July 27, 2005

CORELESSNESS (via Robert Schwartz):

Ten core values of the British identity (Daily Telegraph, 27/07/2005)

We prefer simply to set out, in general terms, the non-negotiable components of our identity - the qualities of the citizenship that Muktar Said Ibrahim applied for.

I. The rule of law. Our society is based on the idea that we all abide by the same rules, whatever our wealth or status. No one is above the law - not even the government.

II. The sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

III. The pluralist state. Equality before the law implies that no one should be treated differently on the basis of belonging to a particular group. Conversely, all parties, sects, faiths and ideologies must tolerate the existence of their rivals.

IV. Personal freedom. There should be a presumption, always and everywhere, against state coercion. We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.

V. Private property. Freedom must include the freedom to buy and sell without fear of confiscation, to transfer ownership, to sign contracts and have them enforced. Britain was quicker than most countries to recognise this and became, in consequence, one of the happiest and most prosperous nations on Earth.

VI. Institutions. British freedom and British character are immanent in British institutions. These are not, mostly, statutory bodies, but spring from the way free individuals regulate each other's conduct, and provide for their needs, without recourse to coercion.

VII. The family. Civic society depends on values being passed from generation to generation. Stable families are the essential ingredient of a stable society.

VIII. History. British children inherit a political culture, a set of specific legal rights and obligations, and a stupendous series of national achievements. They should be taught about these things.

IX. The English-speaking world. The atrocities of September 11, 2001, were not simply an attack on a foreign nation; they were an attack on the anglosphere - on all of us who believe in freedom, justice and the rule of law.

X. The British character. Shaped by and in turn shaping our national institutions is our character as a people: stubborn, stoical, indignant at injustice. "The Saxon," wrote Kipling, "never means anything seriously till he talks about justice and right."


When even the Telegraph no longer equates faith with Britishness--even though it's the core to every one of the X characteristics they long to maintain---it's easy to see why they're doomed.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 27, 2005 2:49 PM
Comments

Compare & contrast:

1. The Lords, the Commons and the monarch constitute the supreme authority in the land. There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal.

2. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Posted by: Mike Morley at July 27, 2005 3:11 PM

When they took John Fisher's head they slit their own wrists.

Posted by: Luciferous at July 27, 2005 3:28 PM

Their statement II has got to be the stupidest political statement I've ever read. No gov't based on such a foundation can be sustained.

Posted by: b at July 27, 2005 4:53 PM

just out of curiosity, b, to which higher jusrisdiction would you direct redress for grievances?

Posted by: lonbud at July 27, 2005 5:55 PM

If there's no higher authority there can be no grievance--anything the state does is just per se.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 6:03 PM

Do you recognize any higher authorities, lonbud? Or is yoru submission to the State/the Party/the Dear Leader absolute?

Posted by: Mike Morley at July 27, 2005 6:26 PM

gimme a frickin' break, guys. we are talking about ordering the affairs of men here, forming a more perfect union and all that jazz --at least i'm under that impression; please correct me if i'm addressing the wrong topic.

in the absence of submitting to the law of the jungle one assumes it advisable to set up some sort of mechanism for establishing rules of law and codes of conduct. all i'm asking is where you get your template.

Posted by: lonbud at July 27, 2005 6:45 PM

lonbud: The mechanism is a construct of man. The bigger quesion is: "where does the notion of right and wrong originate?" It's not from the mechanism. The law of God is written in the hearts of men. See also, "What We Can't Not Know" or the complete book

Posted by: John Resnick at July 27, 2005 6:55 PM

Duh, you guys are reading too much into this.

It's not a general statement of principles----it's a message to the Muslims, to put them on notice that England isn't Egypt/Jordan/Iran.

What #2 is saying is: "The government makes the laws, no matter what you think the Koran says."

Posted by: ray at July 27, 2005 7:18 PM

thank you, ray, for helping our american taliban get a little focus.

Posted by: lonbud at July 27, 2005 7:28 PM

ray & lonbud: Might be a tad late to try to put Muslim's on notice now, eh? Since they've clearly put England and anybody else who's paying attention that they don't care who your government is or what laws it makes, their Koran says it's OK to kill anybody deemed to be an infidel.

What a sticky conundrum. How utterly inconvenient.

Posted by: John Resnick at July 27, 2005 7:44 PM

lonbud:

Why set up rules? Why not the jungle?

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 7:53 PM

john: sure you want to be speaking for the global mulim population there?

i'm under the impression --and i believe this has been corroborated by our leadership-- that we are dealing with an extremist minority of islamofascists (the preferred term here in juddworld) who claim the koran justifies murder of infidels.

what you are saying is akin to agreeing that those who feel the bible sanctions killing abortion doctors speak for all of christianity.

Posted by: lonbud at July 27, 2005 7:55 PM

oj:
you tell me.

Posted by: lonbud at July 27, 2005 7:57 PM

lonbud:

Because God made us in His Image and commanded us to love one another.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1002

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 8:05 PM

thank you, brother judd. please reconcile that command with what the united states is doing in iraq.

Posted by: lonbud at July 27, 2005 8:10 PM

lonbud: The isslamofascists actions speak for themselves. Rick mentioned that England was puting Muslims "on notice" -- I'd only be speaking to the ones that would need to be put "on notice" i.e. those who had already run afowl of or hold in blatant disregard the distinction between England and Egypt/Jordan/Iran as ray suggests. I'm confident England, just like the U.S., has absolutely no problem with law-abiding Muslims.

As such, I'll leave the ".....killing abortion doctors" straw man you raise alone as it's moot.

Posted by: John Resnick at July 27, 2005 8:11 PM

lonbud: See Hebrews 12:6.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 27, 2005 9:18 PM

lonbud:

I don't understand the request.

Posted by: oj at July 27, 2005 9:43 PM

lonbud - what could be more loving than to liberate people from Baathists and terrorists? And, as David points out, it's an old Christian tradition that the most loving behavior toward murderers is to kill them in turn.

Posted by: pj at July 27, 2005 10:42 PM

"There is no appeal to any higher jurisdiction, spiritual or temporal."

I think they are referring to the EU, the UN, and the Pope.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 27, 2005 10:52 PM

that's an interesting citation, there, david.

from the many english translations of the bible i consulted, the gist of it would indicate "the lord disciplines those he loves and he punishes those he accepts as his children." (emphasis mine)

leaving aside for a moment consideration of pj's extrapolation from that that the most loving behavior one can express toward murderers is to kill them in turn (wha??), it would appear that the power and authority granted therein is God's and not man's.

oj: you don't understand the request? well, a couple of weeks trolling your blog convinces me that my request for you to reconcile your own admission that God commanded us to love one another with what the united states is doing in iraq is least of the things you don't understand.

i've got a bible citation for you, my brothers, and i'll even save you the trouble of looking it up. matthew 26:52 and jesus said, "put your sword back in its place, for all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

Posted by: lonbud at July 28, 2005 2:01 AM

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did
not come to bring peace but a sword. Matt. 10:34

Christ wouldn't have sat and watched Saddam commit genocide.

Posted by: oj at July 28, 2005 2:05 AM

OJ:

That was too easy.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at July 28, 2005 2:51 AM

nice try boys, but clearly Jesus was speaking metaphorically in Matt 10:34, as he was referring to the way his presence in the world was destined to cleave families and communities into those who had faith in his teachings and the strength to follow them, and those who would attack and belittle and cast out the faithful. in Matt 26:52 he was responding to a man who had actually drawn the sword of one of the soldiers who came to arrest him and cut off the ear of one of herod's priests.

for a crowd of religious fanatics, you don't know your scripture very well.

Posted by: lonbud at July 28, 2005 3:11 AM

We now know that lonbud is at least a passive supporter of Saddam's genocide, and he is a supporter of the Bolivarian revolution which is turning Venezuela into a communist state, and now he hopes to join ranks with Bible-thumpers.

Fascism, communism and religion. Maybe we all can just get along!

Posted by: Randall Voth at July 28, 2005 9:09 AM

lonbud:

yes, so it's silly to complain that the cleaving is unChristian.

Posted by: oj at July 28, 2005 10:14 AM

how obtuse are you oj? i'm fine with the cleaving. if half of y'all who profess to justify abominations like the war in iraq had the faith and the strength to follow the teachings of jesus christ we'd be doing ok.

and randall, where were you and donald rumsfeld 20 years ago when saddam was actually committing the genocide?

yah.

Posted by: lonbud at July 28, 2005 11:11 AM

One question about appealing to the higher authority. How do you go about doing it? How do you learn if the appeal was successful or not? By "you", I mean the society. If the temporal laws are unjust, who takes the appeal to the higher authority? How does every one in society know what the verdict from the higher authority is?

As it is now, everyone who recognizes this authority does it on their own, and gets the answer back that they want and tries to foist it on everyone else. It seems that this appeal didn't work too well during the Civil War. Both sides appealed their case to God and got back the answer that served their interests. In the end it was settled by the side with the bigger army.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 28, 2005 11:42 AM

lonbud:

Jesus didn't teach us to watch a rolling genocide

Posted by: oj at July 28, 2005 12:44 PM

Robert:

There is no appeal. There are rights that God endows us with and that we're obligated to honor. States are judged by whether they meet those obligations. The ante-bellum US did not meet them and paid a price for failing to do so, but was inevitably going to be brought into compliance. It wouldn't be surprising to see something similar happen with abortion.

Posted by: oj at July 28, 2005 12:51 PM

oj:

jesus didn't teach anyone to take god's authority into their own hands.

peter asked the appropriate question: "who are you"?

Posted by: lonbud at July 28, 2005 2:33 PM

lonbud:

Ask the moneychangers whether Christ practiced what you think He preached.

We are charged by God to try to fulfill his commands. Part and parcel of that is putting tyrants heads on pikes.

Posted by: oj at July 28, 2005 2:41 PM
« SELF-REFERENCE ALERT: | Main | THE SOLID 40: »