This problem goes "beyond" religion and actually is a different thing, it can happen with "religion" it can happen with
other things as well.
In a way is kind of "the power and the defect of democracy".
Defect is that it gets a point where "democracy" by the way it works turns into "a pure simple matter of numbers"
with a well defined threshold of 50%.
In other ways we could even "simply" say, applying "to the core" the concept of democracy the "when your - original -
country stops to be what it was ? When >50% of people in are not the 'original' ones any more".
So if let's say "political ideas Y" enter country X in a democratic system when Y > 50% X then basically "X becomes Y"
or almost, democratically this is what could happen, you may find yourself you are not Italian any more living in Italy
but you are a MINORITY of what once was Italian people living in Italy with a MAYORITY of non-italians that now are
passing by and applying non-original-Italian laws into Italy.
Thing for example not so impossible to happen in a country like Italy where pure-italian natality rate is well below 1 so
literally ( as stats show you ) in quite some ( mostly north ) Italian places 'original italian population' is literally vanishing
while non-orginal-italian natality rate is much higher.
Anyway, apart from this "patological example" I saw this thing happening in many fields, more or less large in different
contextes NOT necessarely those be nations ( it happens in various scales, social groups, work places, etc. ) and NOT
necessarely those to be religion/politcal contextes.
Let's say it happens like that :
- there's an established system with its own rules X
- let's call them "guests" or "don't know how" 'K' enter the system
- initially being a minority "guests" by "democratic convention" follow X closely
Possible path number 1 :
- for various reasons at some point 'K' declares itself a "minority" and begins
to claim they are under threat/under protected in X, in quite some cases the
preceived/claimed threat is >> what really is
- 'K' claim they are loosing their own identity in X
- 'K' demands special rules/things in X to "protect themselves"
Possible outcome 1a :
- for various reasons, often some let's "opportunist" in X that sees some
practical advantage of some kind and/or some let's "idealist" in X and/or
let's say simply "as a courtesy of X" some of those special laws are concessed
- 'K' feels stronger, first breach of the system did happen, concessions been made, more
can be obtained from it
- the process begins to re-iterate itself, more 'K' are added to the original group
more demands are made
- 'K' begins to acts its own way more and more un-related to the original propietary
rules of X, K begins to be its own system spreading into X and making its own space
Ok this is a "pathological example" again, there are many variations/fine details/things/stuff
but let's say this is a bit "the core concept".
Where are the problems in this example :
1. Sometime the threat perceived initially by K is real, it's the thing that in first
place begins to generate the feeling of need for "something different" let's say
there could be conditions where K is truly "bullied" by X initially
2. Some logic would tell "if entering X being K this causes me problems I should
avoid X in the first place", this would be the simple logic of "avoid what hurts me"
and/or "avoid places where I can be in danger". But we know there could be a
lot of reasons where actually "this is not so simple as it sounds", I mean K could
be in X not exactly by its own choice but for some "forced need".
3. K does not really want to become X, K wants to stay K without any significant
change already this poses the base that - unavoidably - it will generate a
"sub K system into X" K did not come into X to be X, K is in X as K and will do all
it can to continue to remain as much as K as it can be.
4. K is not a temporary thing, is a permanent installation.
5. K is not a finite number, is an increasing entity, more time passes more K are added.
6. The demands of K, once established a "path" of "request/obtain" "exceed" the initial
purpose but spread so K can continue its existence as a sub system of X more easily.
Now there are many ways you could preseve X "untouched", none of which is really democratic, in essence
it all involves in "making X a closed system that can be modified ONLY by X members and limiting the number
of K entities at any time - or make them 0 - so that K entries are always so small that they can't possibly pose
any significant problem to X".
Bad news : too late you can do anything like that in UK ( or quite some other countries ).
How is this "democratically done ?"
Simple : it's called "immigration control" and "citizenship". One keeps that K low and the other prevents
"non X compliant" stuff to try to modify X ( i.e. non citizens can not vote can't propose/ask for changes in X ).
You should add "a third element" that western countries do not apply : birth control such as "non members of X
can't have babies while in X if they are not citizens of X, if they do they are removed from X, babies born in X
do not automatically appartenence of X".
This is called jurisdictionaly "jus sanguis" that is opposite to "jus solis", IIRC Italy applies it, a child born in Italy
from non-Italian citizens is NOT an Italian citizen, likewise a child born from Italian parents in ANY part of the world
it may have or not have the citizenship of the place where this happen but for Italian law it IS an Italian citizen.
Note : for the Italian government you can't have multiple citizenships, you have to choose one in this case and
the moment you chosen the other one is immediately lost, if you choose not to be Italian then you won't be any more.
Fundamentally, you have to limit the incidence of any possible K in X if you want X to remain stable.
Otherwise you have to accept the fact X can be modified and ultimately could be even TOTALLY modified by any K
and/or by a combination of things.
Moral : system that cannot be modified at all can't be democratic.
Moral 2 : ways to avoid X to be subjected to too big modifications ? Many, none of which at the current state of things
can be easily implemented/
Moral 3 : if you want "a super safe system" this has to be well planned in advance and "you need an iron fist" to keep is
as that you can't allow yourself "distractions" and "weaknesses".
Moral 4 : "super safe systems" could be not "the nicer places to live in" nor "the easiest places to live in", not even and
maybe especially even for the pepole that created X
Moral 5 : most people look for "the easiest/happiest way to live" BUT .. there's a catch, the usual one, "all a cost"
happiness can have a very high cost so "simplicity" often "the thing that is best for you is not the nicest/happier".
I don't know if any of you spent some time being trained/been in the army, that is quite an example of what could
be "a super safe system". It's full of "perfect rules", nobody/nothing/anything can NOT to conform to those rules
EVERYTHING inside it follows the rules of X and/or is coercively forced to follow them, there's no escape, the instant
moment you enter X you become X in one way or another.
Then there's an even further step you are educated to become "the perfection of X" in X in a way there's no
personal identity at all, there's the "collective X", you become an increasing force of X an element that makes X
even more efficient, more powerful, more functional to perform its function.
The funny side of it is that .. ultimately .. X IS a kind of "perfect system", once you are perfectly into X X is capable
to give you all the MAX benefits you may get from it .. nobody can hurt you in X, all you may need that X is capable
to provide you you'll get it, if you want to progress into X all is perfectly crafted, you follow the rules and you will
succeed no problems about it everything can be done inside X as long as you stay into the paths of X.
There are only a few catch .. number one, whatever X ask you that the rules of X contemplate, you have to give it
"immediately" there's no "buts of ifs" into X, you are X you do what X does .. you can't be "something else" other than
what X is, you joined X to be X anything that is not X or againist X gets destroyed.
X can be modified as well but it's a lengthy process, you don't change it X easily and most of X is truly "perfect"
to perform the X function, there's no need to change it at all, there's no better way to perform X in X.
"Extremely well crafted" .. but for quite some .. not the happiest/funniest/easiest place to live in.
But yeah .. that's a good example of "perfect closed systems"
Now when I say jump you JUMP ! No fucking questions ! You CAN'T refuse an order ! If I say you to jump you
jump and THEN you can fill the form 11/1765/33 about your refusal to jump then you'll be questioned by
tribunal A in room 176 at 11.11 about you not willing to jump. And if you want to know why you have to jump
you should read the manual 44 paragraph K.22 page 876 that tells you why you have to jump ! And for NOT
knowing that 3 days of punishment for not remembering the rules you should have known !
Manual I can't remember what of procedures was telling me that "if an officer of second level asks for an egg
during the morning breakfast I HAVE to cook an egg" .. but not more than 2, provided of course that we are not
in a mission where the supplies are rationed in which case I should have asked to my superior if I am allowed to
give him an extra egg BEFORE to reply with any affirmative/negative reply to the officer. I can't provide that
kind of answer and/or assume one without asking my superior in that case the "yes/no" about the egg is a
decision that is beyond my powers as a fourth degree kitchen officer being not a supplies manager.
The manual also explains in detail that officers of higher level are allowed to request things not present in the
standard menu ( that gets signed and approved after official test by the first officer in charge of the day ), first
officer in charge of the day wears the required uniform and band and inspects the kitchen 4 times as well as he's
allowed to inspect it any time he wants.
.. ... ... ..
"Yes sir" .. "No sir" .. "Yes sir" ..
.. .. ..
ElfQrin wrote:kitkat wrote:PFVA wrote:
But that's what makes Europe different and a democracy.
Couldn't have said it better mate.
As a Muslim leader said to Archbishop Giuseppe Bernardini during an Islamic-Christian meeting "Thanks to your democratic laws, we will invade you. Thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you."
I couldn't have said it better.
I'm all for free speech, yet I don't think this include the right to do whatever you like insulting the people who lives there and their millenary culture and way of life.
If you invite me to your home (let alone if I come uninvited) either as a guest for a lunch or to work there, would you call free speech if I want to move all your furnitures because I don't like the way you've placed them, and may be throw away the pictures of your dead relatives and the holy book I've found in your library because they offend me? Will you really let me do that and even feel superior because you know I'll never tolerate that you could do the same in my home?
I don't think this is about democracy or being tolerant, this is stupid and masochistic, pure and simple.
)
Oh, and saying national health insurance really isn't as bad as they think it is.
that's exactly what I thought as I encountered it.
