• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What did Assange do wrong?

Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
I had no choice of religion.
I was born not believing any of those loopy fantasies,
& remained a non-believer because my brain would
never allow me to believe that sky fairies are real.
Anyway, atheism is still not a race, no matter what
you & the running dogs of communism say.
Click to expand...
As I have always said, religions are not monoliths.
Most Jews are good but there are the wicked among them.

As there are wicked Catholics among Catholics and I am not against Catholics since I can't be against myself.

For instance, I can criticize Soros and his similar 24/ 7. Besides, this author wrote a book about this lugubrious individual.

 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Estro Felino said:
Europe and the US are very different, culturally and juridically.
Just think that there is a continuum between 1776 and 2023...that is, there is the same constitution, the same political parties and the same élites.

Continental Europe went out of the ancien régime, the absolutism in 1789.
We are a nation that was born in 1861, and that adopted a Constitution entirely based upon Enlightenment and the Napoleonic law.

America has always relied on the philosophy of pragmatism, that really includes (not openly) the dogma "the end justifies the means".

Our juridical tradition is not pragmatic, it is redundant and based upon the Nation, and the notion of State. As Kant and Voltaire taught us.
Patriotism here means to serve the State (and we are all the State) so by serving the State you serve yourself too; so privacy and private are perceived as individualistic and egoistic interests.

In my language there was not such a notion as privacy. We imported it from English. We say la privacy, feminine noun. ;)
Click to expand...

I think Europe adopted the Metternich System after the defeat of Napoleon, in which the monarchists and aristocrats tried to reassert their authority over local populations which were becoming restless, nationalistic, and more densely-populated. That's what brought Europe to the revolutions of 1848, as well as the continued rise of nationalism which led to (among other things) the unification of Italy and Germany. The anti-nationalist Metternich system could not hold together. Even Britain really couldn't support it.

In retrospect, the cause of peace and unity in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries was really driven by British policy more than anything else. The Metternich system failed because Britain didn't really support it. Moreover, European interests would have been better served by expelling the Turks from the continent, but Britain chose to side with the Ottoman Empire instead of with a European country. The German defeat of France in 1871 should have also sent a clear message to Britain that France's days as a world power were over, and that they should invest more in good relations with Germany (and Russia, for that matter). Britain should have also sided with Russia against Japan in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. By standing by and letting the Japanese win, it further emboldened Japanese aggression and undermined peace in East Asia, which would come back to haunt both Britain and America in 1941. Likewise, Britain should have supported Germany's attempt to take Morocco from France in 1905, but instead, Britain interceded on France's side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top