Did Moses get it wrong?
Humanists say that morality and religion should be kept apart and shouldn’t be linked. They should be reminded of the moral code of the Ten Commandments where the first three state man’s duty to God (religion) and are linked with the other seven that state man’s duty to mankind (secular). This link of religion with the secular morality was first made by Moses and this has survived for a long time. There were secular codes that were forerunners of the Ten Commandments drawn up in ancient dynasties in the Middle East but these vanished with the dynasties. Moses commandments have survived over time. Humanists claim that in linking religion with morality Moses got it wrong but did he? I reckon Moses got it right and humanists have got it wrong.
I have a teenage granddaughter who goes to school in London. She says her favourite subject is—Religious Studies--.She has already done a course in Hinduism and is doing a course in Sikhism and will do a course in Islam. She will eventually do a course in Christianity. I don’t know what the moral basis of Hinduism and Sikhism is but no doubt there is such. But the moral basis of Christianity and Judaism is the Commandments and a variation o f the ten is the moral basis of Islam. In schools in England Christianity is presented to teenagers as one course among many but in India is Hinduism and Sikhism presented to teenagers (and is Islam in Iran presented to teenagers) as one course among many? I doubt it. The people o f these countries value their religion more highly than that. Christianity in England is on the decline and with it there is the demise of morality such as---Thou shalt not steal (a moral injunction that should have been taught to MPs and rioters alike) and this demise is a strong contributory factor to a broken English society.
Michael Gillespie
4 Rotherwood Drive
KIlfennan
Derry
Tel 71 285 807
Sunday, 28 August 2011
Scotland and Ireland within a Federal Kingdom
Scotland and Ireland within a Federal Kingdom.
It is clear from comments in Slugger that British Identity is being re-examined and questioned. But if Britishness is to fade away what will replace it? British Identity underpins and unifies UK constitution but with the devolution of governments to Scotland Wales and N. Ireland and the resurgence of Scottish nationalism the question now is to what extent is the United Kingdom still united? Devolution may prove to be the endgame for the UK and British Identity.
The key player in this is the SNP. A referendum for Scottish independence is now on the cards but the issue of a referendum is muddled by commentators. Alex Salmond is clear on the meaning of independence when h e said on a TV interview that he envisaged the Crown as Head of State in an independent Scotland like many other independent nations in the modern world. In this Alex is steering in the direction of a Federal Kingdom and away from a United Kingdom or a Republic. This would be a radical change in British constitution, a change to a federation which has been canvassed by Rodney Frazier in the book –Constitutional Reform – Reshaping the British political System--. To have Scotland part of a Federal Kingdom would require The Scotland Act similar in nature to the Australia Act 1986 and Trudeau’s Canada Act (patriation) 1982 which made these countries sovereign independent nations but with the Crown as Head of State. The Governments o f these countries are now in control of the police, the army, the navy, the air force and the civil service and have a distinct flag, anthem and Identity defined in Australian and Canadian passports. Since Australia and Canada now control their own constitutions they are in control of their own destinies. Scotland and Ireland should follow suit and take constitutional control of their own destinies within a Federal Kingdom with the Crown as Head of State the Irish being reconciled to a Crown reformed in the National Government of Ireland Act.
The Canada Act was pioneered by Pierre Trudeau but was opposed by eight provinces including Quebec led by Rene Levesque. These provinces feared a loss of provincial legislative power but they acquiesced to the Act after the supreme Canadian Court ruled against them (Quebec the exception). Prior to the Act the UK government at Westminster held the constitutional whip hand in the enactment of legislation for Canada. The Act removed the whip hand from Westminster and placed the whip in the hands of the central government in Ottawa. Legislation passed at Westminster in relation to Canada even with the Royal Assent is now as meaningless as legislation passed by Portugal. On signing the Act into law in Canada the Queen expressed regret at Quebec’s non-inclusion in the Act.
The notion of a federal Kingdom has profound implications for all Ireland. To have a Federal Kingdom of Great Britain and the Sovereign Nation of Ireland would require the passing at Westminster of the National Government of Ireland Act giving Ireland a written constitution making the country an independent sovereign nation within a Federal Kingdom with an elected Crown as Head of State in all Ireland the Irish being reconciled to an elected reformed Crown. The full nuts and bolts of a suggested National Government of Ireland Act can be found at www.authorhouse.co.uk What Scotland and N. Ireland needs is a Campaign for Constitutional Change CCC. The campaign should work to wards the removal of the constitutional whip hand from Westminster in enacting legislation for Scotland and Ireland so that Scotland and Ireland can be in control of their own destinies within a Federal Kingdom with the Crown as Head of State as is the case in the Sovereign Nations of Australia and Canada. Michael Gillespie
It is clear from comments in Slugger that British Identity is being re-examined and questioned. But if Britishness is to fade away what will replace it? British Identity underpins and unifies UK constitution but with the devolution of governments to Scotland Wales and N. Ireland and the resurgence of Scottish nationalism the question now is to what extent is the United Kingdom still united? Devolution may prove to be the endgame for the UK and British Identity.
The key player in this is the SNP. A referendum for Scottish independence is now on the cards but the issue of a referendum is muddled by commentators. Alex Salmond is clear on the meaning of independence when h e said on a TV interview that he envisaged the Crown as Head of State in an independent Scotland like many other independent nations in the modern world. In this Alex is steering in the direction of a Federal Kingdom and away from a United Kingdom or a Republic. This would be a radical change in British constitution, a change to a federation which has been canvassed by Rodney Frazier in the book –Constitutional Reform – Reshaping the British political System--. To have Scotland part of a Federal Kingdom would require The Scotland Act similar in nature to the Australia Act 1986 and Trudeau’s Canada Act (patriation) 1982 which made these countries sovereign independent nations but with the Crown as Head of State. The Governments o f these countries are now in control of the police, the army, the navy, the air force and the civil service and have a distinct flag, anthem and Identity defined in Australian and Canadian passports. Since Australia and Canada now control their own constitutions they are in control of their own destinies. Scotland and Ireland should follow suit and take constitutional control of their own destinies within a Federal Kingdom with the Crown as Head of State the Irish being reconciled to a Crown reformed in the National Government of Ireland Act.
The Canada Act was pioneered by Pierre Trudeau but was opposed by eight provinces including Quebec led by Rene Levesque. These provinces feared a loss of provincial legislative power but they acquiesced to the Act after the supreme Canadian Court ruled against them (Quebec the exception). Prior to the Act the UK government at Westminster held the constitutional whip hand in the enactment of legislation for Canada. The Act removed the whip hand from Westminster and placed the whip in the hands of the central government in Ottawa. Legislation passed at Westminster in relation to Canada even with the Royal Assent is now as meaningless as legislation passed by Portugal. On signing the Act into law in Canada the Queen expressed regret at Quebec’s non-inclusion in the Act.
The notion of a federal Kingdom has profound implications for all Ireland. To have a Federal Kingdom of Great Britain and the Sovereign Nation of Ireland would require the passing at Westminster of the National Government of Ireland Act giving Ireland a written constitution making the country an independent sovereign nation within a Federal Kingdom with an elected Crown as Head of State in all Ireland the Irish being reconciled to an elected reformed Crown. The full nuts and bolts of a suggested National Government of Ireland Act can be found at www.authorhouse.co.uk What Scotland and N. Ireland needs is a Campaign for Constitutional Change CCC. The campaign should work to wards the removal of the constitutional whip hand from Westminster in enacting legislation for Scotland and Ireland so that Scotland and Ireland can be in control of their own destinies within a Federal Kingdom with the Crown as Head of State as is the case in the Sovereign Nations of Australia and Canada. Michael Gillespie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
