O Dear..godlessness and elect-ability in the US [Archive]

salemite43

Sep 1, 2014, 8:38 PM

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

Sep 1, 2014, 9:03 PM

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 (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm), 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

Sep 1, 2014, 10:30 PM

DuckiesDarling

Sep 1, 2014, 10:39 PM

2bi2Bboring

Sep 2, 2014, 3:27 AM

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

Sep 2, 2014, 4:25 AM

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

Sep 2, 2014, 5:47 AM

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()

Sep 2, 2014, 12:07 PM

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

Sep 2, 2014, 2:58 PM

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

Sep 2, 2014, 4:02 PM

pole_smoker

Sep 2, 2014, 6:34 PM

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

elian

Sep 3, 2014, 7:20 AM

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

Sep 3, 2014, 8:43 AM

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

Sep 3, 2014, 10:22 AM

Bloody well said!

jamieknyc

Sep 3, 2014, 10:49 AM

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

Sep 3, 2014, 12:39 PM

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()

Sep 3, 2014, 7:03 PM

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

Sep 3, 2014, 8:10 PM

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()

Sep 3, 2014, 8:56 PM

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

Sep 3, 2014, 10:26 PM

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

Sep 3, 2014, 11:37 PM

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

Sep 4, 2014, 2:49 AM

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.:eek2:

darkeyes

Sep 4, 2014, 7:29 AM

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()

Sep 4, 2014, 9:11 AM

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()

Sep 5, 2014, 11:58 AM

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

Sep 5, 2014, 3:18 PM

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

Sep 5, 2014, 4:15 PM

void()

Sep 5, 2014, 6:50 PM

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.

12voltyV2.0

Sep 5, 2014, 7:43 PM

pole_smoker

Sep 6, 2014, 3:21 AM

There is a book that came out earlier this year that I recently purchased, but with the end of summer being so crazy in trying to get things wrapped up here in Ohio before I start to prepare for my return to Florida soon I have not made it very deep in---but the book is about our "Founding Fathers"----showing how they were not dogmatic "christians" of the form that those in dominionist christianity would have it with their total bullshit revisionist myth making---but how the Founders of this American nation were truly religious heretics by any traditional religious standard.

The book is Nature's God by author Matthew Stewart:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/books/2014/07/19/review-nature-god-the-heretical-origins-american-republic-matthew-stewart/qjGOjlN2aS9haqXldb5joN/story.html

http://www.amazon.com/Natures-God-Heretical-American-Republic/dp/0393064549

Do check out this book, it is well worth your time.

I for one am sick and tired of all this "bible thumping" religiosity we have in this country.

Void----I love your term "Spiritual Atheist"---I think I might belong in your camp with this descriptor. Well done if you came up with this term!! LOL

That book you mentioned is revisionist history, and not historically accurate. The author cherry picks a single line from a poem by Alexander Pope claiming it's about the Ancient Greek gods but it's really about a monotheistic God as Pope was Christian, as he was Roman Catholic.

Church and state are supposed to be separated here in the United States but in reality they are not. It's like this in other countries as well.

I'm not xtian but the founding fathers were not pagans, atheists, religious heretics, or anything close to that.

Better to just let the founders speak for themselves:
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God." (John Adams)
"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity." (John Quincy Adams)
"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us." (John Hancock)
"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible."(John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity...to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [James Madison in 1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel"(Benjamin Franklin - Constitutional Convention of 1787, original manuscript of this speech)
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams (The Works of John Adams, ed. C. F. Adams, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31)

Void did not coin the term spiritual atheist.

void()

Sep 6, 2014, 9:22 AM

Void----I love your term "Spiritual Atheist"---I think I might belong in your camp with this descriptor. Well done if you came up with this term!! LOL

Not sure if I'm a first with it or not. What I know is I grew tired of people suggesting atheism can be a religion. It is no where near that for me. No religion truly is that, a religion for me. Reasoning for this lies partly in belief of a non-authority principle. Unable to submit to the alleged authority of another human being as alleged voice of foo deity. Another part of that is not comprehending how it always seems that foo deity chooses to call for my submission to itself, or its voice. If foo deity were to love me as its voice says, then, foo would let me be free. In atheism's case the concept of no deity becomes deity, ergo creates the paradigm for being a religion.

I believe in love, hope and the potentiality of human beings. I believe that yes we each have a spirit or soul. I believe our souls are divine respective & collectively. I believe in freedom and self ownership, in all interactions between humans as voluntary & mutual. I believe in The Golden Rule and the Silver Rule which is The Golden Rule's cautionary version. I believe in pacifism yet also believe in and retain a right to self defense or defensive support of the weak, those I love. That means if you come smack me, I will ask you to stop. If you don't stop, well yes I will return the smack and maybe push you away. You escalate I do as well, and if required I won't hesitate to use lethal force. I would hope it did not come to that. I believe in life.As said, I do not believe in any deities.

Some suggest that as being a humanist. I rebuke that mold as well, it does not quite fit. Only atheist to the degree that I do not accept or believe in any religion. Belief in a spirit or soul is defined as being spiritual. Well, there you go then, I'm a spiritual atheist. *chuckles* And I do not believe that all human beings are peaches and cream, fully positive 100% of the time. I do know there are evil people in the world. They call themselves our leaders. What I suggest is ignoring them. If we're not bothered with them and impose such an exile on them, will they matter? Can they still retain power? Are they still authority? If our leaders decided to fight a war but no one showed up to fight it, what would happen?

Leader A: "Our people did not show up to fight."

Leader B: "Nor our people."

Leader A: "We have to sort this out. Let me check where our people are."

...

Leader A: "Well, it seems our people are busy living their lives all peacefully. They settle their own disputes civilly, they build new hospitals and schools voluntarily. Some of your teachers are coming over and volunteering to teach in our schools. It looks like some of our fisherman are going to your country for some reason, unloading with their fish at your docks. The docks have longshoremen from country C, this is weird."

Leader B: "I have seen this and more. My nurses are learning holistic medicine from doctors from county G. Some of my green energy people are going country L to build hydro power generation plants. Country L is shipping over their surplus crops, rice, beans. Country R has taken over building our infrastructure, our people are sending them technology plans for our really neat magnetic levitation rail system. All of this the people do without asking us, without needing us."

Leader A: "Oh. Well, erm ... Okay, what about crime? Our country for the past decade does not seem to have much if any. I bet we're exporting our crime to you."

Leader B: "No, my country is the same. Once in a while my people seem to eject a few people from the country. Sometimes they do it from village to village, city to city. It seems though, crime has plummeted. Country G, L, R all report similar levels of crime."

Leader A: "I get a feeling we're ... *poof*"

Leader B: "*poof*"

All other leaders at this point are found to have vanished as well. The solution, having as solutions do, dissolved the boulders of problems. In this case those boulders were the leaders, politics, religion, race, creeds, borders, classes, colors, genders, sexual orientations. What remains is harmonious unity. Does that imply we won't maybe run into other boulders? No. Does it imply we should be afraid to attempt such a venture? No. Does it imply we are incapable of meeting these other boulders/problems? No.

I comprehend some may not be ready. I genuinely do. I also acknowledge though, "if not now, when?" We keep putting off growing to the next level, we'll never get there. That is how it has always worked. TPTHB always pull the trump "oh, but the people aren't ready". How do these all wise ones know? Have they ever let us try?

Understand, I understand this won't be something which happens overnight. As the expression goes, Rome was not built in a day. I do not expect our unity to be built in a day either. It might be nice to dream it could be. :) Being realistic I know better. But being realistic again, I see that if we don't try, we don't do at all.

Ultimately I think it comes back to something really simple. It is a choice and we all have freedom of choice. We can choose to follow, submit to leaders. Or we can choose to go our own way. I still wonder where leaders lead us, rhetorically of course. :P

Well, I've rambled too much.

catcir1

Sep 7, 2014, 1:28 PM

The explanation for why an atheist is not electable is simple...the public at-large will not accept that atheists who "believe in nothing" have a set of guiding principles with which to share with the nation. If you think about it, religion is only a set of fundamental moral tenets and principles we can all use to influence our personal decisions. Some choose to pervert these fundamental tenets into something that twists the original intent. Religion is no more that the adherence to certain principles that help us walk through life. Religion is not the boogey man. People who twist it for their own purposes are. Whether you agree or disagree is not relevant here. I am addressing the original comment. Atheism is not an organizing principle. It has no firm set of ideas that allow us to guide our lives and teach us how to treat those we love, and more importantly, those we don't. Anyone here that believes you can get anything done with a group of three or more people without an organizing principle is naive. It's about how you get things done. People will rally around people they feel have their convictions rooted in something that will guide their decisions. Atheism is definitely perceived as belief in nothing. No one will rally behind a leader that believes in nothing. I respect anyone's choice to believe as they choose, but the American public at large (enough to get elected) is not going to support an atheist candidate for major office. Just because we believe one way or another does not grant us a license to be accepted. All of these things I present as facts about how the electorate views atheism. Now...as an opinion from my side, when exactly did it become a right in this country to not be offended? I am a white male that always get's lumped in with the "angry white man's club". However, these days it's ok to openly bash white men and smokers. Am I offended? No. I know who I am, and the angry, racist, mysogenist, homophobe, war-mongering, wealth-crazed labels don't affect me. Frankly, I think it's criminal the way certain leaders in our society convince people that they are victims. This is the freest, most open and most accepting country on the planet. Most have simply not traveled this world enough to know what we have. Have your opinions, your beliefs and your values. Just don't be offended if others don't share them, and don't bash them for having theirs. Tolerance is tolerance, period. It's not just for those who have minority beliefs. Work to change opinion if that's how you are driven, but don't bash others while you do it.

darkeyes

Sep 7, 2014, 1:36 PM

This is the freest, most open and most accepting country on the planet. Arguably...

2bi2Bboring

Sep 7, 2014, 3:25 PM

Atheism is not Nihilism!
Atheism is not an Anarchist point of view.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme being or deity.
Nihilism is the total lack of belief in government or the establishment of laws.
Nihilism supports terrorism, and anarchist activity.
Anarchism supports the idea of violent overthrowing of the established societal norm and rule of law.
Atheism doesn't support either of these points of view, only that there is no God.
Those that believe in organized religion would have the impressionable and uninformed believe that Atheism supports Nihilistic and Anarchist beliefs when it in fact doesn't, as a general rule.

I would suggest you check out some of these organizations.

Secular Coalition for America
American Secular Union
American Atheists
Freedom from religion foundation. - organizational emphasis on reproductive rights, LGBT issues and separation of church and state.

MOST Atheist are moral and ethical human beings who seek to live peaceably within society. They wish to live their lives free from religious infringement, and don't seek to force their views on others.

void()

Sep 7, 2014, 9:38 PM

Anarchism supports the idea of violent overthrowing of the established societal norm and rule of law.

Not all anarchism is violent or condones violence. There are the some anarchists who believe in mutuality, voluntarism. These are believed alongside the non-aggression principle, which means not being violent. Not being violent though does not imply one must remain non-vocal. One can boldly stand up and tell government, "I no longer consent." Or, one can simply choose not to consent and not even choose to tell government. I am sure after government is ignored enough it will get the idea.

Some anarchists are atheists, and some atheists are anarchists. Not sure if any from camp nihilism are in the anarchist/atheist camp. From what I recall, nihilism supports a belief in nothing.

Not attacking, only hoping for clarity, honesty.

noun

1The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

More example sentences

Synonyms

1.1 Philosophy Extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.

More example sentences

1.2 historical The doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.

Origin
early 19th century: from Latin nihil 'nothing' + -ism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nihilism

As far as I am aware, I have a definitive moral code, compass. I understand why some may think I do not. I also believe life has meaning and value. I have too many who love me, tell me so. And I love them. To me love is the value and meaning. For all the rhetoric I espouse here, it is nothing more than an opinion that our shared world is pretty f***ed up, pardon the vulgarity. I think there may be better means to better ends. A lot of others do as well, a lot of others do not.

At times that is a rough struggle for me, externally & internally. There is much left unexpressed as much, maybe more than expressed.

*wanders over, hugs elian, settles in on the couch with him, cuddles *

void()

Sep 7, 2014, 9:55 PM

Arguably...

* trips on way to couch, accidentally grabs for a feather filled pillow and zings it in Fran's general direction in overtly feminine manner * Drat! My darn slippery fingers and cursed nerve damage will be the foil of the Red Baron.

jamieknyc

Sep 8, 2014, 1:59 PM

void()

Sep 8, 2014, 3:54 PM

Anarchism has actually made a comeback, helped in large part by the internet. Anarchists do not believe in no government at all, but rather in a government that carries out purely administrative functions, while policy is made by the people by direct vote.

I think you may mean something akin to this (http://www.ubuntuparty.org.za/p/contributionism-part-1-introduction.html). It links to an article by Michael Tellinger of the Ubuntu Party in South Africa. Another aspect (http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en) of some the same ideology. Here is the Free World Charter (http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en/charter). There is even a FAQ (http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en/faqs) to help provide some answers regarding transition.

A core element to what Michael Tellinger suggests with Ubuntu Contributionism is the establishing of a Council of Elders and a Chief. Villages, tribes, cities, communities may call them what they want, judges and an executer, the resolvers, the committee. What they are, is the twelve most respected people in the community, farmers, potters, fishers, green energy people, nurses, doctors, teachers, insert any occupation here. They are simply people everyone in the community seems to use as "go to" people.

These people then discuss and form projects for volunteers to do. They may suggest a crew to build solid, green energy homes to give to those in the community without housing. Maybe someone who gets a free home will volunteer then as part of the house builder crew, work four hours a day at five days a week to offer twenty hours of "community service". The community service "pays" for your home, energy, food, clothing, medical. You do not need to work any more outside of your home if you choose not to at that point. And it could be thirty hours a week, or ten, whatever the community and its Elders decide, within reason.

The same way homes are voluntarily built, roads are built, the sick are cared for, children are taught, food is grown, energy is produced. It is all voluntary. If you desire more than your basic needs then, of course you will do more to attain it. And you need not volunteer to build houses or to do anything specific. You can choose what you desire to do each week, each day, each hour toward your community service "pay check". You may wake one morning and decide to go split firewood to help six elderly neighbors who heat with wood stoves, you might decide to go into the school and teach children the joys of pottery the next.

And the key to all this is free, open communication. Talk with others, find what is needed, do what you can, do what you love. It is not work if you love to do it enough you do not need funky and worthless paper called money. This is a realization of all of humanity as one family. Yes, it seems to lean toward collective authoritarianism but it is anything but that. This grants each respective person their own choices providing they follow some basic, moral guidelines. "Your freedom ends where mine begins", really is the gist of it. And the council is not so much a "ruling class", as they are a "steering committee", all decisions though rest on the chief or the thirteenth member.

A chief can weigh and sway a vote of "what's next" or "how to do". The chief might also have a different means to an an ends and present that for the council to consider. The council, chief included can be voted out by the village/community if it is felt they are not doing well enough, and they can be replaced or dissolved fully at any time. People can use independent arbitrators who are volunteers to settle disputes, or they may bring disputes to the council. It is the council's obligation to remain fair, just and to "lead" if any leading is needed, by example.

Excuse me, stuff to do. :) I'm hoping for good watermelons this year. Already have gotten loads of bush beans and corn off, a bunch of cantaloupe as well. We used seven dust on our potatoes, I sprinkled nitrogen pellets on the whole garden. These are still within the idea of organic. Nitrogen simply enriches the soil for tomatoes. I figured it would help everything else as well. It did. Hehe. :) We're looking into building a composite deck. I keep busy with various odd jobs. None paying money, merely offering food, shelter, clothes.

If these ideas seem alien and unfamiliar to you, it's called family. The Droai (Druid) used to call it Tues (pronounced Too Es), which meant tribe, clan, family. Seeing Michael Tellinger discuss much the same ideas found in Africa seems to convey that it is an ancient and universal set of ideas. Everyone should have family, humanity is there, welcome to the family.

elian

Sep 8, 2014, 9:04 PM

Wait, have you been listening to Pema Chodron again?? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIOaJ7g09YM)

Unfortunately the human ego is subject to the seven deadly sins.. Okay well actually according to wikipedia there were 9 deadly sins - the 8th one being apathy (lack of joy) and the ninth being vanity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins). Very good if you want to be a monk or nun eh?

If you read the right rags, as a child I was "brainwashed" by the UN's World Heath Organization and liberal programming such as "Mr. Rogers Neighborhood" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062588) to think that everyone in the world was loved equally, deserved a fair chance, etc.. Unfortunately not everyone plays by those rules.

Actually part of what we are are missing in this society is the potlatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch).. Native Americans were smart enough to know that in order to avoid jealousy (and all of the evils that come with it) you give back to the community. Of course the Europeans could not comprehend why these "savages" would willingly do that, and went so far as to ban the practice.

I sort of feel the same way, I do believe that if you are successful you should be rewarded, but you should also recognize that you would not be successful without the help of the community. I think that is doable within the current system we already have, people can voluntarily decide to give up a portion of their wealth to help others. Somehow it gets lost in translation.

void()

Sep 8, 2014, 10:50 PM

I sort of feel the same way, I do believe that if you are successful you should be rewarded, but you should also recognize that you would not be successful without the help of the community. I think that is doable within the current system we already have, people can voluntarily decide to give up a portion of their wealth to help others. Somehow it gets lost in translation.

Rewarded, yes maybe but within reason. Let me take a generality of what you may do, or one aspect of it at least. You program databases, spreadsheets so as to allow for clients and contractors to contract, do business.

Let us us say you are a mid-range rock star at doing that. You have been taking courses and become high end rock star in six months. Let us say Thomas Doe, the guy in the cubicle next to you remains mid-range all this time. Your boss Mr. Smith, gives you a 10% raise and two extra days of personal time during the year. Thomas remains at around $50k a year, you're bumped up to around say $60k. (Know my maths are likely off, let it be what it'll be.) Thomas also only gets two days of personal time and you get four.

I think this is "reasonable" and "fair" for you both, Mr. Smith probably does too. :) You and I both know that such a fair system does not exist now and is unlikely to manifest. Doctors are paid phenomenal fees, if not the doctors then big pharmaceuticals. Big oil, tobacco still manage taking their cuts too. The automotive industry creates inefficient cars which pollute, sending folks to doctor who mistreats and sends them to lawyer, who earns money for government, who in turns reimburses big oil, big pharmaceuticals from the petty lawsuits. This is done via easing restrictions, legislation, code/s. Big tobacco comes in via suppression of vaporizing which drastically reduces the risk from tobacco cigarettes the people smoke for nicotine to calm their nerves in traffic. Everybody "shares the wealth", except the proletariat.

Why does the translation hang up? I think it is due in part to the artificial sense of scarcity created by our currency itself. The U.S. Federal Reserve notes are not money, even the Holy See himself is aware of this as he discusses it in an open letter to P.O.T.U.S, they are in fact in struments of debt. Oddly, everyone desires having more "units" of debt, having been cunningly tricked that these are "money". Why? Because, it continually takes more money to get more cattle/stuff/toys/life. The Holy See clearly does see that we are in financial war, and war if you recall is a Phoenician word that literally translates as get more cattle.

Guess who the Phoenician inspired? Alexander the Greek, a.k.a Alexander the Great, founder and grand emperor of Rome. Rome was a republic form of government, the same as the U.S., this means even you vote Democrat, you still vote for a member of the National Republican Party. Good luck having a third party in what alleged was supposed to be a many partied democracy, the good 'ol boys can simply out money you, if that fails they'll dump you in a ditch in any way they can, living or dead. And you do know I am not stating falsehood, our collective past has demonstrated what I say as Truth. Gee, look at J.F.K who wanted to return the U.S. to real money, silver and gold. Oh wait, you can't because of a case of death.

And the Holy See points out that two grams of gold has bought one barrel of crude oil since the 1970's. That is to say two grams of gold equate to one barrel of crude oil and has since the 1970's. Gold is stable, oil is as well. Seems clear we are not running out of either. Why is everything scarce? Oh that's right we let some fat cats control our fiat (fake) currency, creating booms and busts based on some long no longer practiced Jewish religious holiday, every seven years all debts are to be released. That means all debts are wiped clear every seven years. It also was a time when farmers let grounds go fallow, no planting that year at all, no butchering either. According to what I recall of brief study of it, G-d told Moses it was to allow a season unto all things, even rest and forgiveness.

But this does not happen as according to what should be. Instead we get The Great Depression every seven years or so. You can look it up. Hold on a second. Here (http://courtofrecord.org/index.html) is the Man himself, the Holy See. He explains a lot of this far better than my humble ranting could. It seems the Holy See is attempting to make amends via apologies, explanations as the ITCCS (http://itccs.org/category/the-international-common-law-court-of-justice/) has filed charges against The Church. There are many open letters available for everyone to read at the Court of Record site, there is even one for atheists. If the Holy See's motives for these letters is not in due of the ITCCS charges, then my apologies for reading what is not there or incorrectly. I can only speculate upon what I am seeing, reading, feeling, thinking, knowing, living. Allow me not to presume to "speak" for The Holy See.

Who is The Holy See? Many probably know him better as The Pope. :)

Why would a self confessed atheist "listen" to The Pope? Well, he did state publicly that God understood and still loved atheists who he would not condemn to Hell. That kind of presented what seemed a "laying down of arms" from what had seemed the orthodox position of burning whole villages to kill one witch or non-believer. After reading some of the letters, or portions of some, I am more understanding of The Church. This does not imply a belief in religion, any religion.

Still, I believe in Love. :) Out of love today I helped establish a burning pit and burned about a month of burnable rubbish. Also taught for dogs how to raspberry. :P Spared the life of my cat who did not understand how a truck could drive in his yard. Picked some tomatoes, checked the melons. Brainstormed on our decking project with wife's bro-in-law, got a better idea of the overall tentative plan for it. Explained to him that I believed
"plans are just list of things that don't happen." He nodded in agreement and said we would see in about a year or so.

I also did research on green energy projects. Found a solar heating system made from soda cans. The cold air inside is sucked out through the solar panel of cans, it is returned inside. The heating process in the demo video showed from the cold 40 , the air heated to over 200 F. It was explained in the video that was a peak temperature which leveled out as it brought the room/house to around 50-60 F. From this simple heater clients saved one tank of heating fuel oil a year.

Also looked up resources for free education, and un-schooling of children, free medical resources, free food via fallen fruit and food pantries, some about free housing. As to education I am thinking of restarting, learning the trivium, then the quadrivium. I will do so on my terms though, finding masters of crafts or trades, learning a bit at a time. I can not go back to a confined modern school. My focus is not there any longer for that, also my mind would be fully repelled and rejecting of such a fallacious system.

"River, why do you think the independents fought us?"

"We meddle, we tell others what to think and how to think it."

Well, must close. Nerve pain is flaring as it does of an evening, need to rest as the pain medicine does battle. Hopefully, my left hand will not attempt clubbing me tonight. *chuckles* The joys of a major nerve cluster tricking your muscles into involuntary action, gotta love it. *lol*:) Could be worse, I could be dancing in lava. :) Nitol, the zz's are pulling me to bed.

elian

Sep 9, 2014, 4:59 PM

I don't necessarily find any fault with your last post, I just feel that it is possible in some ways to work within the system to change the system...let me rephrase that - to help people.

One thing I have to remember when I see all of this polarization is that the founding fathers intentionally set up the checks and balances in our government so that no one party could dominate the legislature. So all of the angst I feel over politicians refusing to act one way or the other is actually the result of something intentional, even though they seem quite like spoiled children. I mean, I don't know any working person that cracks open a six pack and decides to tune into C-SPAN for the night to watch their legislators hard at work.. Frankly most things are already decided in committee already before a vote is even taken.

The beautiful thing about this country is that even within the framework we have you still have the ability to "research on green energy projects, looked up resources for free education, and un-schooling of children, free medical resources, free food, free housing." And also "finding masters of crafts or trades, learning a bit at a time." as long as you have people who believe in you enough to support you. Even if you don't have that it is still possible to get /some/ sort of existence out of it.

As far as I am concerned an atheist -could- be President. I happen to know that if you truly desire to do so I think you can strike the "so help me God" from government oath. I would try to judge a person's content of their character based on past actions, more than any promises they make regardless of whatever faith they avow. Sometimes I think candidates make those promises with good intentions only to find out later exactly how hard it is to follow through.

I have libertarian friends who point out exactly how much government regulation interferes with their freedom, but what I am thinking is that none of these philosophies have ever been exercised in their true, pure form - there are always variables and external influences that affect how "capitalism", "socialism", "communism" and "libertarianism" have acted upon our world. If I think about it hard enough I finally just cry "uncle" and say, "the best I can do is to be me."

Capitalism forgets that you can't just treat people like another market commodity, socialism forgets about human nature..

Starfleet is my ultimate goal as well but as long as we keep squandering our resources I doubt we'll ever get there. I guess the old theory with a consumer based economy was that as long as we can keep "producing" eventually the "goodness" will trickle down and everyone will experience some sort of success. The only problem with that is that this world does not have unlimited resources.

I think this guy has a good point.. http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check?language=en

It is possible to have "enough" if you don't buy into marketing mass hysteria. The problem, in my mind is that people who have more are unaware of a need within the community. I remember there once was a time when people would socialize at a place like a church, and you would KNOW if a local family was struggling because you saw them every day or at least once a week. The community would help each other if they could.

Now it seems that people have come to expect, and the government has sort of volunteered to be an intermediary. Instead of resolving a dispute on your own, you go to the government. In some cases that's probably a really good idea, but when you have whole generations of folks who have come to expect things...maybe not so good. Of course it is really convenient for me to be able to sit here are write this from the comfort of my own home. I don't work three jobs, have hungry children to feed and still somehow have no money. I know some people in that situation, they actually work really hard but somehow don't seem to be able to get ahead.

It requires thinking outside of the box. I once had a dream that I'm sure I've told you about, I went for a walk in late Autumn, at dusk with a friend. In the background you could see all of this little nanotechnology - doing tasks like sweeping the pathway and providing lighting at night. The way technology was used there is 180 degrees different than the way we use technology in our society. In our society we use technology as a sort of status symbol, the technology exists for its own sake and more or less we mould our lives around the technology. In this dream, technology was there, if you looked REALLY close you could see it, but all of this stuff was non-obtrusive, in the background. What mattered more -there- were PEOPLE, the COMMUNITY - the technology served the people, not the other way around.

elian

Sep 9, 2014, 5:25 PM

Aww man, I got beat out by the popularity of the "best cock ever sucked" thread... :tongue:

elian

Sep 9, 2014, 10:48 PM

For once I'll be brief and only say that for all the ranting I've done above I do think "living locally" is a good idea..if it can be done in a sane way I think it's a much healthier way to live and help support your community..

void()

Sep 10, 2014, 1:33 PM

Aww man, I got beat out by the popularity of the "best cock ever sucked" thread... :tongue:

*chuckling* Of course, you would be.

Helping in the system I think only goes as far as it is able within the system. I am not saying that doing that is a bad idea, what I am pointing out though is the system will still continue gaining authority through force even while you may have those with good intentions trying to help. As Milton wrote the paths to Hell oft are paved with good intentions.

That is part and parcel of what makes the discussion, or action rough. Those who choose to ignore the system out of existing realize, yes, there are some good people in the system. It is not that we desire these good people to join in our miseries and be without, work, food, homes. We do want these good people though to acknowledge the system they are employed by causes these miseries and continues doing so. It refuses to accept violence begets violence and keeps engaging in violence.

Just following orders has been established as not an excuse for war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Nuremberg Trails set that as precedent. Those who seek peace and a return to no authority greeted by those in the system who are good people, get frustrated when these good people rely upon the expression they are just doing their jobs. It is the same as just following orders. If you are truly good people, realize you have your own moral code, compasses, refuse to do what perpetuates violence done by the system. The whole system is in fact contractual by volunteering, you volunteer to consent to the system and so it keeps doing business as usual.

And honey, I love you. I am not exactly in disagreement with you, nor in full agreement. I honestly do not have all the answers, know that. Not saying I do. I am saying I think a better way can happen. We (humanity) are reaching a critical mass for such a happening. People (humanity) are tired of violence being the lion of the jungle and rule of law.

I recall growing up where churches knew everything regarding families, spanning back at least seven generations. Sometimes that is for the better, other times it can be rather claustrophobic. I understand your point though regarding churches helping families. Agree that we need more of like processes happening now, if not churches maybe secular community centers for the benefit of all (humanity). That is not expressing socialistic views rather expressing a perceived need of human dignity, compassion and these are ideals which I believe transcend labels or classing.

Well, stuff to do. *hugs*