The right to have another presidental ellection in the USA?

[EaglePrince 233]

I didn't manage to write a full reply again, so before reading what you said... I also wanted to say that it can be dangerous for a country or a nation to accept immigrants in too large numbers - large enough for them to become a significant part of the countries people. Or if they have potential to become a large part of countries people by having more children. As history has shown us many times - this can even result in a civil war, a country losing a part of its territory, and even with their people being driven away from that land. (So many examples from Balkans for that, sadly. And FROM ALL SIDES.)

 

Now back to reading. :)

 

Sorry, I'm from mobile, that's why I write like this. :)

 

ADDITION: Mathew, let's just not forget how their culture used to be during Arabian Empire when they did the fine job in keeping the knowledge which would have been lost if there weren't them. Also there were some female mathematicians in Arabian Empire.

 

But, like I sad, that doesn't matter now, now bad things you mentioned are common there. And like I said, you may be right, but to say truth, as somebody who have learned several foreign languages, even translating something word by word can give you bad translation. Though, it really doesn't matter, as this thing works in both ways, not just one. As much religion can effect the people, even more religion is effected by the people themselves.

 

SECOND ADDITION: And to clarify what I stated about diversity as a possible problem. I mean it can be a problem if those people don't adopt, but they rather stick together. And it is definitely a good things when there are many different people, but they all feel as one. For that to happen, the newcomers need to be willing to accept the values of the people who already live there, and the people who live there has to be willing to accept the newcomers as equal. If this doesn't happen, I think that then there will be differences in opinions among the two or more sides - including about very important matters.

Edited February 1, 2017 by EaglePrince

[Charles of Tours 69]

Oh dear, seems we have two conversations going on at once (both of which are directly related to @EaglePrince's original question).

 

Very well said, "Studious One" (Ha). Your Middle Eastern Studies Prof. Would be proud!

Nah, I'm purely a math and computer science guy (just have watched way too many videos (or not enough?) on Bible history and Medieval stuff). I think my "opinions" would "trigger" a lot of history professors. :lol:

 

@@EaglePrince: I did mention the Lithuanian (or "Baltic") Crusades. Sorry that I wasn't clear with the use of "Ottomization" - I know two other Serbs who are from Orthodox families, and they are great people - like you! I couldn't think of the terms at the time, but I meant to say that the Ottoman sultans attempted to "convert" the Slav, Bulgar, and Vlach peoples with the jizya, jannisary, millet, and devshirme systems.

 

Believe it or not, certain parts of America have been "converted" through a modernized version of similar systems. Dearborn, Michigan was the hometown of Henry Ford. Now the population there is almost entirely Muslim - problem being, they don't assimilate. Many own much nicer cars and houses than mine, which isn't a problem, but they have their own "mafia" that controls the businesses there, and allows a few very powerful among them to "play favorites."

 

As for the preservation of Greek and Roman knowledge: this may be true, but the Greeks and Romans could have very much preserved their own materials, since the Levant was firmly under control of Constantinople up until the 7th century. There's also events like the burning of the library of Nalanda around 1193 or so, which contradicts everything we were taught in secondary school.

 

You may see me as one who ignores facts, but I don't believe people when they cite Quran, or Bible, or whatever that sensitive. To be sure in that I would have to be able to read Arabian language which I don't. The reason for that is what you say may even be intentionally made mistranslation or misinterpretation for whatever reason.

This is actually a very interesting subject. I'm not picking on you or Islam, but Islam is the only religion I know with a large following of Muslims (who read the Quran in English) who say Kafir can't understand the Quran unless they read it in Arabic. This might have something to do with a lack of "reformation" but we've seen attempts to standardize the Quran in the past (like attempts to get rid of those outside the Uthman codex, or with the Shia-Sunni interpretation wars).

 

Hindus love it when you read the Bhagavad Gita in your own language. Only very conservative or orthodox Jewish traditions prefer the Torah in Hebrew outside of Kabbalah and studying its numerology. Perhaps Christianity is the only (or oldest) oddball here, since the New Testament(s) (and many other texts which did not "make the cut" like the Book of Enoch) were originally written in several languages, including Greek and Aramaic. These were all "standardized" and merged, and translation questions were made "final" at the First Council of Nicea - although the split(s) between Roman and Eastern churches (and later on the Protestant Reformation(s)) show that there was a lot of bickering over whether certain texts and saints were "Holy Enough" as well as what particular words meant.

 

This might be why many Muslims don't like the idea of people reading a translated copy of their book, especially since they are in The News a lot; but I believe even a bad translation should convey the general meaning. Every Christian from Nashville to Addis Ababa knows the gist of the Lord's Prayer, and I assume every Muslim knows the meaning behind the prayers they are taught, no matter the language it is in.

 

Meanwhile I'll leave you two fine Englishmen to debate the NHS, since I am not a radical economist; it's up to the people of each individual nation to decide what's best for them (don't tell the WTO and IMF ...). :)

[EaglePrince 233]

Very interesting reply, Charles. I agree with all your observations. Now I better understand what you wanted to say about Ottomans trying to "ottomise" Balkans. They did attempt to do it, only they were not as cruel as ISIS for example (am extreme example).

 

About claims that somebody has to know Arabian to understand Quran. What I said, I said it because I have heard a lot of contradictory things from different sources, so I don't trust to anyone.

 

And I would add also this. In my opinion, when they say "you cannot understand it unless you learn Arabic" it is "you cannot understand Quran in English unless we have brainwashed you enough for you to understand it the way we want you to". I'm sure that there is a standardized translation of Quran, and if I were to read Quran, I would read it in Serbian. And I would make sure that this translation is standardized (official) as you say.

 

Even the word Kafir... They have so many offensive words for us, and that is one of them. That also says a lot.

[Lord_Chris 267]

Can I just add. Because I genuinely am confused, why on earth does the SNP complain that Scotland's vote was that they wanted to remain, when they know that they're part of the UK? I get they want to leave the UK, but that's not relevant.

 

The SNP seem to think they're running a separate country. That's why. They would screw the whole UK over if it made Scotland independent. The ironic thing is though, that Scotland's economy is in a worse state than that of Greece's (and we all know what's happened there ...). Scotland only has four major industries, and two of them are on their knees. The third is struggling badly and the fourth is the only one doing ... well ... ok I suppose.

 

Let's take the oil from the North Sea. In 20 years or so, that will be nearly completely exploited, if not entirely. And that is their main source of income. But if we take a look to what has happened to the global price of crude oil, it has dropped massively. In fact the sales of crude oil from Scotland dropped last year by 97% from ?1.8 billion in 2015 to just ?60 million last year. They now have a ?14.8 billion black hole instead of just a ?4 billion one in 2014.

 

Scottish independence relies on a barrel of crude oil being around $102.59 per barrel. It's now $53.70, after some recovery recently. And if we go back even further, in 2009, it was around $150 a barrel.

 

Scotland's economy is very largely now supplemented by the English taxpayer - and they think they can go independent. It really is literal madness. The SNP accuse the UK of walking off a cliff by leaving the EU, which is purely a fa?ade. That really is walking off a cliff. If Scotland went independent, they would have to make such a vast amount of cuts to budgets, it would be unsustainable within 6 months. It would make George Osborne's austerity look like a piece of cake.

[Mathew Steel 151]

So, I know this thread is fairly idle now, but I had to laugh seeing these comments, thought it might amuse some of you:

 

"The BBC 'left wing'! Says more about your interpretation of the world and as for 'oxygen', Trump has been overdosing for quite some time via many outlets!"

 

"Left wing BBC!?On political issues, no, clearly very much right wing. Why on earth do you think they are to the left?"

 

I wasn't aware that so many people genuinely believe the BBC is right wing...I've said myself, I'm more libertarian, but this is just nonsense!

Edited February 11, 2017 by Mathew Steel