O Dear..godlessness and elect-ability in the US

[darkeyes]

Found an interesting article wile having wee look c at the media websites earlier this evening http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/31/op...html?hpt=hp_t5..... is nice 2 kno I have a chance of being elected 2 public office if I lived in the US if I am openly lesbian, an immigrant (obviously.. just like Arnie hey?), a woman, of ne religion, of ne ethnic group.. however I am evidently completely unelectable )..... wy? Like something around 10% of the US population I am an atheist.. and being an atheist is a big nono.. anathema to the US electorate... it seems every conceivable group gathers together to ensure the godless are debarred de facto from public office.. no tenni, hun.. there is no mention of bisexuals, but I suspect being openly bisexual would allow one more opportunity of getting elected in the US as long of course as one believes in the almighty.. or as many no peeps of all kinds no doubt do... claim to! Seems honesty would be kiss of death to the campaign of any and all atheists for election to Congress or ne other public office.. interesting isn't it? Well I think so... the land of the free wer ne thing is possible.. lessen of course one is an atheist.. now isn't that summat for Americans to have gr8 pride in?

[by~his~side]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
One Nation under God
Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

I hardly think that someone who can't speak with heartfelt conviction the oath of loyalty to both our flag and our Nation deserves to be a member of our elected governmental body.
I'm sure the proud Americans who share my beliefs in the principles and values this great Nation was founded upon would agree with me.

Amen
~D~

[salemite43]

I hear you, Darkeyes! I am an atheist also, and pretty frank about it. My wife's sisters are all into religion in a great big way, and we have some very interesting ahem, discussions about a special place being reserved in their Christian Hell just for me. When I point out to them that since I am a Pagan according to their lights, I am not subject to their version of the underworld, they just blow up like puffer fish and really go after me for being so ignorant. I can just imagine them and their friends of like mind sitting in fundamentalist church somewhere praying like crazy that 1; I see the light and return to the fold, or 2; that I burn in their Hell's fires for all of eternity.

As far as being electable, even if I (shudder) would even consider running for public office, they would be the first ones out there proclaiming my apostasy for all the world to see. Given the charming way the lumpen proletariat react to atheism, I could be a serial rapist, a murder, or a robber baron and would be more electable, than to openly state my opinion that religion is just an organized way of pleading with thunder.

Christopher says it best. "Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody—not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms—had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion."

[salemite43]

Sorry by~his~side, but I must respectfully disagree with your argument.

Most Americans know the Pledge of Allegiance. But the 31-word passage has evolved over time. Most people don't realize the phrase "under God" wasn't included until Flag Day in 1954. Here's what went down. In 1892, Francis Bellamy, a minister from upstate New York, reportedly wrote the Pledge as an expression of fealty to the U.S. It read: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Over the next 50 years or so, the version would eventually include "of the United States after "flag" and a simple "to" before "republic."
In 1948, Louis Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, added "under God" at a meeting of the Sons of American Revolution,".claiming Abraham Lincoln used the same phrase in his Gettysburg Address. Almost all reported transcripts from the speech do include "that The Nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom."
Bowman continued to deliver his version of the Pledge, and others, like the Knights of Columbus, began reciting it, too. Various people even wrote letters to the president at the time, Harry Truman, and met with him to request the more religious tone.
Finally, the government became involved. In 1953, Louis Rabaut, a democrat from Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. It failed. But by then, the decision was up to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Recently baptized as a Presbyterian, he heard a sermon, arguing the words "under God" from Lincoln's speech set the United States apart from others as a nation. At the time, the Cold War was gaining steam, and Eisenhower was fighting communism across the globe.
The next day, the president encouraged Charles Oakman, a republican also from Michigan, to re-introduce the bill, which Congress passed. Eisenhower signed it into law on June 14, 1954. A story announcing the news in the Washington Post quoted him as saying the new version would add "spiritual weapons [as a counter to the Atheist Soviet Government] which will forever be our country's most powerful resource."
Naturally, in a nation with growing diversity of religions, "under God" has proven a polarizing phrase. Separation of church and state also factors into the politicized discussion.
Two years later, on Flag Day again, Eisenhower also made "In God We Trust" our nation's official motto. The man must have loved his new religion.

I started out in school reciting the Pledge as originally penned by Bellamy and modifed to include "of the United States" 50 years later, in 1892. There has been much heated debate about the addition of "under God" ever since 1954.

As a multi-religious nation that constitutionally protects one freedom of speech and religion, it also implies freedom FROM religion. No public servant should have to pass a Christian litmus test to hold office if he or she is duly elected by a majority of the voters. Consider this, John F Kennedy was a practicing Catholic (also a womanizer and adulterer, but that is for a different thread) created a lot of discussion about whether or not a Catholic was electable as a presidential candidate. Joe Lieberman was the first Jewish Vice President. The times, they are a-changin'.


Source: Business Times

[Annika L]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
One Nation under God
Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.

I hardly think that someone who can't speak with heartfelt conviction the oath of loyalty to both our flag and our Nation deserves to be a member of our elected governmental body.
I'm sure the proud Americans who share my beliefs in the principles and values this great Nation was founded upon would agree with me.

Amen
~D~

Yes, I'm quite sure that those who share your beliefs agree with you...that's pretty much a logical certainty.

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran,

Once again you seek to slam a country that you obviously do not like. As far back as 1853 there have been people who affirmed rather than swore the oaths. There have been Presidents that omitted the "so help me God". There is a long history of the freedom to do as you please. No, if you were here, your atheism would be nothing in whether or not you were elected and more to do with the ignorance and intolerance you displayed in your OP.

[2bi2Bboring]

Speaking as a US combat veteran, and an atheist, I figure it qualifies me to have an opinion.
I don't know what atheist wouldn't have better sense than to run for Congress or public office. Serving in Congress takes a certain level of being able to lie to yourself, that you're, "serving the American people". Bullshit! No, you're serving your own self interest and the interests of those who paid to get you elected. That level of self delusion seems to be only capable of those who base their reality and found their view of the world on delusion. Politicians are mostly corrupt and self-serving individuals, wolves in sheep's clothing who prey upon people's fears and hopes to get elected. They fund their campaigns with corporate money, and donations from the parishioners of churches after the preacher gives his blessing to vote for "candidate A" because they make the right noises about God, gun rights and a lack of abortion rights. They run their mouths long enough to whip up the fear in the minds of the faithful about the heathen ways of "candidate B". How he's a Godless atheist who dances naked around the fire by which he wants to sacrifice their children's souls. How could someone who doesn't believe in God represent their views in Washington? Atheists are the enemy of God and the enemy of America in the view of most people of faith. Many are pragmatic about atheists but some are prejudiced and some are very prejudiced. The fact is people fear atheism because their religion tells them to.

This politician the article mentioned is going to be a failed campaign. The reason is because people feel commonality through religion, sharing a God gives people a basis to start on for a core value system. An atheist will have to start from square one explaining what their platform is based on and how they think. That takes a seriously charismatic atheist to make a Christian not care about his atheism and to actually attract their vote. That level of charisma will soon garner the Anti-Christ embodied level of thinking from some. It did with the current POTUS, an atheist would be low hanging fruit for the fundamentalists.

I'm thinking we as atheists are smarter than to run for office. Were generally off curing diseases or creating beauty in the world or finding galaxies or figuring out a way to sustain us on the planet. Running for office gets in the way of the bigger picture, we have bigger issues than the affairs of men. The guy who saves mankind from it's next big trial by fire isn't going to be worried about God. Because the next trial by fire humankind faces will be over religion.

[darkeyes]

Fran,

Once again you seek to slam a country that you obviously do not like. As far back as 1853 there have been people who affirmed rather than swore the oaths. There have been Presidents that omitted the "so help me God". There is a long history of the freedom to do as you please. No, if you were here, your atheism would be nothing in whether or not you were elected and more to do with the ignorance and intolerance you displayed in your OP.

On the contrary.. I like the US as a country just fine.. wot I've seen of it which is only one small corner.. and the people Ive met too.. I like them very much indeed... but where I see fault I comment if I think it appropriate.. I picked up on an American article from an American News Station... one many Americans don't like from what I gather.. espesh from a particular political viewpoint. I do not like everything about the US any more than I like everything about my own country.. but dislike it and its people per se? No.. not in the least.. only those aspects where bigotry and unfairness seem to reign.. I am intolerant of intolerance, Darlin' darlin'..... but from what I have seen of US public life, overwhelmingly from afar admittedly, but not entirely... bigotry, intolerance and ignorance are no barrier to election.. sadly lack of belief in a God seems to be... Intolerance bigotry and ignorance is not a fault which exists only the US... it's a bit like the UK for that matter... and trust me.. the current campaign going on here to decide Scotland's place in the UK is is exposing those faults to be hale and hearty in my own lickle corner of the world too.. as I knew it would... and neither side is excused responsibility..

No country allows its people to do as they please if I may say so... some allow more freedom for their people to act with greater liberty than others.. both ur country and mine are increasingly becoming much less free.. indeed that is a malaise which inflicts all of the so called free world... I know France better than any other country.. and love it more than any other excepting my own.. but that country too is increasingly becoming a far less free place and a much more bigoted one than it was just a few short years ago.. so it isn't a case of dislike or like.. it is a case of finding prejudice and and doing what little I am able to expose it and fight it wherever I find it..

It also isn't a case of Presidents or ne1`saying or not saying the words "so help me God" while repeating an oath... it is about not having to keep our lack of belief in a God locked away in the closet (now where have we heard that before). And openly exposing that to American voters seems to be the kiss of death so very few do it.. and those who do who are successful are so few and far between as to make no difference..

Criticism and questioning do not mean dislike of place or people.. in this instance it means dislike of the object of criticism and is intended to draw the attention of others to what is a perceived injustice born of prejudice. If we see injustice anywhere do we stay quiet? For too long people in both ur country and mine have done so about many things.. around the world in fact.. and far 2 many still do..

[Visexual]

Wouldn’t an atheist be less apt to be influenced by religious zealots?Just like a super wealthy person is going to represent the super wealthy, the religious freaks are going to represent their religious beliefs.

I still am fairly careful about who I tell that I’m bisexual.My wife and a few friends know.Now I’m very vocal about not being homophobic and defend the GLBT rights.

But I’m very open about being an atheist.I was the only person I know of who managed to get ‘agnostic’ on my dog tags when I was in special ops for seven years during the Viet Nam era.

I’ve had several of my fellow Combat Controllers, at the reunions, mention how they were hesitant to jump out of a plane after me when I’d yelled, “God, you ain’t got a hair on your ass if you don’t get me this time”, just as I jumped out.

I admit that I wasn’t in the military for God and country.I was never patriotic to a government and never would be.But unlike a lot of these bible waiving, self proclaimed, patriots like Ted Nugent, I didn’t dodge the draft!

[void()]

Well this seems entwined in two different subjects.

1. Religion

Consider myself a spiritual atheist. This is to say I really hold no belief in any particular deity as the absolute god or goddess.
Do believe science can go a long way to explain a lot. Also believe science has places where it can only toss its hands in the air, scratch its noggin and mutter a resounding "gee, dunno. Guess you're on your own."

For me that chasm between what science is capable of and what it is not lets me posit as human beings we are each respectively divine, we're spiritual in some way. That is the extent of my belief there. Note I am not stating man is god/God, nor vice versa.

Now, bugger off and leave me to that view, you got your own. Respect me, I respect you, simple thing to do.

2. Politics

Recently finding myself in agreement with Larken Rose who wrote _The Most Dangerous Superstition_. It is a book about a form of anarchy known as voluntarism, government, politics. The basic premise is if it is not morally and ethically right or just for me to kill another, how is it morally or ethically right to delegate another to do it for me? If i am not granted a right like that via my own morality, how can someone else who is just as human as me claim privilege to such a right?

Because they are government and have authority you say? Okay, who granted them their said authority? I know I did not, I cannot allow others rights I do not have. I do not have said rights, how can I give them to someone else? Did you give them authority? Did you do that silly voting thing?

I think the general idea can be seen in that. And it is a peaceful movement. I simply ignore the authority of government. It has none if we know the Truth. No one can have authority where all are equals. And our declaration of independence calls us all equals, look it up. And I do not seek authority, no such creature can exist. Just live and let live. Real simple politics, no politics.


Well, guess that will probably confuse some people. Tough. I need to get busy learning more basket weaving, clog making, gardening.

[jamieknyc]

In reality, outside of those parts of the US where churches are the main centers of community life, few people in public office are seriously religious believers. Most elected officials, if they belong to a church at all, are 'three times a year' members. President Obama is typical.

[darkeyes]

Ur probably right Jamie.. but a few verbal "Praise be's to Gaaad" at appropriate times go a long way in some circles.... the question is just how many standing for election public office admit to not believing? And how many don't believe and use Gaaad 2 get on in public (electable) life???? Far fewer of the first than the second I think which is the point of the article.. but the question is.. should it be? Are atheists less fit people than the religious to stand for public office? In the so called democratic western world outside of the US we know the answer to that last question at least.. why does the US appear to be so different??

[pole_smoker]

Darkeyes are you going to vote for or against Scottish independence?

[elian]

At the risk of being rude and insensitive to a large number of people I'll only say that's "gawwd" Fran, you're pronouncing it wrong..at least that's the way I hear most Americans pronounce it on a daily basis.

..folks say this is a Christian nation but they forget that the reason it was founded was to get away from religious theocracy...they also forget that at least 3-4 of the first 10 US presidents were deist or unitarian. (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles )

There are some folks who believe that you can't be a moral person without a slash on your back or someone always looking over your shoulder, and God knows we've had enough examples of that in public life but I do believe that the majority of folks try to do the right thing, or at least have good intentions regardless of their beliefs.

I do believe that there is something more worthwhile than my own ego - do I think that it is an angry old white man with a long beard sitting on a throne punishing his petulant children? No. There are many beautiful faith traditions in the world and as long as they don't directly harm individuals I draw inspiration from all of them.

Philosophy is different than institution; and it isn't the folks that I am upset with as much as the institutions. Having said that, here in the US typically business is left to the corporation and it's "stockholders", and charity is left to religious institutions..so I can't be fully against an organization that does do some good.

As for my own part I simply would not be here without divine love, if you have to, call it self-preservation - a trick of the mind to keep itself going but when I was a teenager I was too scared to tell anyone else what I was going through questioning my own sexuality, being bullied, etc. It was divine inspiration that told me that I was loved and that I should hold on "just a little longer" .. I believe that I was given the gift of an open mind, growing up in a rural bigoted household I would've done anything to give it away, but now that I am a bit older, not so sure I would be in a hurry to lose that gift.

Even if you don't believe in a supernatural being, you have to acknowledge that creation is greater than the sum of its parts - if the Earth stopped producing food there is a good chance we would not be able to sustain ourselves; and yet every day we are granted life, even if it's just for a little while. That's something to be greatful for. There are so many different variables and systems we could study that such things become inherently complex. I for one always figured that the valence theory of electrons might actually apply to the entire world..that it wasn't just atoms that were trying to reach a stable configuration, but everything in the world. This is exemplified by the idea of taking off when flying - you can see all of the little networks and systems we have built up over the years to keep ourselves connected. But then again, this is also probably an oversimplification. There /is/ chaos in the world as well, and it's probably there for a good reason - such as being a catalyst for change.

Oh and to stay on topic - maybe some day there might be an atheist president, but for now there are many people in this country who simply are not ready to try it..they're barely ready to try a woman..wow - a female president - that would be a really interesting experiment wouldn't it?

[2bi2Bboring]

Our biggest problem in the states is that there exists an " angry old white guys" club in politics. The "good ol' boys" network in political circles is the grease that oils the gears of Washington DC. The electorate looks at candidates as conforming to moral issues by what religious views they hold. Despite the fact that atheists can be just as moral and far more ethical than people of faith they are seen as "godless heathens". Somehow in our society we have gotten the idea ( actually religion has promoted the idea ) that atheists have no moral or ethical backbone. Ethics and morality are independent of religion, a person can live a morally just life independent of faith based instruction. But religion vilifies atheists, we are seen as attacking religion because we seek parity with religion in society. We are viewed with skepticism because our views are not seen as morally bankrupt. No one in Washington has come out as an atheist because to do so is political suicide. Being outside the good ol' boy network is political death, any atheist elected would bee see as an outsider and would be shunned by the system and would be a one term and out politician. Being an atheist is seen as non- conformist and alien to the status quo. Never mind a sense of fairness or equality, never mind equity of rights.
There is a sense of righteous indignation in the view of the faithful, that keeping the godless out of politics is in keeping with the moral fiber of the norm society has set forth. It has no basis in reality, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is not a Christian nation, it was never set up to be a Christian nation. We should remember that most of our founding fathers were deists and sought to separate the powers of church and state for good reason. Religion is about control and power, not faith and piety, it seeks to control the minds of the masses by forcing conformity of thought. Atheists scare the shit out of Christians because anyone seen as " not of God", is "of the devil".


BTW Fran, I am interested too on your take on Scottish independence from Britain. What say you?

[salemite43]

Bloody well said!

[jamieknyc]

Ur probably right Jamie.. but a few verbal "Praise be's to Gaaad" at appropriate times go a long way in some circles.... the question is just how many standing for election public office admit to not believing? And how many don't believe and use Gaaad 2 get on in public (electable) life???? Far fewer of the first than the second I think which is the point of the article.. but the question is.. should it be? Are atheists less fit people than the religious to stand for public office? In the so called democratic western world outside of the US we know the answer to that last question at least.. why does the US appear to be so different??

It depends what you mean by atheists. If you mean the average sort of candidate who doesn't belong to any religious faith, or who belongs to one in name but rarely participates, outside of the South probably 90% fall into that category, and the ones who are actively religious tend to be minorities, especially blacks. If by atheists you don't mean the ordinary Joe who isn't a religious believer and who is an intolerant bigot, it ought not to be a surprise why that kind has trouble being elected. Remember that in America, unlike Europe, every candidate has to personally run for office himself in a district where he actually lives and isn't nominated from a party list.

[RustyPete]

Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, W.H. Taft, L.B. Johnson and our current leader…? come to mind as non-believers.
I'd say it properly proportional - believers to non with elected: ceterus parabus. QED.

[void()]

Religion is about control and power, not faith and piety, it seeks to control the minds of the masses by forcing conformity of thought.

You can replace a word in your statement. You could use Government, or Money. Either would function equally the same in your statement. I see all three as tools used by a ruling class. It is difficult to discern which originated first. Oddly, like the triangle of fire that firefighters are taught, if you remove one, the other two die off.

As an example, remove money. That negates most if not all crime. That means we need fewer laws, less government. It means churches mysteriously are unable to help their congregations too, or at least are limited to only local support. Also churches may face competition from other religions, civil aspects.

How does removing money negate crime? Well, money inspires most crime because people covet or desire what others have. Money is used to create an artificial scarcity. It is also used as a tool of creating slavery, if in debt you have to turn over the fruit of your labor/s. So, a lot of crime is directed at taking money, or value perceived from money.

Truth is money is a dead idea. That is all it ever was, ever will be. You consent to use the idea, you get made to be its slave. The same can be said of government, religion. Government is dead because it is morally wrong. It initiates violence against people without authority to do so. Why does it not have authority? The same reason you have no authority to initiate violence against people. No authority exists to grant anyone such a right.

Bah, all these dead ideas need swept away. We need to grow beyond them.

[darkeyes]

Bah, all these dead ideas need swept away. We need to grow beyond them.

Ur right.. we do need to sweep away old dead ideas.. but I dont think 2bi2bboring's idea is dead.. religion is about power.. I musta sed it a dozen times over my time on this site..

[void()]

Ur right.. we do need to sweep away old dead ideas.. but I dont think 2bi2bboring's idea is dead.. religion is about power.. I musta sed it a dozen times over my time on this site..

I'm not saying that idea, that religion is about power. I'm saying the ideas of religion, money, government are what needs swept away. I think all three are fairly well dead ideas. All three serve no purpose any longer except exacting control, giving misery if you refuse being controlled.

Yes, I realize such could be seen as opinion. And yes, to a degree perhaps it is. Still, I ask you find me astounding tomes of evidence contrary. I can offer evidence to support my opinion, simply look at our respective pasts.

[2bi2Bboring]

We could solve about 95% of the problems with government/politics/campaign finance reform by making the salary for public office be set at minimum wage and making all politicians submit their campaign finances as public record. Once there is no financial benefit to serving in public office only those who have the public good at heart will seek office.

As for religion, opiate of the masses that it is. I fear there will come a day when once again Christianity and Islam will be warring with each other openly. With the recent developments with ISIS and the attitude they carry toward apostates and unbelievers, it will be difficult for the two faiths to do anything but be at loggerheads. Religion will be the end of us all if we don't put a stop to the madness. It's a form of delusional mental illness in my estimation, an opinion currently being observed and studied by some mental health researchers. As far as the influence religion holds on our political scene, I find it to be a morass of the blind leading the blind. But in a blind nation the one eyed man is king.

[2bi2Bboring]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands
One Nation under God
Indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all.


I hardly think that someone who can't speak with heartfelt conviction the oath of loyalty to both our flag and our Nation deserves to be a member of our elected governmental body.
I'm sure the proud Americans who share my beliefs in the principles and values this great Nation was founded upon would agree with me.


Amen
~D~

You my dear, despite a wonderful profile avatar, are misinformed. This country was not founded as a Christian nation, it was never intended to be a Christian nation. It was founded on the principle of religious liberty, which means the state shall choose no approved state religion. According to the establishment clause of the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " This clearly blows the recently conjured idea disseminated widely by Fox News that the United States was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation as utter constitution wishful thinking.


This is basic high school government class material, not Harvard Constitutional law school stuff. My rights, as an atheist are protected to be free from religion, the same as your's are to go to church on Sunday and believe as you wish. Your rights stop where mine begin, and I have the absolute inalienable right to NOT believe your god.


I AM a proud American, I served my great country for 8 years and took a bullet in combat for it. I believe in the principles and beliefs this country was founded upon, but your beliefs are not what this country stands for. It chooses no god, subscribes to no faith and favors no creed but those set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I would suggest that becoming familiar with them would be a good idea so you have a more informed opinion of what your rights and the rights of every other citizen are.

[goldenfinger]

I wonder what would happen if Bill Gate ran for office.

About ISIS, wasn't that long ago that Christians burned witches alive and killed people who would not convert.
What goes around comes around.

[darkeyes]

I'm not saying that idea, that religion is about power. I'm saying the ideas of religion, money, government are what needs swept away. I think all three are fairly well dead ideas. All three serve no purpose any longer except exacting control, giving misery if you refuse being controlled.

Yes, I realize such could be seen as opinion. And yes, to a degree perhaps it is. Still, I ask you find me astounding tomes of evidence contrary. I can offer evidence to support my opinion, simply look at our respective pasts.

I agree wivya.. they all do need sweeping away.. but since the thread is about peeps who have no religion and the attitudes of peeps who do in (it is claimed with some smoke at the very least) in not allowing them get elected to public office in the US, other other matters aren't pertinent..

[void()]

I agree wivya.. they all do need sweeping away.. but since the thread is about peeps who have no religion and the attitudes of peeps who do in (it is claimed with some smoke at the very least) in not allowing them get elected to public office in the US, other other matters aren't pertinent..

* sits, goes "hmmmmmm", nods though and lets it all go by as he ponders*

[void()]

Apologies, I need to retain calmness and clarity of thought regarding
the subject discussed herein. Ergo, I regrouped within a bit in order to
delve beyond illusions of ego, opinion.

How is the call to abolish government not relevant in this case?

The point Fran expresses is those who hold no religion seek office in
government.

Right. I comprehend that as the point. What I am suggesting is to
abolish government, religion, money all the same and all at once.

If we, all of humanity, abolish these ideas which many see as dead, no
further argument exists. No one, religious or not will seek office in
government because government, religion will no longer exist. They will
have lost the object/s of contention.

There will be nothing to argue over. No one will be in government as no
government will be.

No one will be religious, at least not publicly in an organized sense,
as no religion will exist.

No one will covet another person's money because money will no longer
exist.

Every resource will be both valueless and priceless, it will simply
exist. No one will own anything, yet own everything. We are all
granted right of access to resources equally. Yes, while someone uses
a resource, it is their resource. Once they finish using it, the next
person claims the resource and so on.

Our world is in danger of self destruction, either by our hands or
the hands of Nature. We were once considered stewards of the world.
Now we are naught but spoiled brats who bear out no responsibility or
accountability for any action. It is time we awake from our slumber and
begin seeing the illusions of evil for what they are, cast them off as
slaves cast off chains of bondage. We must again become the stewards
lest we seek to be spectator at the demise of it.

And no, this is not an appeal to collectivist authoritarianism. It
is an appeal that we each respective take back self ownership, self
responsibility, self dignity, self courage. It is an appeal that we all
do what we each are able to live by a non-aggression principle, a Golden
Rule and be at peace, live with Nature and not against it.

So again, how is the call to abolish the evils of money, government,
religion not relevant?

I will admit ignorance. This seems though to be a matter of simple
logic. These ideas are proven as cancers to all of humanity. Surgeons
cut cancers out of bodies in order that bodies can regain health. That
seems rather obviously a similar if not the exact identical case here.
Again, I may be misreading the subject discussed.

One begins to wonder though, how is it some seem to always misunderstand
basic English? What is written is what is written after all, and often
there are no real ulterior meanings. So how is it that basic English are
so readily misunderstood? It really begins to give one cause to pause
in preponderance.

So, if I do misunderstand, please do elucidate and articulate the point/s
to a finer degree. In fact do so that a humbled one year old babe could
understand.

And no that is an attack, merely expressing a desire for clarity and a
degree of clarity preferred. If a child can not understand it, then,
surely I will be doomed to not understand my wife expressing her love to
me.

No, I'm not angered or upset. I am rather calm as I have written, and
do write this, will remain so after. I am lacking comprehension in how
calling for the abolishment of evils is not relevant in this case. I am
expressing that and a desire to comprehend the issue.

It seems if I express points or ideas counter to government, religion,
money some attempt to suggest I lack comprehension of the issues. They
do so even after I have read all the other opinions posted herein
regarding the issues. "Oh, you misunderstand what we write. Please shut
up and go away, your misunderstanding leads you to be a [fill in the
blank], and in error."

Well here is a surprise for all of you who do that. I do not care if I
am correct, or in error. I am expressing my opinion the same as others
express their opinions. If you would like for me to "go away", you
can use the ignore feature on the site. I am finding it rather useful
myself. It has taken power and control away from some, who no longer
"bother" me.

I thought it was acceptable to discuss opinions, ideas here. That is
what the rules suggest at least. What I am saying is if you think I
misunderstand, there is another way to respond, two other ways in fact.
You can clarify your position/opinion/idea, or ignore me. Often this
is why I seem to vanish, I am busy with living, thinking, clarifying
ideas for myself and others, living, learning, loving, laughing.

So please clarify. How is the idea that we abolish these evils not
relevant? How is suggesting we ignore them out of power not pertaining
to the argument over their perceived power not relevant? How is
suggesting these ideas, as all ideas are dead not fitting this subject
matter? How are these ideas illogical, immoral, unethical?

[elian]

Money isn't necessarily the problem, the way I see money is that it is an intermediary form of exchange - I don't know how to do roofing but I could pay someone else to do it, and they could pay me for computer services and we could both eat when we pay the supermarket - and it need not be the same market - the roofer could shop in one market and I could shop in another.

The problem I have isn't with money itself, it's with the folks in the finance sector who play with money as if it is some sort of video game; basically betting on the things that the rest of society needs to survive while really not contributing anything of value in return. This would be different than a bank giving a loan to a small business to fund start up, which is valuable..some folks literally do nothing but trade based on equations and formulas JUST to make profit - that is gaming the system and while it can be very lucrative it is also dangerous to those of us who live in the real world.

As far as religion and control - sure religion has been used to control people, and some of them even like being controlled but I believe in individual freedom of expression and belief, which I think is different than the systematic control you are all talking about.

[2bi2Bboring]

Void(), if we abolish government, religion, and money, ( and believe me, I'm not saying it isn't a good idea) how do we keep society from falling into chaos? You've made a suggestion without proposing a solution. What will replace those entities in our society that will give it the structure to function? Removal of these societal constructs will leave a vacuum by which the remainder will regress in to anarchy.
We cannot allow the regression of man into a state of natural law because it will resort to survival of the fittest and those who are weakest in society will not survive because they will be left unprotected and unprovided for.
Removal of these paradigms will leave society without the structure to function. What redress would a person have in the case of grievance with a neighbor or a company that had wronged them or caused harm?

I once told you "a little bit of revolution is a dangerous thing", this is a true statement in that once revolution takes hold as an idea it often reduces the status quo into total revolution. This can work if another structure follows but there are real life examples where chaos reigns and a lack of structure in the resulting power vacuum has reduced those societies to war and power struggle. Somalia and Syria are good examples where society has been reduced to a struggle of the strongest factions or warlords. Those influences have reduced their society and infrastructure to rubble and disarray. Once instability sets in it spreads to the surrounding countries and the area becomes destabilized.

My biggest question for you is what replaces government? What replaces money? I don't see a need to replace religion with anything because it serves no real purpose it to make people feel better through delusion. But what replaces the structural void left in the wake of a lack of government and a lack of monetary structure? These are questions that the answers are important because they concern the future of our society.

[void()]

Void(), if we abolish government, religion, and money, ( and believe me, I'm not saying it isn't a good idea) how do we keep society from falling into chaos? You've made a suggestion without proposing a solution. What will replace those entities in our society that will give it the structure to function? Removal of these societal constructs will leave a vacuum by which the remainder will regress in to anarchy.
We cannot allow the regression of man into a state of natural law because it will resort to survival of the fittest and those who are weakest in society will not survive because they will be left unprotected and unprovided for.
Removal of these paradigms will leave society without the structure to function. What redress would a person have in the case of grievance with a neighbor or a company that had wronged them or caused harm?

I once told you "a little bit of revolution is a dangerous thing", this is a true statement in that once revolution takes hold as an idea it often reduces the status quo into total revolution. This can work if another structure follows but there are real life examples where chaos reigns and a lack of structure in the resulting power vacuum has reduced those societies to war and power struggle. Somalia and Syria are good examples where society has been reduced to a struggle of the strongest factions or warlords. Those influences have reduced their society and infrastructure to rubble and disarray. Once instability sets in it spreads to the surrounding countries and the area becomes destabilized.

My biggest question for you is what replaces government? What replaces money? I don't see a need to replace religion with anything because it serves no real purpose it to make people feel better through delusion. But what replaces the structural void left in the wake of a lack of government and a lack of monetary structure? These are questions that the answers are important because they concern the future of our society.

What will replace those entities in our society that will give it the structure to function? Removal of these societal constructs will leave a vacuum by which the remainder will regress in to anarchy.

Look up Tellinger, it is his last name. He presents a system of Ubuntu Contributionism as he calls it.
The basics are rather simple. We return to local councils of twelve elected yearly or however the locality decides. These
councils also have a chief, so in all there are thirteen. It is left to locality to decide what they desire as far as how to select
this council of guides. It is basically community based tribalism without collectivist authoritarianism.

Arbitration works effectively now to settle contracts. What says it cannot continue working in the same capacity with such councils. The councils could offer perhaps a ten percent increase in food rations for volunteers who act as peace officers, those whom defend others against acts of aggression. You're assuming that the adage of "might equates right" would dominate.

Ask yourself though, do you not follow the Golden Rule in your daily life? Do you not see that others follow this same guiding moral principle? No one likes to be a victim of aggression. Often, even the implicit threat of it is enough to deter further aggression by an aggressor. We have open carry laws, as well as concealed weapons permits. Are you suggesting responsible folks would not retain arms? Even if for nothing more than to control critters who stray into agricultural areas, people would still use guns.

No, I'm not suggesting armed violence is a be all, end all solution either. Still it is a valid deterrent against aggression. When in the navy my company's motto was, "our power is our presence." I find this applicable in regards to guns. People dislike being hurt. If they know openly a consequence of aggression may be they get hurt, they are likely to not engage in aggression.

As to anarchy, well look at your grocery store. No one there is coerced into doing anything. It remains organized and functions in near perfection does it not? The same can be said for the State, or government. These are both modern forms of functional anarchy, step back and look at them a bit. You'll see it. And you'll see that the axiom "only the strong survive" is pure bull, as it does not apply in either case. This is what collective authoritarianism does, it convinces everyone of "for the greater good of all" and thrives. So while, I suggest these as forms of anarchy, I also realize the seeds an evil inherent.

I am not suggesting any idea or concept is perfect. What I am saying is there seems better ways to achieve the ends, better morally, better all around. Damn! I hate that, collective authoritarianism is an insidious virus even infecting its antithesis. This is where words get in the fucking way as they are dirty and foul, tainted with the corrupt blood of victims and aggressors alike.

What replaces money?

Open and free access to everything. Nothing "costs" anymore. There are suggestions to Tellinger's idea which suggest everyone in a community contribute oh say twenty hours a week, doing whatever they desire to help their community. For example one day I felt like helping bake bread, I would go bake bread for four hours that day, give bread to those who came to the bakery. The next day I may work for hours at our community's green energy production plant, the next weave baskets for our gardeners, the next fish for food for the hungry and so on. When everyone contributes the "work" becomes negligible. You get free housing, free health care, free food as your "payment".

And again that may seem to bow a bit to collective authority. But everyone is free to volunteer or not. If they choose not to, and instead choose aggression, when everything is given them freely, the community has its volunteer peace officers escort them out. They are exiled. They can go create their own community, the community forgets them. Arbitration comes into play for levels of offenses. The community may suggest a ten percent fee to settle disputes, the party in error has to pay the fee. This goes into the community kettle, to provide new equipment, help build roads and so on. You can still contract and use value for value as means of contracting.

Again, not saying this is perfect. But I do believe we all as humanity may benefit in working toward it. No one has to agree with me.
What I am seeking is a time when each person owns themselves fully. They can decide what to do with the fruits of their labor, or to labor, or how and where. There are no slaves and no masters, we are all equal. We all understand my freedom ends when I begin to impose my values or beliefs on you, and vise versa. And in writing this it is difficult to keep reminding myself that care is needed to avoid seeming, or even unwittingly doing this in writing it. This is strictly my opinion, one shared by a growing number of people, albeit still my opinion. Please accept it as only that.

I am not suggesting we all as humanity plunge headlong off a cliff, nor saying we all bow down to any non-existing authority, or we all continue upholding status quo. I am saying I think there are better ways to get there than we commonly have, and asking can we work toward those?

Secret tip off here though, yes I am an anarchist but perhaps not in a sense you may define. I believe in voluntary interaction between people, non-aggression and the Golden rule. I also choose to not accept any authority as existing. Those are my three principles. I have valid rationale for them. Excuse me now, need to go live.