It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why We are Divided

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I mainly just want a world where I work for what I have and it's up to me to use it wisely.

I could care less about the likes of the Jay-Z and Beyonces of the world. They can have their wealth and mansions. I just want the chance to be comfortable with what I have that I earned.

I want to know that if someone else doesn't have as much and covets what I have, or what they have, they can't simply cry out to someone about how it's all so unfair and empower my government to come take it from us.

If I feel so moved (or they do), then we can give what we have to the ones who have less or need help. It just so happens I like doing this when I can (can't speak for them). I wish more people felt that way, but that's the responsibility of freedom. Some will; some won't - that's the choice.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Here's the division....

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Vs

"F### the tired, the poor, the dead weights of society. Keep your wretched homeless. America first."



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

So a French statue supplants the COTUS and it's attendant writings?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

I get very nervous whenever someone says - If someone has/takes too much and someone doesn't have enough, then it should be taken from them.


Actually, I am saying that it is government interference/intervention which enables and empowers some to take too much to begin with. Without that government interference/intervention of entitlements and privileges to the few, no one would be able to take too much, therefore there would be no need to take it back.

If you are "nervous" about that, then it's because you like the laws that enable you to take too much at the expense of others. I am more "nervous" about that government created and perpetuated inequality... under color of law at the barrel of a gun.


There is a very dominant belief that it applies simply to anyone who has more than you do. That the economic pie is a fixed thing. That wealth you create is stolen from someone else.


That may be your perception -- excuse me, "belief" -- but it is not mine and that is not what I said.


Put simply, if I grow a tomato on my patio, even though I grew it from seed, I "stole" those tomatoes from someone who doesn't have them, and someone should take my tomatoes and distribute them equally to all who have none because I took too many tomatoes from those who don't have any. That's your Lockean Principle.


No, it's not "my" Lockean Principle -- much less John Locke's Lockean's Proviso. When government interferes/intervenes and says that because you grew a tomato from a seed... or harvested it... or marketed it... that you and you alone are entitled to all control over all tomatoes and tomato seeds -- which are provided by nature and Nature's God for ALL -- then the Lockean Proviso is violated. On the other hand, when everyone is free to grow, cultivate, harvest, distribute and/or keep the tomatoes they grow for themselves, the Lockean Proviso is respected and upheld.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Boadicea because: formatting



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I think about this alot and I even posted a thread awhile back.

I do not think we are divided at all, we all want the same things...freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to protect ourselves, clean water, decent working wage with ability to grow, affordable healthcare.

The only ones who are not with us are the ones who do not want these things...the ones who want to push their agenda or religion onto others or take away clean water or decent minimum wage. Those who want to destroy healthcare. The selfish ones who think they might have to "pay for others". Those who disrespect other religions and ways of thinking. (No, you CANNOT turn it around and claim that we do not respect your ways of thinking if you are a racist, sexist or bigot...does not work that way)

We cannot unite with them bc we will not go backwards. All we can do is hope they catch up to us. Other than the miserable few, we are already united.

Unfortunately the miserable few are the loudest...so they seem much bigger. Do not let their racism and hate destroy what is united.
edit on 6-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
I think about this alot and I even posted a thread awhile back.

I do not think we are divided at all, we all want the same things...freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to protect ourselves, clean water, decent working wage with ability to grow, affordable healthcare.

The only ones who are not with us are the ones who do not want these things...the ones who want to push their agenda or religion onto others or take away clean water or decent minimum wage. Those who want to destroy healthcare. The selfish ones who think they might have to "pay for others".

We cannot unite with them bc we will not go backwards. All we can do is hope they catch up to us. Other than the miserable few, we are already united.

Unfortunately the miserable few are the loudest...so they seem much bigger. Do not let their racism and hate destroy what is united.


Maybe, but the problems are in perception.

For some people if I walk around with a cross openly around my neck (I don't, but others do so I'll go that route), I am pushing my religion on them. As far as I am concerned, I am doing no such thing anymore than I am pushing my alma mater on them by wearing a shirt with my school's mascot on it. And yet, society would fully accept one but some people would get bitterly angry about the other.

Some people would decide that a law is being pushed from a religious angle if they can only tangentially link religion to it for the express purposes of campaigning against it ... even if there are sound, non-religious reasons for promoting that bill. It's easier to push against a bill if you can convince people it's a separation of church and state issue than it is to argue merit or lack thereof on some things.

Some people use those things or perception of those things as a wedge to block proposals they don't want. To prevent things even if there really isn't much solid ground to justify those arguments. I used religion as my main argument here, but I've seen it done with clean air and water and the other things you've mentioned.

You are either all for those things and thus this or that agenda or you absolutely hate them and want everyone to die, etc.

It is ridiculous hyperbole and absolutely untrue.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Walking around with a cross is not pushing your religion and you should do it if you want to, however, being "offended" bc you have to bake a gay a cake IS bigotry and hiding behind the bible.

Bigotry should not be respected by anyone.

There is no problem with perception...you either understand how to respect people or you dont.


edit on 6-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko

Walking around with a cross is not pushing your religion and you should do it if you want to, however, being "offended" bc you have to bake a gay a cake IS bigotry and hiding behind the bible.

Bigotry should not be respected by anyone.

There is no problem with perception...you either understand how to respect people or you dont.



We've been around and around on this.

The people in question baked cakes for gays all the time. What they objected to was participating in a gay wedding which their religion says is sacrilege as God only blesses marriage between a man and a woman. You cannot then bake a wedding cake for two men or two women as that wedding does not exist or at the very least mocks God.

You say you do not think people should push their beliefs on others and yet here are the gays pushing their beliefs and asking the Christian baker to commit sacrilege for them.
edit on 6-6-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko

Walking around with a cross is not pushing your religion and you should do it if you want to, however, being "offended" bc you have to bake a gay a cake IS bigotry and hiding behind the bible.

Bigotry should not be respected by anyone.

There is no problem with perception...you either understand how to respect people or you dont.



We've been around and around on this.

The people in question baked cakes for gays all the time. What they objected to was participating in a gay wedding which their religion says is sacrilege as God only blesses marriage between a man and a woman. You cannot then bake a wedding cake for two men or two women as that wedding does not exist or at the very least mocks God.

You say you do not think people should push their beliefs on others and yet here are the gays pushing their beliefs and asking the Christian baker to commit sacrilege for them.


and we will be around and around on this again until you understand respect.

Do you really think that Jesus would have wanted a baker to disrespect one of his children like that?

If you say YES, then you are not a real Christian.

The bible is being misinterpreted if you truly believe you are not allowed to bake cakes for gays.

again...just as I have said many times before...bigotry by hiding behind your religion...pretty low



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Respect is not a one-way street.

Do you think Jesus would have encouraged the gays to continue to sin? If you say yes, then you are not a Christian. Recall that while he forgave the women, he also told her to go and sin no more.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: veracity

Respect is not a one-way street.

Do you think Jesus would have encouraged the gays to continue to sin? If you say yes, then you are not a Christian. Recall that while he forgave the women, he also told her to go and sin no more.


Do you think Jesus died and made it YOUR job to judge and make others not sin?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: veracity

Respect is not a one-way street.

Do you think Jesus would have encouraged the gays to continue to sin? If you say yes, then you are not a Christian. Recall that while he forgave the women, he also told her to go and sin no more.


Do you think Jesus died and made it YOUR job to judge and make others not sin?


No, which is why the gays are free to go and get married. I am in no way trying to stop them from doing that, but I am asking to be left out of it. What right do they have to force me to participate by making me bake their cake?

This is what I mean about respect being more than a one-way street.

Jesus died that we might be forgiven our sins, gays too. He came to the sinners, all of us.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Jesus would not have wanted you to discriminate against any of his children (what you call "left out of it") in any way.

If you dont want to follow the law, at least do what Jesus would have wanted.

Your ways of thinking are a disgrace to Christianity.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko

Jesus would not have wanted you to discriminate against any of his children (what you call "left out of it") in any way.

If you dont want to follow the law, at least do what Jesus would have wanted.

Your ways of thinking are a disgrace to Christianity.



Uh huh ...

And this is why we're divided. You don't listen or make any real attempt to understand. Because I don't want to participate in a gay wedding, I suddenly hate gay people.

This is part where I get back to the bit about using issues as a wedge and if you aren't totally all-in with them you are completely hateful and vile.

You just even played the No True Scotsman card on me there.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: ketsuko

Jesus would not have wanted you to discriminate against any of his children (what you call "left out of it") in any way.

If you dont want to follow the law, at least do what Jesus would have wanted.

Your ways of thinking are a disgrace to Christianity.



Uh huh ...

And this is why we're divided. You don't listen or make any real attempt to understand. Because I don't want to participate in a gay wedding, I suddenly hate gay people.

This is part where I get back to the bit about using issues as a wedge and if you aren't totally all-in with them you are completely hateful and vile.

You just even played the No True Scotsman card on me there.


I understand quite well, and you will continue to divide yourself out. As I said before, bigotry is NOT to be respected or tolerated by anyone. Until you can learn to respect others as you would like to be respected, you will continue to be divided OUT.

We will never respect you. Not bc we are driving a wedge, but bc we cannot go backwards and unite with people who refuse to acknowledge their bigotry and hate.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Lets begin with the definition of bigotry just for #s and giggles.

bigotry - a person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ


I understand quite well, and you will continue to divide yourself out.


So let's start parsing here. *I* am dividing myself out? Dividing myself of what? Your group? I wasn't aware I needed to be in your group. Is it a bad thing to be divided out of your group and did I really want to be in it in the first place?


As I said before, bigotry is NOT to be respected or tolerated by anyone.


*Whew!* I am glad we can agree on this.


Until you can learn to respect others as you would like to be respected, you will continue to be divided OUT.


First off, let's get a definition of respect down because I think we might be at cross-purposes here. I think you might be thinking something to do with "like," but when dealing with a society like ours, I think this definition is far more appropriate:

respect - to avoid violation of or interference with

I was unaware that allowing gays to marry in this society was not showing them respect. The respect I want in return is to be allowed to hold my beliefs and quietly live and not be forced to violate them. It's really very simple. You cannot argue that there are not plenty of ways for gays to marry that don't require forcing me to violate my beliefs in order for them to have their marriage ceremonies.

But it seems to me that you seem to be saying that if I do not believe exactly as you believe, I deserve to be ... what? Put in some camp somewhere? A ghetto? Divided out of all life entirely? How is that respecting me as you want to be respected?


We will never respect you. Not bc we are driving a wedge, but bc we cannot go backwards and unite with people who refuse to acknowledge their bigotry and hate.


Let's throw up one more definition here for a few last laughs:

tolerance - the capacity for or practice of recognizing and respecting the opinions, practices, or behavior of others; forbearing

Woah! Looks like your the one who needs a lesson on tolerance here. Not only are you displaying marked intolerance, one might even call it bigotry.

I've told you several times, I have no interest in telling anyone else how they must live, only that I don't want to be interfered with or forced. But as soon as you rehashed an old argument reguarding one of my beliefs, you displayed a wealth of bigotry, and revealed that simply living and letting live would NOT be enough.

You unleash veiled threats on me for not believing as you do.

Who is the bigot here? Who is the least tolerant? You don't have to like that belief of mine, but it's mine and I intend to keep it that way not advocate to make it a law or anything. And I just want room to live.

And if you think you're going to change my mind on it this way, you've done more harm on that score than anything else ever could.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You are ignorant of bigotry, it is obvious.

I will say this one time only...

Anyone who refuses to bake a cake for a gay bc of their "religion" is a bigot. They believe their beliefs are better than the gays and are being very disrespectful by "not wanting to be a part of it".

You and those that think like you are a major problem today. If you realized it, you probably would not be doing it so I would have to say you are a lost cause.

Im sure you will find other bigots out there just like you who agree with you and you can keep up your agenda of being a jerk, just know that your utter lack of respect is what divides you out from others who practice compassion and kindness and want our country to progress to a better nation.

If you refuse to understand what I am telling you, I can no longer converse with you. If you do understand and want to become a better person, feel free to PM me.

Good luck
edit on 6-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Why are we divided? Because Obama was elected president for two terms and he worked very hard to create a new form of division between races. I firmly believe that Obama was trying to create a Civil War between blacks and whites so that he could ultimately step in an be the BIG savior. But, that effort was poorly managed and didn't get off the ground as expected.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: KnightFire

We are divided bc we are not giving into racism?

You believe it was "poorly managed" bc that was NOT his plan.

very funny, good luck to you
edit on 6-6-2017 by veracity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: veracity

You missed the point. The civil war between races, not the division. The division between races was accomplished by the Obama Administration.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join