us today. Those of us who live here were startled a couple of weeks ago to learn from Dan Rather and CBS that Britain had a higher rate of crime than the US, if we don't count murders. So we must give a particularly warm welcome to you for leaving the relative safety of the United States for our dangerous island. On reflection, perhaps I should not be surprised that reports of a crime wave in Britain have been followed so soon by an influx of American lawyers.

One friend who, unfortunately, could not be with us today, is Madeleine Albright. It would have been a pleasure and a privilege to share a platform again with Madeleine Albright. Since I took office in 1997, Madeleine and I have worked closely together on tackling some of the biggest foreign policy problems of our age. Continuing efforts to find a settlement to one of these, in the Middle East, have kept her in the United States today and I am sure we all support her in those efforts and hope for their success.

Madeleine Albright has proved a steadfast ally to this country and a good friend to me. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in dangerous circumstances - I am thinking here of our joint appearance on Larry King Live.

Her principled and courageous stand on a host of issues shows that it is possible to be an idealist and a realist at the same time. She has shown that the most powerful nation on earth should and can help the weak and the oppressed, wherever they are in the world.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

I would have welcomed hearing Madeleine address our topic for today - the conceptual and legal basis for intervention. How can the international community avert crimes against humanity while at the same time respecting the rule of international law and the sovereignty of nation states? The question of when it is right to use or threaten force is perhaps the most difficult issue with which political leaders have to grapple.

No-one can claim any longer that massive violations of humanitarian law or crimes against humanity fall solely within a state's domestic jurisdiction. The UN Charter itself was written after the Holocaust. It begins 'We the Peoples', not 'We the States'. It explicitly recognises
the importance of protecting and promoting the rights of individuals.

And there is now a well-established body of international law on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Tribunals for War Crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia operate in this context. So will the new International Criminal Court. They illustrate the growing international determination not to allow state sovereignty to act as a shield for war criminals.

But it is not enough to react after the event. It is far better to prevent genocide than to punish the perpetrators after the grisly evidence and mass graves are discovered. It is not good enough to have UN Blue Helmets standing aside while acts of unspeakable cruelty are carried out. We cannot accept another Srebrenica.

Exceptional circumstances demand an exceptional response. Just such circumstances arose in Kosovo. Regrettably, the threat of veto by two of the Permanent Members made Security Council action impossible despite majority support for our cause. But, under these exceptional circumstances, we were still justified, in every respect, in intervening as we did through NATO.

CHALLENGE FOR THE NEW CENTURY

Kofi Annan has said that the core challenge to the United Nations in the new century is 'to forge unity behind the principle that massive and systematic violations of human rights - wherever they may take place - should not be allowed to stand'. He has challenged us all to 'think
anew'.

My answer to Kofi's challenge, and my contribution to this debate, is that we should set down guidelines for intervention in response to massive violations of humanitarian law and crimes against humanity. In doing so, I want to reinforce the Security Council's ability to do what is right and to fulfil its duties. If we cannot do this, and the Security Council cannot respond to the most serious aspects of modern conflict, it risks becoming irrelevant. This is in no-one's interest. The Security Council must continue to act in the interests of the members of the UN. It must do so on the basis of a common understanding that, when given circumstances arise, military action is justified and necessary.

The stronger the likelihood that the international community will act, the more we deter future perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

BRITAIN'S FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE INTERVENTION

The international community is more likely to act if there are clear principles to guide us when to act. Britain has submitted to the UN Secretary General a framework to guide intervention by the international community. Today, I want to share with you six of the principles on which we can build such a framework.

First, any intervention, by definition, is an admission of failure of prevention. We need a strengthened culture of conflict prevention. Last week I was in Japan for the G8 Foreign Ministers' Meeting where we agreed that a 'comprehensive approach' integrating all the policies at
our disposal is the right one for conflict prevention. We need to stop the trade in small arms, and the illicit trade in diamonds which often fuels conflict - and I am proud that Britain played a leading part earlier this month in passing a Security Council resolution aimed at doing just that. We need to use development policies to eliminate the causes of conflict - poverty above all. And we need to end the use of children as soldiers.

Second, we should maintain the principle that armed force should only be used as a last resort. Intervention may take many forms, including mediation, as in Cyprus, sanctions, as in Angola, observer missions, as in Georgia, and international condemnation, as in more countries than I care to mention.

Third, the immediate responsibility for halting violence rests with the state in which it occurs. Sometimes a state would like to act but cannot. Then the international community should be ready to help if asked, as we were in Sierra Leone. But other states refuse to halt the violence, or are themselves the cause of the violence - as with
Milosevic's Serbia.

Fourth, when faced with an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, which a government has shown it is unwilling or unable to prevent or is actively promoting, the International community should intervene. Intervention in internal affairs is a sensitive issue. So there must be convincing evidence of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring urgent relief. It must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to save lives. But we should act on the principle that a UN member state should not be able to plead its sovereign rights to shield conduct which is inconsistent with its obligations as a member of the UN. We need to strike the correct balance between the sovereign rights of states and the humanitarian right of the international community to intervene where necessary, as it was in Kosovo.

Fifth, any use of force should be proportionate to achieving the humanitarian purpose and carried out in accordance with international law. We should be sure that the scale of potential or actual human suffering justifies the dangers of military action. And it must be likely to achieve its objectives.

Sixth, any use of force should be collective. No individual country can reserve to itself the right to act on behalf of the international community. Our intervention in Kosovo was a collective decision, backed by the 19 members of NATO and unanimously by the 42 European nations which attended the Washington NATO Summit in April 1999. Our own preference would be that, wherever possible, the authority of the Security Council should be secured.

The first and best way of dealing collectively with conflict remains the United Nations. When conflict prevention fails, the UN usually takes the blame. But failures of the UN are no more and no less than failures of the UN's members - all of us. We need to do better if we are not to undermine the credibility of collective international efforts.

The Security Council itself needs to be more representative of the membership of the United Nations. It cannot do its job properly in the 21st century if its membership still reflects the geopolitical realities of the 1940s. Britain has been advocating the enlargement and modernisation of the Council for some time, and I welcome the United States' willingness to look at formulae which involve a Security Council of more than 21 members. A more effective and representative Security Council must be a key part of any strategy for modernising the UN.

CONCLUSION

As the world grows smaller, national interests and global interests are converging. The international community is moving towards the principle that when crimes are committed against humanity, it is in the interests of the whole of humanity to deal with them. During the dark days of appeasement that preceded the Second World War, one Prime Minister famously described Czechoslovakia as a far-away country of which we know little. In the modern world, there is no such a place as a far-away country of which we know little.

Yet the international law under which we still operate dates from the aftermath of the Second World War. It was drawn up to deal with the threat to international order of the time - aggressive invasion by a foreign power of another country. In response, it gave central importance to the sovereignty of governments and non-interference across borders. These are vital concepts of international law and they have helped make aggressive invasion a rarity in modern times.

But they do not help us address the more common threat to peace and stability in today's world. Millions have died in conflict over the past decade, overwhelmingly civilians rather than combatants. They have been the casualties not of international war but of internal strife.
We need new rules of the road to guide us on when to intervene to halt casualties within a nation which we would not tolerate between nations.

When is it right for the international community to intervene and who decides that it is right? The United Nations Charter declares that 'armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest'. But what is the common interest, and who shall define it?

These are not questions which politicians can attempt to answer by themselves. We need a global debate on these crucial questions on how to develop international law to meet the needs of the modern world. And we need help to find answers that establish a new international consensus.

Where better to turn for that help than to such a distinguished gathering of the American Bar. It is traditional for the speaker to end by answering questions from his audience. This time I am going to get my retaliation in first by putting those questions to my audience. And if you can help us get nearer to the answers, then I will regard my lunch break as time well spent.


The UK and the United Nations

IT IS MY CAUSE TO LEARN HEBREW & ARABIC SO TO UNRAVEL THE HATE BETWEEN MUSLIMS & JEWS & CHRISTIANS SOME OF WHOME BELIEVE IN SACRIFICE OF HUMANS AND THEIR OWN BODIES WHICH IS THEIR TEMPLE AND SUBSTITUTE THEIR GOD IN DIFFERANT WAYS.
IT IS MY CAUSE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WITH UNIMPEDED GENEROSITY AND UNIMPEDED MERCY MANKIND WILL RID ITSELF OF HATE AND THE FIRE OF THE DEVIL WILL BE HARNESSED FOR SPACE TRAVEL AND MORE.(m.a.)

MY FRIENDS:
THIS NEWS ITEM IS GOOD TO READ.

"The international law under which we still operate dates from the aftermath of the Second World War."

IT SHOWS US THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW SU--S!

THERE IS UNFORTUNATELY NO MENTION OF LEGALIZED MASS MURDER OF THE UNBORN IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE! IN THAT IT IS A HUMAN SACRIFICE AND IT IS FORBIDDEN BY THE COMMANDMENTS! THE RESULT IS YOU GET TO SACRIFICE CHILD EXPENSES FOR MORE CEMENT HIGHWAYS OR ROADS AND MORE NON-BENEFICIAL SHORT- TERM COMFORTS (ILLUSIONS OF); WHICH
CONSEQUENTLY:

1) DEPLETED THE RESOURCES;
2) TERRITORIAL DISPUTES WILL FORM;
3) WARS WILL OCCUR; MORE PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED;
4) TIME AND RECOURSES WILL BE DIVERTED FROM SPACE
EXPLORATION;
5) THE PLANET WILL BE DIMINISHED OF ITS RESOURCES;
6) HUMANITY WILL BE TRAPPED ON EARTH WITH NO RECOURSES TO SUPPORT IT'S GREEDY NEEDS;
7) PEOPLE WILL KILL MORE PEOPLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN LIFE JUST A LITTLE LONGER;
8) ALL WOULD CONSUME ITSELF SOONER OR LATER UNLESS THE BIBLICAL LAWS ARE OBEYED TO THE BASIC LETTER & SPIRIT OF ITS LAWS. (I.E. "if your hand offends you cut it off!" is telling us to hold it back from offending anyone... 'NOT CHOP OFF YOUR ARM'" OK?!
A) OBEY THE BIBLICAL LAWS FROM A. TO Z. NOT BY EXAMPLE OF THE STORY OF THE LIVES OF THE PROPHETS, WHICH MAY BE ALTERED BY MAN, BUT BY THE LAWS THEMSELVES WHICH REMAIN UNTOUCHED SO THAT YOU CAN BRING RESPECT BACK TO THOSE WHO NEED IT MOST:

1)THE PRISONERS,
2)THE POOR & DESTITUTE & "THE FILTHY RICH WHO ACT NOT!"
3)THE SICK,
4)THE HANDICAP,
5)THE UNEDUCATED, THE BLIND RULERS AND JUDGES AND DOCTORS OF TWISTED LAWS,
6)THE LABORERS IN THE FALSE INDUSTRY WHO WORK FROM HAND TO MOUTH AND HAVE NO GUARANTEE OF BENEFITS THAT CAN NOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY CORRUPT LAWYERS WHO MAKE THE TWISTED LAWS SO TO HOLD POWER BY GIVE POWER TO THOSE WHO DEFEND THE POWERS OF THE LAWYERS WHICH FEED THE INDUSTRY BY THE RULE OF TERROR IN THAT THEY MAKE INDUSTRY AND TAXES AND COMMERCE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE WITHOUT SACRIFICE IN ONE PLACE OR IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IN AS MUCH AS IF EVERY HUMAN WAS GIVEN A LAND TO PLANT IN AND LIVE IN AND KEEP ANIMALS IN AND SEE LIFE AND POLICE ITSELF; THERE WILL BE NO NEED FOR CORRUPT LAWYERS AND ENFORCERS OF THE TWISTED LAWS.

B) SHARE THE PLANET EQUALLY, TRAVEL FREELY.

C) SLOWLY DISARM ALL GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE BIBLICAL LAWS AND HAND THE POWER OF THE ARMY TO THE EXECUTOR OF THE BIBLICAL LAWS WHO (MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL)BY
SHOWING MERCY WILL EARN THE POSITION. DO NOT USE VIOLENCE TO DISARM THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD. USE REASON AND SHOW GENEROSITY AND MERCY IN YOUR OWN LANDS AS YOUR PROOF. (be careful of the lawyers that send there warriors to bring disorder in your lands; patrol your borders and villages by day and by night in groups keep the laws and Allah (God) will shield you from their evil plots. face your accusers in their own courts and make everything heard by the people of their lands because they too suffer from oppression and injustice)

D) FORM COMMUNITIES. AND PLANT VINEYARDS OF FRUIT BEARING PLANTS.

E) SLOWLY CHANGE YOUR DIETS AND BECOME VEGETARIANS. USE YOUR ANIMALS WISELY FOR LOGGING OR TRANSPORTING THINGS IN THE COMMUNITIES.

F) USE TRUCKS, TRAINS, AIR TRANSPORTS FOR TRANSPORTING TRADED GOODS BETWEEN ONE PROVINCE AND ANOTHER. USE YOUR LIGHT UTILITY TRUCKS TO DISSEMINATE THE TRADED GOODS EQUALLY AMONGST YOURSELVES AND YOUR RESERVES.

G) BY IMPLEMENTING THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS ONE PERSON AT A TIME ONE DAY EVERY ONE WILL LIVE WITH FAMILIES AND WORK THE VINEYARDS AND HAVE LITTLE OR NO TIME OR REASON TO COMMIT CRIMES FOR CRIME IS COMMITTED BY THE NEEDY AND THE GREEDY SO SHOW GENEROSITY AND MERCY AND GENERATE SELF-REGENERATING VINEYARDS IN YOUR COMMUNITIES AND YOU WILL NOT NEED A DEFENSE MECHANISM AND YOU WILL NOT SUFFER YOUR SELVES TO COMMIT CRIMES WHICH TAX YOU OF YOUR LIFE AND SOLE AND RESOURCES WHICH IS YOUR ENERGY.

WHICH IS BETTER?

1)POLLINATING THE PLANTS AND WATERING THE FIELDS AND MAINTAINING THE LIFE OF THE PLANET WHILE LOOKING TO FIND WAYS TO GIVE LIFE TO THE NEAR PLANETS TO COLONIES LATER?

2)DRAINING YOUR ENERGY AND LIFE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ILLUSIONS OF COMFORT IN CEMENT BUILDINGS AND DEAD HIGHWAYS THAT KILL TOO AND GIVE NO LIVING BENEFITS EXCEPT ANGUISH AND SUFFERING WHICH BENEFITS THE INDUSTRY BY REASON OF DEATH AND TAXATION WHICH IS ITS EXCUSE TO SELL PROTECTION FOR THE FEW WHO ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN AND LANDS ALIVE WHILE THE POOR AND DESTITUTE ARE KEPT IGNORANT FOR FEAR THAT THEY MAY DEMAND EQUALITY AND REAL JUSTICE?

YOU HAVE TO ASK: WHICH IS BETTER?

1)A COMMUNITY WHICH HAS TO CONFORM TO THE TWISTED LAWS OF INDUSTRY? (force is used to police the conformity, warped laws etc.)

2)A COMMUNITY WHICH CONFORMS TO THE LAWS OF LIVING BENEFITS? (generosity is used to teach mercy which produces safety)

As Ever Humble
For Ever Peace

Atri
_______________________________________END*
NEWS ITEM:

"The international law under which we still operate dates from the aftermath of the Second World War."

http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/speechtext.asp?3989

SPEECH BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY, ROBIN COOK,
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION LUNCH, QEII CONFERENCE
CENTRE, LONDON, WEDNESDAY 19 JULY 2000

Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am glad that so many of you have crossed the Atlantic to be with us today. Those of us who live here were startled a couple of weeks ago to learn from Dan Rather and CBS that Britain had a higher rate of crime than the US, if we don't count murders. So we must give a particularly warm welcome to you for leaving the relative safety of the United States for our dangerous island. On reflection, perhaps I should
not be surprised that reports of a crime wave in Britain have been followed so soon by an influx of American lawyers.

One friend who, unfortunately, could not be with us today, is Madeleine Albright. It would have been a pleasure and a privilege to share a platform again with Madeleine Albright. Since I took office in 1997, Madeleine and I have worked closely together on tackling some of the biggest foreign policy problems of our age. Continuing efforts to
find a settlement to one of these, in the Middle East, have kept her in the United States today and I am sure we all support her in those efforts and hope for their success.

Madeleine Albright has proved a steadfast ally to this country and a good friend to me. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in dangerous circumstances - I am thinking here of our joint appearance on Larry King Live.

Her principled and courageous stand on a host of issues shows that it is possible to be an idealist and a realist at the same time. She has shown that the most powerful nation on earth should and can help the weak and the oppressed, wherever they are in the world.

HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

I would have welcomed hearing Madeleine address our topic for today - the conceptual and legal basis for intervention. How can the international community avert crimes against humanity while at the same time respecting the rule of international law and the sovereignty of nation states? The question of when it is right to use or threaten force is perhaps the most difficult issue with which political leaders have to grapple.

No-one can claim any longer that massive violations of humanitarian law or crimes against humanity fall solely within a state's domestic jurisdiction. The UN Charter itself was written after the Holocaust. It begins 'We the Peoples', not 'We the States'. It explicitly recognises
the importance of protecting and promoting the rights of individuals.

And there is now a well-established body of international law on genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Tribunals for War Crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia operate in t.......

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins