Buddhist World Citizen

Just a short post on the recent release of the Afgan Man who converted from Islam to Christianity. I personally, do not see any modern justification for the sharia death punishment for converts from Islam. It smacks of the crusades, and is a sign of barbarianism. This law is a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should not be followed by any nation which is a member of the United Nations. So these Islamic nations either need to back the UN UDHR or leave the United Nations. And if they choose to do the latter they need to be isolated by civilized nations which choose the former.

This is a problem in general with Islam. If you are not a Moslem then you have no rights. Since there are non-muslims in these Islamic nations then you have to wonder how it would be possible for them to truly practice democracy? Perhaps they are not ready for democracy. This would be another reason why the United States is wasting their time trying to bring democracy to these nations. Would pre-emptive democracy have been a better choice afterall?

Just a short post on the recent release of the Afgan Man who converted from Islam to Christianity. I personally, do not see any modern justification for the sharia death punishment for converts from Islam. It smacks of the crusades, and is a sign of barbarianism. This law is a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should not be followed by any nation which is a member of the United Nations. So these Islamic nations either need to back the UN UDHR or leave the United Nations. And if they choose to do the latter they need to be isolated by civilized nations which choose the former.

This is a problem in general with Islam. If you are not a Moslem then you have no rights. Since there are non-muslims in these Islamic nations then you have to wonder how it would be possible for them to truly practice democracy? Perhaps they are not ready for democracy. This would be another reason why the United States is wasting their time trying to bring democracy to these nations. Would pre-emptive democracy have been a better choice afterall?

Just a short post on the recent release of the Afgan Man who converted from Islam to Christianity. I personally, do not see any modern justification for the sharia death punishment for converts from Islam. It smacks of the crusades, and is a sign of barbarianism. This law is a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and should not be followed by any nation which is a member of the United Nations. So these Islamic nations either need to back the UN UDHR or leave the United Nations. And if they choose to do the latter they need to be isolated by civilized nations which choose the former.

This is a problem in general with Islam. If you are not a Moslem then you have no rights. Since there are non-muslims in these Islamic nations then you have to wonder how it would be possible for them to truly practice democracy? Perhaps they are not ready for democracy. This would be another reason why the United States is wasting their time trying to bring democracy to these nations. Would pre-emptive democracy have been a better choice afterall?

There has been much complaint about free trade, but there is nothing wrong with free trade itself (just look at the constitution of the Confederate States of America), or even globalization (if it can be achieved efficiently), but the real problem is international debt and corporate greed.

For several decades the United States dollar has been an international currency, used to buy oil, and used as a foundation for other currency around the world. With the collapse of the gold standard oil became the main foundation for supporting the value of the dollar. But with the shift towards the Euro the dollar is in danger of losing its value again. A demand must be created for paper currency in order for it to retain its value. With the potential decline in demand for the dollar in exchange for oil the United States must create demand elsewhere. This is done in three ways: (1) by the importation of cheep goods in exchange for foreign debt (especially by China), and (2) by the exportation of jobs by international corporations, and (3) foreign loans from international banks.

The United States of [North] America was not founded for the welfare of the average citizen, but for the welfare of the wealthy merchants. And captialism and neo-fascist politics continue to support this arrangement. Nothing short of a change in the relationship between business and government is needed. And this change has to take place in business so that corruption will be suppressed. The solution is socialism (see http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm) which would end interest debt, take business out of the corrupt hands of elite management, reform banking, re-establish democracy, and make government accountable.

But wasn't socialism proven to be unworkable? This question confuses socialism with communism. Communism denies private property, but private property is one of the keys to democracy and liberty. True socialism embraces all of these things and advocates a decentralized government, a government which stays out of private affairs. However, although socialism is superior to capitalism, it must also embrace the environment.

Here are some links which discuss Buddhist Socialism:

http://www.links.net/vita/swat/course/dasanet.html
http://www.suanmokkh.org/ds/
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_economics.htm

During the American Revolution the Continental Congress issued money called Continental Currency (or Dollars). This currency was not backed by anything and quickly lost its value after the war. Congress demanded payment of taxes, but there was little to pay the taxes with. Faced with this crisis it was declared that the Articles of Confederation was a failure (although it wasn't) and a new constitution was drafted giving the federal government more power. The fact that the Articles of Confederation was not a failure is immaterial. What is important is that the new constitution gave Congress the sole power (as opposed to the several states) to mint currency, and that the states had to collect money in gold or silver.

Gold or silver based currency was important for two reasons. First, it gave ownership of the currency to the people. If the people withhold the payment of taxes (physically) then the federal government must bow to the will of the people. This is similar to the right to bear arms against the federal government when that government is out of control. Second, it limited the expenditures of the federal government (especially in waging wars) since the government cannot simply print more worthless paper currency. Paper currency was one of the threats which the American founding fathers warned us about, the others being political parties, and standing armies in peacetime.

With the accumulation of excessive war debt the United States found that it could not honor the payments from its gold reserve. So the United States went off the gold standard. But this does not mean that the dollar remained without backing. The United States made deals with the oil cartels to only sell oil in American dollars. This had the same affect as the gold standard, it upheld the value of the dollar. And since oil was bought in dollars it became a universal currency invested in by many foreign nations.

Now the United States is embattled in Iraq. How did they get there? Their stated reason for going to war was to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction. It is true that Iraq was trying to build them, but the United Nations inspectors had eliminated this effort. The United Nations even told the United States that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but the United States refused to listen. Why? Because the elimination of mass destruction was not their real goal, only a statement which would be acceptable to the citizens. The real reason is based on the fact that Saddam Hussein had dared to change the oil for dollars deal into a oil for euros agreement. So the United States went to war, overthrew Saddam Hussein, and restored the dollar as the basis for oil procurement in Iraq.

Now the United States military is stuck in Iraq. Meanwhile, Iran and Venezuela have declared a move to selling oil in Euros. There is also a threat that OPEC may follow this trend. And other countries are balking on their investments in Dollars. And if these are not bad enough, there is a threat that the massive debt accumulated by the United States will no longer be supported by China causing the eventual collapse of the Dollar. And with the collapse of the Dollar will come the collapse of the American Empire.

This could spell financial disaster for people of the United States (not to mention possible threats to constitutional liberty). However, there is hope in the restoration of the gold or silver standard. There is also hope in the movement of community currencies. These would restore ownership of currency to the people, and accountability to the government.

It all began with the Knights Templar. In protecting Christian pilgrims in the Christian Holy Land they offered the service of money transfers. This protected Christian pilgrims from theft. In time, this led to a full banking system with Kings borrowing money to finance their wars. Unfortunately, this grew into financial power, royal debt, and jealous kings. Eventually, the order was falsely accused of heresy, disbanded by the Pope, their members rounded up for torture, and their assets stolen by the kings. Fortunately, not all of the members were arrested and most of their gold was hidden away.

This persecution created animosity between the European powers and the Knights Templar. Theoretically, many of the Knights Templar made their way to Scotland and there established the Freemason Society. The Freemasons worked to bring liberty from Kings who declared divine right, and the Pope who supported the Kings (and vice-versa). Indeed, the establishment of the United States of America was accomplished mainly by Freemasons and the nation was founded upon Masonic ideas (thus making it a Masonic Nation instead of a Christian Nation).

The first general declaration of rights was the English Bill of Rights (see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm). After that we have the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. This was important because it declared that everybody was naturally born equal and endowed with by their creator (not necessarily God since Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jehovah) with certain "inalienable" rights, Life and Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. However, the individual states also made their own declaration of rights. The best example is the Virginia Declaration of Rights (see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virginia.htm) which declared that everybody was born free and had certain inalienable rights, Life and Liberty (with property) and the pursuit of Happiness and Safety.

With the drafting of the United States Constitution, a bill of rights was created. These were rights that were safeguarded by the states, but were included in the Constitution so that they would also be safeguarded by the federal government. These were not just rights guaranteed to Citizens of the United States, but were supposed to be natural inalienable rights.

The right to bear arms is from a time when state militia were the norm. The state militia existed to defend the United States against invasion, and to defend the state against oppression by the federal government. There was no military conscription as the possession of arms was commonly considered a necessity. Indeed, a military conscription would have been a contradition to the revolutionary spirit of liberty. The United Nations has declared that people can be conscripted, but what else can we expect for an organization which represents nations? It does not represent the people of the world and so it does not always support our freedom.

The housing of soldiers is a reference to prohibit the maintenance of an army during peace time (relying instead on militia). This was a British concept which the British violated in the colonies. It was also more specifically mentioned in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The violation today is not only oppressive, but also a financial burden. However, with all the enemies which the United States has created, it is somewhat of a necesity now. Nevertheless, using the army to unjustly attack foreign nations clearly breaks the revolutionary spirit of neutrality. So many of these rights have been forgotten since the War Between the States.

In modern times the United Nations published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (partly based on the American Bill of Rights). It declares that all people are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Over and over we see that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights (with the possible exception of the right to bear arms) are to be enjoyed by all the people of the world, not just Americans, and not just when the government feels like it. These rights are inalienable for everybody reguardless of nationality and no law or government necesity can violate them, period.

3. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.
5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
13.2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
20.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
20.2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
28. Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
29.2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms and others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Many people think that nations are as old as history, but they are wrong. They are confusing the concepts of state and nation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism). Nation-states began in the late 18th century in Europe as a product of emotional romanticism. The confederation of American states called the United States of [North] America was more a result of fighting oppression than of nationalism. In fact, many of the founding fathers of this confederation were rationalists. This political emotionalism has been the source of many evil things including wars, oppression, violation of human rights, and even fascism.

How did the United States of North America become a nation? From the beginning of the confederation (not the first such confederation) there was a division between northern states which wanted to protect commerce, and the southern states which wanted free trade. The first product of this division was the establishment of a constitution which made it easier for the northern states to enforce their protectionism. Unfortunately, this division grew worse and led to both emotional division and threats of secession. It was the establishment of high tarrifs and the election of a Republican President vowing to support the new tarrifs that caused the inevitable secession of the southern states, and the establishment of the Confederate States of America. Far from being a loose confederation, the Confederate States of America was a seperate nation.

What was the effect of the citizens? Under the Articles of Confederation the people were citizens of the several states because of their residence in one of the states in the confederation. The constitution did little to change this except that the federal government determined the requirements for this type of citizenship. This is an important concept because just as a person was a citizen of a state, he was a citizen of the several states because of their voluntary union, and people such as Thomas Paine went so far as to declare themselves citizens of the world. Anyway, after the bitter suppression of the southern nation the United States of America passed a constitutional amendment which caused the citizens of the several states to become citizens of the United States. The idea of confederation and universal citizenship was turned on its head with the suppression of the individual states. No longer was it a voluntary association of states, no longer could the states act to protect their residents, and a person was no longer a voluntary citizen.

Note: This is not an advocation of confederation or the Confederate States of America.