Greatings From Leouna

[Leouna]

Liberation from tyranny requires that human rights are respected, and the rights of the member states to retain civility are respected as well.

 

In 2002, it was my honor to part Europe from Den Haag and Paris.

 

Now, both of these nations have rejected the draft constitution with Neo-Jacobin descriptions of civil rights. Holland and France reject tyranny.

 

Now comes the time for workable soultions.

 

 

I'm a player in the game.

 

Leouna

[Pirilao]

Ol? , Leouna:welcome:

 

You write Portuguese?

 

Best Regards.

 

 

 

My vote and opinion goes to 2- Marriage is between pysically apparant men and women, and race is not important.

[Ylania]

Welcome!

 

Personally, I'm split between choices 1 and 2. I voted for the first option though. Oddly enough, that just made an equal 4-way split between all choices!

[Scipii]

Liberation from tyranny requires that human rights are respected, and the rights of the member states to retain civility are respected as well.

 

In 2002, it was my honor to part Europe from Den Haag and Paris.

 

Now, both of these nations have rejected the draft constitution with Neo-Jacobin descriptions of civil rights. Holland and France reject tyranny.

 

Now comes the time for workable soultions.

 

 

I'm a player in the game.

 

Leouna

 

 

Welcome to Europa

 

AAARRRRGGGGHHHH

[Akiiryu]

Frankly, I am in support of the right of all people to marry not matter what their sexual preference or the ethnicity of their proposed partners. In a nutshell - all people have the same rights.

 

I also find the idea of controlled "breeding programs" quite abhorrant...whether they are based on foundless claims of righteous divinity and nobility, or questionable science, or outright open racism. Again, in a nutshell all people have the same rights. There are no special people (or groups of special people) in the world who should have special rights based simply on their breeding (or self-proclaimed exceptionalism). This, might I add, means that as well as believing (generally speaking - there are some exceptions here) people have the right to have children without the interference of others, they also have the right to chose not to have childern if they so wish.

 

Oh, in case you're wondring Loeuna, I've read your website.

[Emakera]

I voted "one"...

Welcome, by the way. Hopefully our nations will get along ^^

[Leouna]

I may have given away my opinion when I said "Neo-Jacobin". I choose option three in favor of cultural sovereignty.

 

For decades, my group of concerned people has been tracking a cult of secularists who have invaded the British and American Governments. These people call themselves Christian, but are maintained by a political base which is antithetical to the Christian Faith.

 

I am an Orthodox Christian who understands the cycles of western civilization. At this point, and in an internet forum, the first choice may be most popular. As time goes by however, the places (such as The Netherlands) which adopt this liberal position change their options and become very conservative.

 

It would be a better world where human rights are universal, but of course making babies is a complicating factor in the marriage situation.

 

So my answer must be guided by the present situation, and I choose option three. When people understand that the concept of sovereignty is the last safeguard against tyranny, others come to see the wisdom in this choice.

 

However, we live in a dynamic culture, and most people are living before the leading edge of the Holland Reaction. I am most focused on the year 2020, because by this point, most cultures will be ready for Renaissance.

 

Rita Hill, Princess Knight

 

[Akiiryu]

So Rita, what happens if a state refuses to sanction your marriage?

 

What exactly do you mean by cultural sovereignty?

 

"It would be a better world where human rights are universal, but of course making babies is a complicating factor in the marriage situation."

 

Explain.

 

Oh, and what is wrong with secularism? Religions have this nasty tendency in many cases to lead to wars and other forms of mass murder and oppression.

[Emakera]

Well, i?ve been reading your website and i must say that i?m really confused with it. Hopefully it?s ?cuz i?m young and dumb. But what?s with the poll? Just wondering O.o

Edited January 13, 2006 by Chairman Ryth of Emakera (see edit history)

[Leouna]

So Rita, what happens if a state refuses to sanction your marriage?

The same thing happens as always has happened: different states have different interpretations of what marriage is. I believe what I am doing, is stating what the present situation is.

 

What exactly do you mean by cultural sovereignty?

Good question. Cultural sovereignty implies that a state has the power to maintain her own culture. In the present situation, there are regional considerations as well. My hope for Europa is that each state will have nobility who will guard against too much intrusion by the democratic process.

 

"It would be a better world where human rights are universal, but of course making babies is a complicating factor in the marriage situation."

 

Explain.

As soon as we add the baby, we have another person?s rights to consider.

 

Oh, and what is wrong with secularism? Religions have this nasty tendency in many cases to lead to wars and other forms of mass murder and oppression.

Universal secularism doesn?t work. I don?t want to offend people, so I won?t point fingers, but that concept fails in different parts of the political spectrum.

 

Do you have a problem with some people choosing not to live under universal secularism?

 

 

[Leouna]

Well, i?ve been reading your website and i must say that i?m really confused with it. Hopefully it?s ?cuz i?m young and dumb. But what?s with the poll? Just wondering O.o

 

Some things in life are not about steering everyone in the same direction. I parted the flocks in Europe to let people see that there is more than one way for people to go.

 

I know that this is a difficult concept; sorry.

 

[Tagmatium Rules]

Do you know, I would have said that the problem with both the British and American governments is that they have become too religious, not that they are too secular. Blair's an absolute arsehole, who is attempting to turn Britain into a place populated... I digress.

 

And you are aware that it probably wasn't your good self who prevented both the French and Dutch voting for the European Constitution?

[Akiiryu]

Rita, you've not really answered my the majority of my questions.

 

1) I asked what will happen if the nation state in which you live fails to sanction your marriage. You did not provide an answer to that question. Let me make myself clearer: How would you act and feel if the nation state in which you lived refused to sanction your marriage?

 

2) Define culture. Explain why aristocracy is better at defining the culture of a state than the people as a whole (oh, and while you're at it engage with the fact that many states have more than one culture - ethnic, religious, and class based - within their borders, are you saying atrsiocratic culture is true culture?).

 

3) "As soon as we add the baby, we have another person?s rights to consider."

 

Sure, but I am talking about the right to marry who you like and to chose to have (or not to have) children without outside interference.

 

4) "Universal secularism doesn?t work."

 

I didn't say anything about universal secularism. I asked you what was wrong with secularism. I would, however, like you to prove to me that universal secularism doesn't work. If you're going to make such statements of fact you'd better have the evidence on hand to support them. Indeed, while you're at it define just what, exactly, secularism is in your mind.

[Leouna]

Do you know, I would have said that the problem with both the British and American governments is that they have become too religious, not that they are too secular. Blair's an absolute arsehole, who is attempting to turn Britain into a place populated... I digress.

This is what happens when tyranny tries to define Absolutist concepts like religion and marriage. The ruling plurality in both counties has become Christian Zionism (an oxymoron), and the leaders have become actual morons.

 

And you are aware that it probably wasn't your good self who prevented both the French and Dutch voting for the European Constitution?

I am aware that faithful people deserve the credit for voting down the Neo-Jacobin Constitution.

 

[Scipii]

Easy people this is supposed to be a meet and greet not an indepth discussion about European politics and religion.

[Leouna]

Rita, you've not really answered my the majority of my questions.

 

1) I asked what will happen if the nation state in which you live fails to sanction your marriage. You did not provide an answer to that question. Let me make myself clearer: How would you act and feel if the nation state in which you lived refused to sanction your marriage?

Effective sanctions will mean that every marriage certificate from a particular nation would be considered invalid where those authorities are considered to be racist. In order for a nation to breed people, it must respect the civil rights of the peoples it claims breeds within its boundaries. If one nation simultaneously claims to breed certain people, while at the same time denying these same people rights of marriage, another sovereign nation may, after diplomatic sanctions, reach the point of declaring the violating nation to be racist, and therefore state that their marriage certificates are invalid.

 

2) Define culture. Explain why aristocracy is better at defining the culture of a state than the people as a whole (oh, and while you're at it engage with the fact that many states have more than one culture - ethnic, religious, and class based - within their borders, are you saying atrsiocratic culture is true culture?).

What I am saying is that there will continue to be nobles who guard the cultures within their own borders. I am not saying that every nation should be required to establish nobility for this purpose. My honest opinion is that the concept of culture encompasses marriage and breeding, and that from my experience; the most effective organization involves hierarchical principles. Notice that I did say cultures plural. If there are autonomous cultures, then it follows that they should be able to define themselves, and their own nobility.

 

3) "As soon as we add the baby, we have another person?s rights to consider

 

Sure, but I am talking about the right to marry who you like and to chose to have (or not to have) children without outside interference. ."

But there is outside interference, when you have babies. You previously said that nations may sustain many cultures. What about the rights of the baby in regard to her culture? What about the rights of the culture in regard to the baby?

 

 

4) "Universal secularism doesn?t work."

 

I didn't say anything about universal secularism. I asked you what was wrong with secularism. I would, however, like you to prove to me that universal secularism doesn't work. If you're going to make such statements of fact you'd better have the evidence on hand to support them. Indeed, while you're at it define just what, exactly, secularism is in your mind.

The problem is really not about secularism vs. religion. When you get right down to it, these labels are meaningless. A ?free religion? might chide an ?oppressive secularist society?. We are talking about competing value systems, and the labels that they are given often have more to do with the times than with actual civil concepts.

 

The problem I have with secularism is that it does often try to become universal. I have studied the social sciences enough to have a strong concept that it is difficult or impossible for a stable society to be maintained by one universal ethical system.

 

I will wait to see if you challenge the benefits of social stability before I respond to your inevitable, next inquiry.

 

[Emakera]

Let?s see: So you want other nations to cancel marriage between different races?

[Leouna]

Let?s see: So you want other nations to cancel marriage between different races?

Sovereign nations are allowed diplomatic sanctions against genocidal nations. Marriage rights of interbreeders may be better respected when the concepts of sovereignty and genocide are respected at the diplomatic level.

 

We are all human beings, and we are strong when we respect diversity. This respect must also guard against tyranny. If Europa doesn?t want cultural differences within her union to disrupt her relations overseas, then Europa must become sovereign in her own right, with a legitimate Constitution.

 

 

 

[Akiiryu]

1) Still haven't answered the question. The statment you provide in lieu is, well, offensive as at its heart lies the racist (ironically) belief in racial purity. God, you're statement reminds of the days when South Africa refused to recognise mix-racial marriages of citizens from other countries.

 

Oh, btw, I know how you define racist (your own made up definition based on your own self-appointed authority as an angel breeder or whatever) so don't try and redefine the term here.

 

2) Failed to answer the question in full. What is culture? What the heck do you mean by breeding (are you imply as person's culture is in their DNA???).

 

Moreover, you originally did not say cultures in plural. Indeed, you seem to be attempting a form of danger control in light of my first question by trying to exchange the idea of nation with state. Now here's the problem a state can be made up of more than one nation and a nation can exist in more than one state. Take the Kurds for and example of the latter. Now in Turkey the Turkish government has been trying for years to deny the Kurds their culture and language as it believes it should (to crudely simplify a complex issue and stuff it into your words) only "breed" Turks. This highlights the problem I have with your logic. Because the Turkish government claims to breed certain people (Turks) and states it acting to defend its cultural sovereignty according to your arguements it's oppression of Kurds is okay (God, taken to the nth degree you're argument would say it is okay for the Turkish state to stop Kurds marrying and breeding). Think about that for a while and get back to me.

 

More widely speaking your comment has no internal logic...you start talking about nobles who will defined the cultures [autonomous or no] within their borders (state borders, estate borders, fiefdoms...what the heck do you mean?) and end by saying that each autonomous culture (no matter, it seems, where it is) will have its own nobles. Define autonomous culture (make sure you define what you mean by culture first) here, that will do for a start.

 

What they heck do you mean by a noble? What makes someone noble? Why should I accept the right of someone else to dictate who I should and should not marry/have children with based on his/her beliefs of what is right? Oh, and answer the second part of my original question.

 

3) Failed to answer the original question. Instead you attempt to avoid the issue at hand by trying to deflect the debate to something else. Oh, and I might add, a baby's genetics do not define his/her culture.

 

4) Failed to answer the question.

 

5) As Tag said, I'm pretty damned sure you had nothing to do with France and Holland rejecting the European constitution.

 

6) Your social stability comment is a joke, in fact it is a rather obvious and clumsy attempt to discredit my arguments by trying to make it seem like I am saying (or will say) something that challenges/criticises social stability. Sadly (for you)anyone with half a brain will see I am not challenging social stability, rather just asking reasonable questions of your sweeping statements, so just try answering them eh?

[Leouna]

1) Still haven't answered the question. The statement you provide in lieu is, well, offensive, as at its heart lies the racist (ironically) belief in racial purity.

 

Oh, btw, I know how you define racist (your own made up definition based on your own self-appointed authority as an angel breeder or whatever) so don't try and redefine the term here.

I actually agree with your honest opinion. As I have stated before, many times, and in many forums: civil society cannot function with one, universal ethical system. Children of mixed heritage have a different way of looking at the world then the children of endangered people. This will always be the way of the world. What starts to seem incredulous is some people's assurance that they are not trying to make their secularist ideology universal.

 

2) You originally did not say cultures in plural.

 

What makes some one noble? Why should I accept the right of someone else to dictate who I should and should not marry/have children with based on his/her beliefs of what is right? Oh, and answer the second part of my original question.

People in relativist society may find much common ground with people who envision a world without any barriers with respect to either race or gender. My comments refer to the rights of people to differentiate cultures.

 

What makes someone a noble? What makes a culture a culture? The best answer is to let the culture describe itself. In my culture, the identification of nobles is part of my culture's self description.

 

3) Failed to answer the original question. {"As soon as we add the baby, we have another person?s rights to consider."  Sure, but I am talking about the right to marry who you like and to chose to have (or not to have) children without outside interference.}

 

I stated that the rights of the baby, and the rights of the baby's culture are now something to be considered. Rights of parenthood change when the cultures change. Who gets the baby? These are not easy answers, and they should not be. Jews and Christian Zionists may claim that their culture is based on female inheritance, while Muslims and Orthodox Christians may elevate the rights of the father over the mother. Some of us do not want to live in a Zionist dominated culture, and don't want our children to be forced away from family because of it.

 

4) Failed to answer the question. {"Universal secularism doesn?t work." I didn't say anything about universal secularism. I asked you what was wrong with secularism. I would, however, like you to prove to me that universal secularism doesn't work. If you're going to make such statements of fact you'd better have the evidence on hand to support them. Indeed, while you're at it define just what, exactly, secularism is in your mind.}

 

The problem of secularism, in the particular case of my culture, is that the tyranny of the majority disrespects the civil rights of our people. What this does is to create situations that are antithetical to the original rights of our people to associate in society, and even with each other.

 

People who disrespect us have even created whole communities of Christian Zionists, who do not allow Christians to attend Christian service. I recently forbade the display of The Nativity in such a community. Although this was a radical sanction, I am well regarded, even in this same community.

 

The best solution is to keep the dialogue open, and ongoing. The more we talk, the more people understand that civil rights make better communities, and the less frightened people need to be about what continues to be esoteric.

 

[Akiiryu]

1) Still have not answered the original question.

 

2) See above

 

3) Doesn't answer the original question and includes distrubing hints of anti-semtism

 

4) See 2

[Orioni]

Well since people can marry a dolphin, I think you should add a 5th option.

 

Anyhoo, enjoy Europa. We're a relax region.

[Gomaria]

Welcome Leouna it is a pleasure for you to come to Europa

[Emakera]

Well, in The People?s Republic of Emakera and in my RL country, you can marry people independent of ethnical group, and that?s enough for me

[Leouna]

Rita, you've not really answered my the majority of my questions.

 

1) I asked what will happen if the nation state in which you live fails to sanction your marriage. You did not provide an answer to that question. Let me make myself clearer: How would you act and feel if the nation state in which you lived refused to sanction your marriage?

OK, Senator, if you are going to continue to persist, I'll answer your question. If I attend a flock that does not respect my rights, I may part their flocks. The problem with this is that there now seem to be many nations that want me to come, and be offended, and tell me about unclaimed bank money. Not only is this a problem with offending people where I might rather cool my heals, but it creates a whole other issue with money.

 

2) Define culture. Explain why aristocracy is better at defining the culture of a state than the people as a whole (oh, and while you're at it engage with the fact that many states have more than one culture - ethnic, religious, and class based - within their borders, are you saying atrsiocratic culture is true culture?).

The primary definition of culture, is about something which is taken in its entirety. The definition of "meme" is a culture unit. These two definition cannot live in the same universe. I believe that cultures are self defined, and taken in their entirety, and that memes are viruses which deconstruct cultures.

 

I explained before that nobility is my preference. If you have another preference, such as democratic election, without regard to ethnic origin, then you should say so.

 

3) "As soon as we add the baby, we have another person?s rights to consider."

 

Sure, but I am talking about the right to marry who you like and to chose to have (or not to have) children without outside interference.

I stated that babies have rights. I stated that cultures have rights. I talked about religious differences between cultures. My stalker detector is giving me a warning signal.

 

4) "Universal secularism doesn?t work."

 

I didn't say anything about universal secularism. I asked you what was wrong with secularism. I would, however, like you to prove to me that universal secularism doesn't work. If you're going to make such statements of fact you'd better have the evidence on hand to support them. Indeed, while you're at it define just what, exactly, secularism is in your mind.

I said I have a problem with universal secularism. Since you seem to be saying that secularism does not need to tend to universal secularism, then I think we should agree to agree, and leave the matter alone.