Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: [DELETED]

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 17, 2012, 3:28 p.m. EST by anonymous ()
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

[DELETED]

123 Comments

123 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I was thinking it would take a miracle to get rid of all the guns in America, that does seem like a Job for God, so if there’s anybody who feels they got His ear, maybe they could ask God to take the guns away, that might even get me to start praying.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Are guns the problem or perhaps that we are not a spiritual society? After all, spiritual people don't take pride in owning arms or other deadly weapons, they don't support violent media or other violent activities. They don't raise their children to become bullies who must harm others in order to climb the ladder, they don't carry a competitive mindset but instead focus on being courteous, kind and respectful of others. Spiritual people have a conscience grounded in a higher power that models the divine qualities of human nature. We can't make Americans grow a conscience, can we?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6883) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

no that's a good reason to restrict gun use

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Bless you for considering a higher power.

We can overcome but not without God! We can all have all the guns we want! If we have God in our hearts there will be no violence.

Only the Godless commits these heinous crimes.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

They said the same thing about broad swords during the crusades.

It didn't work then either.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

A distortion and misuse of Gods word.

More of Godless mens failures, only corrected by the following of his word.

Pray with me. With all your might! Pray and all will be corrected.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

You should act less like a Godless bot.

Have you tried to pass this off on the boards on Wallstreet?

They really, really need to get some. They worship a bronze cow.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

They wall st crowd are more in need of God than any. Do they have a forum like this? I will join.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Not sure if they do, but they indeed among the most addicted.

Let's get drunk and play with other people's money.

Kinda like Boehner.

http://www.thefix.com/content/wall-street-addiction-finance-cocaine-meltdown7456?page=all

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

Singing and playing great music would do wonders for any society.

Birth of British Music #2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp0FZa3Ll9o

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I like this chant

Opening our hearts and mind to God and His way of peace accomplishes all of this.

Learn the meanings of the following and spread the good word.

Hm, my lord (hallelujah)

My, my, my lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (krishna krishna)

My lord (hare hare)

Hm, hm (gurur brahma)

Hm, hm (gurur vishnu)

Hm, hm (gurur devo)

Hm, hm (maheshwara)

My sweet lord (gurur sakshaat)

My sweet lord (parabrahma)

My, my, my lord (tasmayi shree)

My, my, my, my lord (guruve namah)

My sweet lord (hare rama)

I will pray for you.

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Your focus is in the wrong place - the focus needs to be on people who are violent - violence begets violence. Get rid of violence and guns will no longer be an issue.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

What do you propose?

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The opposite of middle east fanaticism?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I guess so. Maybe far east transcendental meditation.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Where there is love..............................

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

God is love.

Hare Hare

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Love "IS" LIFE

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Give me love Give me love Give me peace on earth Give me light Give me life

Keep me free from birth

Give me hope

Help me cope, with this heavy load

Trying to, touch and reach you with,

Heart and soul

God is life, love and we must invite Him back into our lives if we want any hope of putting this murderous scourge behind us.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Support Love - never a religion - spirituality needs support - positive effort - but can also be self sustaining/replenishing when found and fed.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think you understand better than the other respondents. Can we impose twice daily Hindu chants exclaiming our love of all life, peace, and sharing for every school child.?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How about starting the day with something like.... or Good morning.....

Continue on with something like....

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I'm not against those excellent songs.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Support Love - never a religion

[-] 0 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

Sure. He is so loving that he condems people to hell for not worshipping him. Enjoy your religion. I will stick with facts and logic.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I do not think all religion condemns non believers. Can we impose twice daily Hindu chants exclaiming our love of all life, peace, and sharing for every school child.?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

And while most religions don't condemn non believers they are also generally a fraction of people following the big 3 (christianity, islam, and judaism).

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 1 year ago

It's the word impose that is the problem here. You are free to believe what you want and follow the practices of that belief. Just like I'm free to not have beliefs imposed on me.

[-] 4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Pish posh. You and Huckabee are both wrong.

Passing laws to include religion in public schools is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I will pray for your soul to save it from eternal damnation.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I think it is you who is facing eternal damnation. How do you like them apples?

LOL

[-] -2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Apples are delicious, I do not think of hell much. Can we impose twice daily Hindu chants exclaiming our love of all life, peace, and sharing for every school child.? I feel this might be the right solution to bring back religion to our children and prevent the next slaughter.

[+] -6 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

No it's not.

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yes, yes it is.

[+] -5 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Well, aside from that which humbles, do you know of another way we could possibly induce a superior "goodness" in people which cannot be discarded with every selfish whim? We need a psychological trigger which prevents us from victimizing others and committing wanton acts of violence. No? And if it's to be a a naturally existing psychological trigger does it make any difference what it is?

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The establishment clause exists for a reason. You should seek to understand it.

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said that you wanted to use religion to manipulate other people into a "you are going to get it" by a big ass sky daddy in order to make people do whatever it is that you want.

[-] -3 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

People hear (read) what they want to read in the same way they see what they want to see.

What I am saying is that I would like to give people a little shot of Jesus rather than a shot of pharmaceuticals; rather than numb emotional senses, we should "full-fill" them.

You know, it's not like people avoid Jesus - they don't - those that land in jail for heinous crimes run to Jesus with open arms; just as there are no atheists in fox holes (there really aren't), there are no atheists in jail, either.

Denying Jesus to young people is like the old adage of starve a fever, feed a cold; it makes no sense to me. And since we are extremely emotional creatures - in fact the most emotional creature on the planet - I see nothing wrong with placating emotional need even if by imaginary means. It is a drug that's a whole lot less expensive, a whole lot less debilitating than pharmaceuticals.

Many of those who deny Jesus embrace Santa Claus; what difference does it make?

Well it makes a difference to those who are anti-establishment; why? Well because for hundreds of years religion has been the very core of establishment, if not empowered as polity, then certainly as "political."

You know, up until the 1960s, in New England, especially in poorer communities, children got a heavy dose of Jesus. And to this day those communities have very low crime and murder rates.

I think we could also argue that if we included some small dose of Jesus society would be more inclusive - because Jesus demands that we be more inclusive. Is it really necessary that those minorities who thrive on Jesus exist as some distanced sub culture that must worship in secrecy? But that's the society we've created, isn't it?

By the way, I am non religious. But there is no escaping this: Jesus will find us all one way or the other; two days ago he gained ten thousand followers, how many must die an untimely death that he may gain tomorrow?

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Well because for hundreds of years religion has been the very core of establishment, if not empowered as polity, then certainly as "political."

Wrong answer. Again, you should seek to understand the establishment clause.

Wrong answer. Atheists do not find God in fox holes.

Try again.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Religion is a construct/creation of man - used/twisted by those in positions of power/influence - to get - TO GET - What They Want - WHAT THEY WANT.

LOVE the analysis of LOVE will point to truth - LOVE is not captive to anyone or denied to anyone - LOVE is FREE - LOVE is ALL Inclusive or it is not love.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Yes, it is a construct of man and I agree.

Although, not so much on the love and not so much on the truth. Really, really like is ok.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

You are Law Smart. Question, ever heard of US People studing law in another country as a cheap way to get trained, disciplined, and educated. I'm guessing 20 people on here wish they had a law background.

I'm thinking Latin American Countries, India, Philippines, ...hm maybe a country with social education would have affordable tuition and appreciate foreign students. Mexico & Panama city are expensive, so maybe Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Uruguay, Columbia...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/foreign_study.html

Legal is currently being outsourced to other countries.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28246) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OK

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

God is a concept

By which we measure

Our pain

I don't believe in magic

I don't believe in I-Ching

I don't believe in Bible

I don't believe in tarot

I don't believe in Hitler

I don't believe in Jesus

I don't believe in Kennedy

I don't believe in Buddha

I don't believe in mantra

I don't believe in Gita

I don't believe in yoga

I don't believe in kings

I don't believe in Elvis

I don't believe in Zimmerman

I don't believe in Beatles

I just believe in me

Yoko and me

And that's reality,

The dream is over

What can I say?

The dream is over

Yesterday

I was the dream weaver

But now I'm reborn

I was the Walrus

But now I'm John

And so dear friends

You just have to carry on

The dream is over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biEHCdEEruk

[+] -4 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I'd venture to bet you've never been in a fox hole. And I am not speaking here to any clause, I am speaking of the establishment itself.

The Constitution is very succinct: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Is there something there that you do not understand?

Well apparently there is a lot that the courts do not understand; it was the courts that demanded a succinct separation.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

I'm acquainted with fox holes.

It is referred to as the Establishment clause and it is not found in the Constitution. It is found in the Federal Bill of Limitations and has been incorporated so that it is now a personal right. That indicates freedom from as well. That is how it works.

[+] -4 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The First Amendment is contained in the Bill of Rights, you are correct - the Bill of Rights is the suggested "Federal Bill of Limitations."

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Those rights/Federal Limitations are not merely suggested. That is law. The courts understood it perfectly.

Again, you may not inflict or impose your beliefs on anyone else. Specifically, not in the public sphere.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Wow, no nice guys in government or else Lawyers made hell of the Constitution and it's amendments in our country at least up to 1890 when the 14th Amendment was put in place.

Goes back to this trite saying oh ...we were a young country in the begging and we had so much to learn. Actually it sounds like war against the common man.

People of power & Education didn't want to let commoners have rights of equality at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Man it is hard to be a black person in the USA. I just read a paragraph on the 14th Amendment ... the Dredd-Scott Ruling in 1857 ruled that Black people could not be US Citizens. I guess that was prior to the 1868 Amendment and Civil War (1861 to 1865).

Ever see this link on Defintion of Manor ... you see the Legal definition of a Serf, classes of serfs, Fee, Estate, Township, Village, Court, Parish, Tenure, Tenants, Tenants at will, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manor

Seems all of our Rights, Property, contracts are given to us by Law through our culture ...but no one gave them to us as a nice guy or a nice government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The rights that have been incorporated have been hard fought for. They are against the state. Not for the state. Against the state.

So, the questions should not revolve around "nice lawyers". Those rights were incorporated because the states were failing the people. Your STATE governments were the problem.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

There was a story on NPR today about a gang rape of a girl or young woman on a Private Bus in New Deli. The girl was with a boy (man) friend, but apparently it had gotten dark outside and statement was made that she should not be out of her home. The girl lays in hospital with internal injuries and may never be fully functional again perhaps as a result of the beating with an object.

A politician was interviewed (woman) and she came out and said it was partly due to Patriarchy... a fault of the Culture. I'm with her on that. There are hard truths in our culture having to do with domination, violence, and even patriarchy ...that lead to perversions. Like drunks beating a boy and then beating and raping a girl.

They said that New Deli is the Rape Capital of India. There are 40K rape cases from last year waiting for decisions in India.

Thanks for the comments above. People that want to rule seem to always either get pulled into problems with money & power ... or they already have bad seeds within themselves that will present themselves to be abusers of power.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Technically, the Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the states. Then the first 10 amendments are a list of federal limitations. Many of those, but not all, now belong to you and I via the 14th amendment. The incorporation doctrine.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

So we were Incorporated into a state or federal corporation. Interesting words.

I liked you details above I had man tell me what you pointed out a few years back. He didn't explain it. People like to hold on to power and authority in different ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Actually, this seems to prove there were no nice guy Lawyers and Law makers in Washington DC prior to 1890 when passted as 14th Amendment. Like Blackpeople were property until the 14th amendment because lawyers were fighting the Bill of Rights Intension and purpose and meaning.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

in·cor·po·rate ( n-kôr p -r t ). v. in·cor·po·rat·ed, in·cor·po·rat·ing, in·cor·po·rates. v.tr. 1. To unite (one thing) with something else already in existence:

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Which is great. I don't have a problem with your calling it that. I'm poli sci.......so, it matters.

It makes me twitch.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The "bill of rights" is really a misnomer. "Federal Bill of Limitations" is more accurate because the first ten amendments prevent the government from "limiting" our inalienable rights.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It wasn't. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

This is what they had before the constitution but they couldn't get anything done and it actually worked against them. The Articles of Confederation.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Distrust of government is exactly what the framers had in mind when they amended the constitution.

Our so called Government is not our own in case you hadn't noticed. It's bought and paid for by the few rich and powerful. The election is just a charade for the many.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

"Unalienable" was the Dec, this is more a limit on Federal power.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Dec?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

The title "Federal Bill of Limitations" is a suggested moniker; there is no Federal Bill of Limitations, only a "Bill of Rights."

And the courts definitely did not understand the concept of "shall make no law"; it would appear in denying God to the public sphere they have made plenty of laws.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

The Federal Bill of Limitations is how it was known at it's creation.

They very well understood it. See, you have forgotten that the history surrounding it. That is very much our history........Bloody Mary? Keep it out of the public sphere because you are essentially imposing a religion on others. Now, flip that and see how you would feel if it was a religion that was not yours that was being imposed on you and yours.

Jehovah Witness, perhaps?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I haven't forgotten the full history but it's possible I may have forgotten this, yes.

I don't know how we could possibly reconcile religious difference in the public school system; perhaps we can't. But I do know one thing; we cannot tolerate this kind of behavior indefinitely; we cannot allow it to become the norm. And what we're doing now is not working.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You keep the religion out of the public school system and it doesn't need to be reconciled. You don't want to tolerate it? Fantastic, start working on better care for those that are mentally ill. Call for an investigation into the medications. Fix the Tiahrt Amendments. Aid in reinstating the ban on assault weapons.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2091) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

fool

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

So does mine, actually. But the desire to do good must outweigh the desire to do harm and I know of no other successful means of humbling human nature, except this concept of "higher power."

[-] 2 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

Beliefs in God have changed over the millennia.

Einstein on God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iXKIf2XOfA&feature=related

The Old Testament is filled with violence -

Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Judges 15:16 And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men.

1 Samuel 17:51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran.

New Testament also has violence -

Matthew 27:26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Beliefs over time have not changed for the better, that's my point. Secular humanism simply does not suffice to restrain the behavior of those with issues. We need a much more powerful behavioral mechanism.

[-] 2 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

At least Einstein sensed that the most gifted humans could only glimpse traces of God in Nature and that the order and harmony in Nature is beyond human understanding.

Why Music Moves Us.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-music-moves-us-230101404.html#

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I think there are a lot of people who achieve great things that grant a celebrity status but unless their sociological imagination has actually demonstrated itself in the form of societal improvement, their words are no more valid than yours or mine.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

Without electronic social media, like OWS Forum, Facebook and tweeter, words may take centuries and organized religions to manifest societal improvement.

Logos uses a rational approach to persuasion backed by science, theory or statistical fact. Pathos appeals to feelings to persuade an audience. Ethos appeals to the moral position.

The country cannot be firmly anchored in a moral ethic because there is a freedom of religion resulting in a clouded moral atmosphere caused by the mixture of traditions, customs, and values in the nation of "immigrants".

In the age of computers, Internet, telecommunications, societies at last have the opportunity to take a rational approach to decision making. Old habits are hard to break. Pathos and Ethos have been tried for millennia. People may still prefer to use these forms of persuasion instead of logos. Why is that?

[-] 2 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Well, no offense but your entire argument is built on false premise in that it assumes an "audience" - an association of people gathered about some pre-existing common desire - the cultural mindset is not an audience; here things are decided by consensus based on life experience; that which promotes is ultimately deemed a moral "good"; that which detracts is deemed a "bad."

Religion incorporates these moral goods or it does not appeal and it does not survive. The only question as relates to religion is this: are the old rules still relevant?

Computers, the Internet, telecommunications only appeal to those who loaf about; most younger people are too busy to bothered; they are also far too intune and aware to permit falsehood or to be led blindly about.

So I think the entire progressive case is rather absurd; the answer is simple; those who are "good" will be accepted; those who are not will be discarded; this is assimilate or die.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

None taken.

With regard to a celebrity, such as Albert Einstein, whose celebrity status and sociological imagination has actually demonstrated itself in the form of societal improvement, and whose words are no more valid than yours or mine. Einstein’s words have an audience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/audience

noun

  1. the group of spectators at a public event; listeners or viewers collectively, as in attendance at a theater or concert: The audience was respectful of the speaker's opinion.

  2. the persons reached by a book, radio or television broadcast, etc.; public: Some works of music have a wide and varied audience.

  3. a regular public that manifests interest, support, enthusiasm, or the like; a following: Every art form has its audience.

  4. opportunity to be heard; chance to speak to or before a person or group; a hearing.

  5. a formal interview with a sovereign, high officer of government, or other high-ranking person: an audience with the pope.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

None taken.

With regard to a celebrity, such as Albert Einstein, whose celebrity status and sociological imagination has actually demonstrated itself in the form of societal improvement, and whose words are no more valid than yours or mine. Einstein’s words have an audience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/audience

noun 1. the group of spectators at a public event; listeners or viewers collectively, as in attendance at a theater or concert: The audience was respectful of the speaker's opinion.

  1. the persons reached by a book, radio or television broadcast, etc.; public: Some works of music have a wide and varied audience.

  2. a regular public that manifests interest, support, enthusiasm, or the like; a following: Every art form has its audience.

  3. opportunity to be heard; chance to speak to or before a person or group; a hearing.

  4. a formal interview with a sovereign, high officer of government, or other high-ranking person: an audience with the pope.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I think I can fairly well concede your point.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I disagree, wholeheartedly, and 100%. There is a valid place in society for our universal public God. And, I think, we're going to keep him. It's plain and simple, God has won, get used to it.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Sure, Zen, we can talk about precedents, antecedents, if you wish... "In the beginning, there was 'the Word'." And when, on the philosophical level, I finally absorbed this - in secular form - in its entirety, it hit me like a ton of bricks; it bowled me over.

PS: Precision is an art.

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

There would need to be some type of reward system. I doubt religion would have any positive effect.

[+] -4 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

There are only three possibilities... we can drug them; we can genetically re-engineer them, or we can find some more natural way to humble man's evil nature - and there is no other natural way - "humanism" is not effective - so which would you prefer?

We are very rapidly reaching the tipping point here; next it will be bombs in school... I think it's time we took our heads out of our asses to embrace "reality"; mankind is an emotional being capable of creating and embracing any fiction.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

You are operating from a philosophy that man is born evil. It is an old argument and you are making the assumption that this philosophical stance is the correct one,. That is an error on your part.

[+] -4 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

It's more than that; I operate from the stand point that good and evil are biological - that which promotes survival, on the evolutionary level, is psychologically deemed a moral "good" and imparts some level of happiness or joy - and that which detracts or lessens is deemed a moral "bad"; it is some lessening of happiness and in the extreme is labeled "evil."

I operate from the stand point that happiness is the "One State"; unhappiness is but a measure of happiness; our existence is wholly dependent on this balance of happiness - there is nothing else.

And under certain circumstances, easily defined, we are all capable of some level of evil.

I also operate on a denial of free will - mankind will march forward, indefinitely, wholly dependent on the forces of human desire which seek to promote our species. As a species we are incapable of denying reproduction or those desires which promote our species.

Spirituality, in my mind, is but one of these desires; we can deny but we can not dismiss; it exists within all. And spirituality organized and defined as religion equates to the "rules" of society; it too serves evolutionary purpose in the creation of an emotionally healthy cohesive bond.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

That's all well and good except you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. You may carry on in your house and in your place of worship. You may not inflict that on anyone else.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Actually society can and does impose its beliefs in the form of "thou shall not kill," "thou shall not steal," etc., doesn't it? And it imposes its beliefs in a thousand other, secular-ly subtle, Christian ways.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Those are laws that were decided, prior to Thou shalt not kill, noted earliest in the Code of Ur-Nammu, for society because it was a bunch of shit. So, you don't win that either.

It took 8 centuries to develop a Christology. Puh-leeze.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I agree that they are a universal, yes, born of an innate morality.

Eight centuries to develop a Christology? Ok, hit me with it, whatcha got?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Try social contract.

What do you need?

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I need to know what you're thinking respecting the 8 centuries, since obviously your words suggest some more precise form than that which I have gathered.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

It is rather precise. It is also quite a bit of information. I find your question entirely too general and broad to try to get it down to one or two paragraphs.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Humanists are exactly what we've become and it has failed mainly because it doesn't recognize that we are spiritual beings in a spiritual world with spiritual needs. We have become mortal shells of humans. It's a spiritual crisis we are suffering. The human spirit is sleeping- having been replaced with artificial, superficial, meaningless chatter and clutter.

Drugging induces an unnatural state of being and so will fail. They already tried drugging us and it has backfired.

Throughout history civilizations have fallen or become extinct for one reason or another. It seems that from the beginning of time, we've been in a state of killing ourselves or killing each other. I fear that we are members of the worst animal species on earth. Perhaps it's best if we just agree to pull up the lawn chair, grab a beer and enjoy the fireworks. There's no magic bullet to repair our character and frankly, any of us with a grain of wisdom knows that people really don't change but if they do, it's temporary at best. I was listening to the eulogy of one of the young boys who died and the father said that his son was in heaven playing soccer and kicking the halos off the angels and everyone laughed. I realized in that moment that nothing is sacred and people just aren't going to wake up. Now it's cute to imagine violence in heaven. It's difficult to watch our beloved country self destruct but the country we once believed in is long gone. The world we have today must run it's course and fizzle out- surely it's not sustainable. In the meantime, the most realistic that I can be is to continue to model the excellent human qualities that I learned and hope that I can inspire others to do the same. I do believe that a miracle will happen. I'm really putting my faith in a miracle. If that sounds like a cop-out, so be it. I happen to believe that sometimes it's best to let nature do her own pruning.

Now howz about that beer?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Please read the 1st amendment

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2439) 1 year ago

We have shooting massacres because compassion is a learned behavior and it is not being taught period (neither in the mega churches, nor in the secular home) COMPASSION is the key to solving mental illness, bullying, dominance behaviors, vengeful behaviors - it really doesn't have to do with religion. Today's churches and today's homes are all hyper focused on me me me and how I feel instead of how others feel. The ability to empathize with others tends to keep someone from gunning them down or from ostracizing an individual to the point of suicide (not referring to the Sandy Hook incident though Adam Lanza did commit suicide). Morality can and does exist without religion. Can religion exist without ego - ? I've also seen documentaries showing that violent video games actually alter the brain patterns of young boys playing them. Like physically alters and screws up connections. Not one for censorship, but these are not supposed to be in the hands of developing brains per the law anyway. Perhaps parents need to truly examine the science of this research and pay attention to what it could be doing to their kid's developing brains as well as beheld accountable for failure to teach compassion and failure to keep these games away from them until their brains are done forming from a child brain into an adult brain.

[-] 1 points by niphtrique (323) from Sneek, FR 1 year ago

I do not think that God cares.

This universe is a virtual reality for entertainment.

But the story may end well as fairy tales mostly do.

So keep on praying.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Hare, Hare.!

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Goddless, communist China has three times as many gun deaths per year
as the USA
And if you go back 3000 years there were hundreds of gods - and NO gun mass murders

put your straight jacket back on!

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

China has a population over 1.34 billion. USA has a population just above 315 million. The Chinese have more than 4 times the population of USA with only 3 times the number of gun deaths. When more Chinese can afford to have more guns watch out.

List of countries by population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

Judges 15:16

And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men.

[-] 3 points by agkaiser (1227) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

and the mass murderer of a thousand Philistines is made "Eyeless in Gaza" through the treachery of a beautiful woman. If he'd had an efficient weapon, he might have done all the Gazans and kept his deadly vision intact.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

May God be with you.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

what a bunch of nonsense. we have shooting massacres because we live in a disposable society. with free and easy access to semiautomatic weapons and extended clips. perhaps if everyone's focus was instead of being on money was on community then you wouldn't have psychopaths killing people in mass. maybe if we were focused on acceptance of others and forgiveness of the things we don't like about one another than what is on the idiot box on sunday's we wouldn't have this problem. of course since we all know money will still be your god and tv will still be it's prophet then i suggest we move to remove such weapons of death from the hands of the crazed and the ignorant. this means YOU.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Opening our hearts and mind to God and His way of peace accomplishes all of this.

Learn the meanings of the following and spread the good word.

Hm, my lord (hallelujah)

My, my, my lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (hare krishna)

My sweet lord (krishna krishna)

My lord (hare hare)

Hm, hm (gurur brahma)

Hm, hm (gurur vishnu)

Hm, hm (gurur devo)

Hm, hm (maheshwara)

My sweet lord (gurur sakshaat)

My sweet lord (parabrahma)

My, my, my lord (tasmayi shree)

My, my, my, my lord (guruve namah)

My sweet lord (hare rama)

I will pray for you.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

more nonsense.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Don't knock it 'till you've chanted it!

[-] -1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

plagerism

[-] 1 points by JackHall (401) 1 year ago

Music with positive social messages and themes may be a better answer. More free concerts, state sponsored concerts, music making in general and restoration and elevation of music and arts education in the schools to develop a stronger sense and love of harmony, collaboration and aesthetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4p8qxGbpOk

Beethoven's 9th Symphony, traditional seasonal music such as Christmas carols, regular concerts such as the 12/12/12 concert in Madison Square Garden last week led by Bruce Springsteen and Paul McCartney.

Zadok, the Priest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI0YOPoj4t0

Birth of British Music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nizEXpkwT2k

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

how about just some funding for music education in public schools.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I like religious music.

[-] -2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Any God is good God. Your seem full of anger and not God.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm not really angry, just tryin to be funny.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

If the Due Process clause extends this limitation to the state, then we can rephrase:

"The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

But that's precisely what the Warren Court did, didn't it?

Public schools in suburban and rural areas are NOT state or county owned; they are owned by the public.

Neither the Fed nor the State have any jurisdiction whatsoever respecting either the presence or the non-presence of our Public God. Nor do they have any powers that would prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech.

The Warren Court's decision was unconstitutional; it occurred due to a desire to address law that impinged the rights of "discrete and insular minorities." And who were these minorities? And what and where was that law?

Four hundred years ago, our ancestors, through a process of negotiation succeeded in securing the right of self governance, provided of course, they made no laws "repugnant" to the King of England. And as a result, where discrepancy arose, the colonial opted to do just that: they made NO law. Their defense: Well, this is our practice, it is customary; in the absence of law to direct us we have but little choice but to practice our custom. And the King was powerless, his authority extended only to that law which was repugnant.

The same is true of our public schools respecting our Public God: the King has no authority whatsoever, especially since this was long held to be customary. There is no law repugnant; there is no "establishment," nor any attempt to establish, nor thought of establishment - there is only the freedom of speech.

It's time America asserted its rights.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

America should assert it's religious rights. I believe we need all schools, all children, whatever their faith/faithlessness, every morning & afternoon be forced to partake in eastern Hindu chanting reflecting our love of all life, peace, and sharing.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

You have a right to your opinion, your religion, and to exercise that right as the guardian of your children; now hold a powwow and see if you can get others in your school district to agree. Because this is an issue that is decided by a consensus of those who support that school district.

The Warren court's decision was wholly unconstitutional and a travesty of American justice.

And "this" from somebody who is non-religious, because I did not attend a school that was, surrounded by peers that were... And look around - look at society today - we have been deprived of "good" to appease those who prefer to be "bad."

[+] -4 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 1 year ago

Violence/crime in America is down, but sensational mass murders are up. Violent images in the media are way up and the best selling video games are violent. A lot of sitcoms rely on " insult" type humor. "Wholesomeness" is now more of an insult than a compliment. Its a tough battle, trying to instill values in kids in a society that laughs at wholesomeness and values. The entire nation should have been OUTRAGED at a President getting a blow job in the Oval Office, its shows how little respect we have for tradition and decorum in our leadership. Anywhere but the OVAL OFFICE!

And now as a nation we get what we sow, there isnt value in anything so even a 6 year old childs life has no value. A nation that can find respect for a married man who got a blow job from a slut in the office where Lincoln tried to free slaves, bind a nation, and Roosevelt worried about the World at War, and Kennedy labored over a nuclear confrontation is asking for lots of meaningless deaths.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Bringing God back into our lives resolves all these problems.

Now pray with me. Pray with all your might that He might make all right again.

God save us!

[+] -4 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Unfortunately he's right. We've gone so far as to not only say repugnant actions are acceptable but to actually insist that they be government mandated and tax payer funded. People like Huckabee believe there is relevance to concepts of the good society.Unfortunately he's right. We've gone so far as to not only say repugnant actions are acceptable but to actually insist that they be government mandated and tax payer funded. People like Huckabee believe there is relevance to concepts of the good society. Right and wrong, good and bad, do not have gray areas. What they have is the human mind's ability to justify anything in it's own defense. And there is no one that is better at articulating spin than the intellectual.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 1 year ago

Gosh, you sure have a way of making those who think for themselves feel dirty about not getting their world view from a huckster in a robe. So what is the point of your post? That those who think for themselves are some how corrupted. And those who fallow the Word of men in robes are uncorruptible. If that be the case, I would rather be corrupted than be force fed my world view by a man in a robe.

I will say that you might be right about one thing though, "the human mind's ability to justify anything in it's (sic) own defense," is fully displayed in your post.

[+] -4 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

It would be nice if we could prescribe Jesus in pill form. Ok, so maybe a few temples would be looted but nobody would be getting killed.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Better living through chemicals? Funny, but not what I meant.