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.

 

NEWS: Reclaiming America for Christ

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Now that you people have been so nice to point out the our constitutional rights, I am taking the liberty to bring the findings of a 1988-93 University of Chicago about what fundamentalist purpose is all about and what they have in their agenda for you.

About 150 scholars from all over the world took part.

1. It can not be separation of church and state, or of public and private areas of life. God rigid rules will first.

2. Men are on top. In every way. They will influence the laws and rules of the land. Men set boundaries, define norms, and enforce them, women have biological functions, to be mothers, supportives wives and home-makers.

3. They will control the education and society. The control of textbooks, the teaching styles and they decide what may and may not be taught.

I may add we women has come a long way to get the right of vote and education.

4. A fourth of the scholars of this finding found out that fundamentalist and fascism resemble each other.



Both have almost identical agendas. Men are on top, women are subservient, there is one rigid set of rules, with police and military might to enforce them, and education is tightly controlled by the State. One scholar suggested that it’s helpful to understand fundamentalism as religious fascism, and fascism as political fundamentalism. Fundamentalists spurn the modern, and want to return to a nostalgic vision of a golden age that never really existed. Likewise, the phrase “overcoming the modern” is a fascist slogan dating back to at least 1941.


5. Fundamentalist deny history in their radical and idiosyncratic way. They believe that culture taints everything it touches. They believe on culture control,

Women should remember that St. Paul is the one that gave power and intention to man and took away from women in his own trouble mind, but fundamentalist loves that.



St. Paul had severe personal hangups about sex, for instance, that lie behind his personal problems with homosexuality and women. How else would he say that it is a shameful thing for a woman to speak in church, or that men are made in the image of God, but women are made in the image of men? These are the reasons that informed biblical scholars take some of Paul’s teachings as rantings rather than revelations. But for fundamentalists, their scriptures fell straight from heaven in a leather-bound book, every jot and tittle intact.


www.austinuu.org...

I bet under a fundamentalist rule our constitution will be a lot different.




[edit on 27-2-2005 by marg6043]




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Wow.


Excellnt find marg. ...I'm reeling a little here. Knew it was bad, but...

Thanks again.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Why is morality a dangerous thing? If people who believe that something is wrong and wish to discuss it without physically hurting someone, let them be. Just because society accepts certain venues in life doesn't make them right or wrong, just open for discussion.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Is nothing wrong with morality, we as a nation have the need to bring laws to protect each other.

But when religion uses morality or God and Jesus to get into your privacy and dictate what you are to do in your home and in your bed then you should have a problem with it.

But beside that we all need to uphold moral values and the right to worship whomever we desired as long as it doesn't intruded into our fellow citizens live.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Fundamental Disagreements

It's always interesting to skim through these threads and others involving religious debates and disagreements.

What I see here pretty much matches what I've seen elsewhere: there is a religious war in America, and the main belligerents are fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Marxists.

Both religions have a lot of blood on their hands, both have a history of seeking domination and absolute control over others, both are intolerant of all other religions, both are shockingly cruel when they gain control of a society, and both are driven by uncompromising religious doctrines.

Here's hoping that neither of them win. Life under any form of fundamentalism destroys the soul of the people enslaved by it.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Here's hoping that neither of them win. Life under any form of fundamentalism destroys the soul of the people enslaved by it.


Amen to that Majic, you are so right is not funny.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Right on Majic. Unfortunately even without being in power the fundies have managed to do a lot of damage to the quality of political debate. The fundies have done a lovely job of obscuring issues of policy behind meaningless moral debates and sectarian rivalries. They are causing moderates to find themselves forced into the same debates because the voting population has been so heavily assaulted with the presentation of issues as moral rather than political that they have actually redefined the issues.

Check this out, I just really caught hold of this for the first time and it blows me away. Fundementalists have guided the public discourse so effectively that the very word "political" is synonymous with patisanship and struggle, yet if you look at the word the root of it is "policy". How in the world did matters relating to policy become synonymous with ideological bickering? That's the extent to which fundementalists have poisoned our system from their positions of media and religious influence, without ever having one of their hard-core members elected president.


The gay rights issue is a good example of how the moral arguement between rabid religionists and anti-religionists is poisoning the issues. It's a matter of policy relating to who is entitled to the benefits associated with childraising, which is presumably allowed to gays because gays are allowed to adopt and recieve artificial insemination and single-gender households (with one only one parent) have gone widely unchallenged by any child advocacy group.
Somehow though this issue became defined by the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself, epsecially as viewed by the religionists, and the discourse on who needs the right to marry and why has been secondary if it exists at all in many circles.

I'm stealing this line- I don't remember who from- but what we need are fundementalist moderates. COMPROMISE OR WE'LL KILL YOU!



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Fundamental Disagreements

It's always interesting to skim through these threads and others involving religious debates and disagreements.

What I see here pretty much matches what I've seen elsewhere: there is a religious war in America, and the main belligerents are fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Marxists.


I'm seeing better where you're coming from now on that Majic (the original militant moderate right?)
but I need more. Is a seperate examination of the prevelance of fundamentalist Marxism warranted yet? I'm open to learn, self examination and tossing some change in the cup.

And this is just funny Vagabond.



Originally posted by The Vagabond
I'm stealing this line- I don't remember who from- but what we need are fundementalist moderates. COMPROMISE OR WE'LL KILL YOU!


Militant moderates.

I actually consider myself moderate (on Wednesdays and Sundays) but it makes it so hard to take a stand on anything.


I think America is just confused at the moment. I blame technology. (And should have much more to say on that in the upcoming Fundamental Marxism thread Majic has volunteered to author).



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

I think America is just confused at the moment. I blame technology.







Good stuff guys. (You were kidding, right RANT?)


.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Good stuff guys. (You were kidding, right RANT?)


About blaming technology for America's confusion? Not at all. It's about communication. How we used to communicate, disseminate ideas, educate masses, send feedback, implement change slowly, then continue the cycle... and how we do it now... which is all overnight.

Technology is great.
But it's evolving faster than man. Cultural revolutions don't happen over generations anymore, they happen over weeks. Daily almost. And the media and marketing components are integral. For each of every 57 cable channels there's a segment... in a sense 57 Americas. The same can be said of Capitalism really. Marketing advances invented tidy little divisions like NASCAR Dad, which they seperate from the herd, then reinforce their isolation with targeting and imagery designed to help them identify themselves versus the "them." It goes not only both ways, but all ways. People are just selective about what they want to see. TV says men are dumb. Why yes it does! TV also says women are dumb. Liberals are stupid. Conservatives eat their young. Christians are destroying America. Atheists are destroying the planet.... and if you love your children you'll buy these tires, unlike your neighbors that don't love their children and buy Brand X.

Anything you want to hear, it's there. And stuff you don't want to hear is too...screwing with your . 24/7. The Internet screwed us up in ways that almost rival how great it is. Those angry bitter old men (myself included) that used to mumble to themselves about how America is ruined because you can no longer burn leaves in your yard. Now they have an audience beyond the barber shop. They start movements, and counter movements, and counter counter movements and so on, all writing the media about what to show as much as they complain about what it does show... on those 57 channels and growing.

And the cell phones, and pagers, and text messengers and hyper connectivity we all must have to not be alone with our thoughts even as we drive talking cars with portable music collections jammed in our ears.

Who's in charge here? Crazy people, that's who. We are. We almost can't handle it. You bet America has an identity crisis. 57 schitzophrenic personalites, all competing, all dominant, all losing.

What will they think of next?

[edit on 27-2-2005 by RANT]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Technology does play a major role in what's wrong with America. Anything chip driven is outdated in 2yrs. or less, or, allows daily life to be "dumbed down" even further. But yet we still grope for more and lose interest in another gizmo before the balance is paid off on the credit card we used to purchase it.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Excellent post RANT. Thanks.



I do agree with all of what you said - to a point. But my personal experience is quite different. ...I've avoided TV by choice for most of my life. Periodically I do a bit of "media monitoring" - and pay attention to the ads too. (Amazing what you can learn about a culture by noting what gets advertising dollars.)

But the Net. Ahhh. To me it's liberation. Freedom. Like going back to university and alternately or simultaneously, like a deep meditation.

About 10 years ago an Indian elder told me she thought the Net was a physical manifestation of the psychic connection we all have. (Ie., the 'ether,' overmind or ...) ...She felt that the Net would bring those capacities into reach for everyone. I pretty much agree.

...and just as psychic connections are confusing at first, so too is the Net. How do you sort the images and classify the information? It's a classic problem, known and documented for millenia - as are the skills for dealing with it, and the traps that lay in wait. (eg., distraction with irrelevant phenoma.) ...but it can be done. It just takes time. Time to learn the skills, integrate the abilities into real life, reach a maturity.

IMO - the Net is much like classic mystical-spiritual training. I don't think this is bad - or even that different from what people have been experiencing since the beginning of consciousness. Except maybe it's a jumpstart, and yeah, it's a technological tool.



.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
That was a mighty fine rant...um, RANT.

I hate to quote Michael Moore since it makes things sort of hard for me when I find it convenient to drag out my former incarnation as a neoconservative, but in this case the value of the quote is worth the damage to my reputation.
Bowling for Columbine, the interview with Marilyn Manson: "It all boils down to fear and consumption". Horrible news, depressing news, cut to commercial, buy crest or people wont like you, use clearacell or girls wont screw you..."

We've got all these conduits through which we can be reached by a million different groups that want to tell us what to fear and what to buy, politically, relgiously, intellectually, economically, etc. The biggest problem with them though is not that its communication. The problem is that its one-way-bi-lateral communication: One voice only, talking only, to you. Nobody can interject or respond, and you can't ask questions. It's all ROM: Read-Only Media.
Until we get both human consciousness and media presentation to a holographic level, all of this communication does as much harm as good because we're not getting the big picture. We're getting bombarded so that we can't see the forest through the trees.
(For those of you who dont know, every part of a hologram contains the full image of the whole, meaning that no matter how you view it it's always in context. Holographic presentation and understanding would essentially be the ability to process all news as a whole, in its proper context and proportions, through every smaller part of the whole. Essentially this would require humans to be hyper-intuitive, to the point that given any one event a human could analyze all causes and effects accurately. That's A LOT of evolution to accomplish before all this media becomes fully healthy. I sure hope that the exposure to media itself will stimulate such evolution.)

[edit on 27-2-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Until we get both human consciousness and media presentation to a holographic level, all of this communication does as much harm as good because we're not getting the big picture. We're getting bombarded so that we can't see the forest through the trees.




But isn't that what life is? Learning enough to form our own big picture? ...How old were you when you first developed a real framework?

IMO - It's NOT harmful, any more than "reading too many books" is harmful. Just a different path to the same place.

(I'm not trying to minimize the overwhelming effect of the bombardment - just look at it a bit differently.)






every part of a hologram contains the full image of the whole, meaning that no matter how you view it it's always in context. Holographic presentation and understanding would essentially be the ability to process all news as a whole, in its proper context and proportions, through every smaller part of the whole.




...A Christian would say you can't ever see the whole picture - only God can.







Essentially this would require humans to be hyper-intuitive, to the point that given any one event a human could analyze all causes and effects accurately.




Yes. Needs intellectual, psychic and spiritual awareness/growth. Part of which is recognizing that there always are limitations, and absolute control is not an appropriate goal.






That's A LOT of evolution to accomplish before all this media becomes fully healthy.




But it's been a requirement of individual evolution since the dawn of consciousness. ...This is just the first 'tool' that isn't pharmacological.






I sure hope that the exposure to media itself will stimulate such evolution.



Et moi.


.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
But isn't that what life is? Learning enough to form our own big picture? ...How old were you when you first developed a real framework?


Actually thats what thought is. Life is just a biological process which is mainly characterized by eating and pooping. What is the goal of thought but to arrive at understanding. Ultimately the goal of thought is to finish thinking and arrive at understanding. That might play nicely into the concept of Nirvana.


IMO - It's NOT harmful, any more than "reading too many books" is harmful. Just a different path to the same place.

It's not the worst thing in the world, but imperfect context and knowledge is the root of all mistakes, which are painful. The sooner we get done thinking the sooner we're done with all of that painful learning, but without the usual caveat of being ignorant as a result.



...A Christian would say you can't ever see the whole picture - only God can.

I came to the strangest realization a few years ago. Christians are wrong a lot, and in the process of being wrong a lot you miss a lot of life. The Christian view on life is like being so busy thinking about dessert that you forget to eat dinner.





Yes. Needs intellectual, psychic and spiritual awareness/growth. Part of which is recognizing that there always are limitations, and absolute control is not an appropriate goal.

Not control, understanding. Holographic consciousness, Nirvana, Oneness, Communion With God, whatever you want to call it. Most newer religions see heaven as being something like this- you're done playing with life, you've been shown all of it finally, and you know when to put it down and let it be.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I think the internet can be a great liberator and gives me great hope. It was not possible for the average person to take an image and show it to the world until recently. A picture is worth a thousand words and the images that we all have seen from Abu Ghraib may have never seen the light of day if not for digital cameras and the internet.

Bloggers on the left and right have emerged to horse whip the mainstream media back to honesty. They have more whipping to do but at least the mainstream media is no longer the sole determinant of what is news. The internet has also provided a critically important means by which the major parties can fund raise from grass roots interests. This practice terrifies corporate interests.

I do not think it is constructive to discuss an individual’s religious beliefs as they may pertain to public policy because to do so is to engage in folly. I think the discussion is better framed as an exploration of how public policy may effect one’s religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.

If something strikes you as funny though I think its ok to laugh for example:

In a recent article about the President’s visit to Russia the UK Independent reported,

An unsmiling, visibly irritated Mr. Putin squirmed as he listened to Mr. Bush tell a press conference he had been told that Washington had "concerns about Russia's commitment in fulfilling" the "universal principles" of democracy. "Democracies always reflect a country's customs and culture, and I know that," Mr. Bush said. "Yet democracies have certain things in common; they have a rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition."

I have always thought that a child had a constitutional right to pray in public school but that a principal leading the school in prayer was a violation. This is the razors edge of the 1st Amendment.

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the . of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years."--Adolph Hitler


Sound familiar? Here is link to a page that at the bottom has many valuable links. This page is admittedly biased to the left but if you believe that way you may feel a certain sense of terror at the idea that our President is trying to start Armageddon.

www.celticguitarmusic.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
In a fundalmentalist world......I don't think some things change too fast...

sorry, but I just can't help but see the similarity between these two peices of liturature, written thousands of years apart....
===========

Proverbs 31....The Virtuous Women....

10Who can find a virtuous[c] wife?
For her worth is far above rubies.
11The heart of her husband safely trusts her;
So he will have no lack of gain.
12She does him good and not evil
All the days of her life.
13She seeks wool and flax,
And willingly works with her hands.
14She is like the merchant ships,
She brings her food from afar.
15She also rises while it is yet night,
And provides food for her household,
And a portion for her maidservants.
16She considers a field and buys it;
From her profits she plants a vineyard.
17She girds herself with strength,
And strengthens her arms.
18She perceives that her merchandise is good,
And her lamp does not go out by night.
19She stretches out her hands to the distaff,
And her hand holds the spindle.
20She extends her hand to the poor,
Yes, she reaches out her hands to the needy.
21She is not afraid of snow for her household,
For all her household is clothed with scarlet.
22She makes tapestry for herself;
Her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land.
24She makes linen garments and sells them,
And supplies sashes for the merchants.
25Strength and honor are her clothing;
She shall rejoice in time to come.
26She opens her mouth with wisdom,
And on her tongue is the law of kindness.
27She watches over the ways of her household,
And does not eat the bread of idleness.
28Her children rise up and call her blessed;
Her husband also, and he praises her:
29"Many daughters have done well,
But you excel them all."
30Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing,
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.
31Give her of the fruit of her hands,
And let her own works praise her in the gates.


-------------------------------------------

Let's see, she's weaving wool and flax, gathering her food from afar, buying land, planting a vineyard, selling her merchandise, sewing clothing for herself and her family, and also to sell, and "And her lamp does not go out by night. "....she's working day and night to feed and cloth her family.

and where is the husband of this great industrious lady....

""23Her husband is known in the gates,
When he sits among the elders of the land. "

sitting at the gates of the city, talking of religion and probably politics, with the elders of the land....


Then in 1854::

"The wife who inherits no property holds about the same legal position that does the slave of the Southern plantation.
She can own nothing, sell nothing.
She has no right even to the wages she earns; her person, her time, her services are the property of another....
There is nothing that an unruly wife might do against which the husband has not sufficient protection in the law.
But not so with the wife. If she have a worthless husband, a confirmed drunkard, a villain, or a vagrant, he has still all the rights of a man, a husband, and a father.
Though the whole support of the family be thrown upon the wife, if the wages she earns be paid to her by her employer, the husband can receive them again...."



"A very large majority of the women of this State support themselves and their children, and many their husbands too. Go into any village you please, of three or four thousand inhabitants, and you will find as many as fifty men or more, whose only business is to discuss religion and politics, as they watch the trains come and go at the depot, or the passage of a canal boat through a lock; to laugh at the vagaries of some drunken brother, or the capers of a monkey dancing to the music of his master's organ.
All these are supported by their mothers, wives, or sisters."
www.undelete.org...
------


The men are still sitting at the gates of the city....(or the train depo), discussing religion and politics...

but, na, women shouldn't have to work......they should be home, taking care of the kids....the home.....





if they can convince us that women are different and thus deserving of different rights and responsibilities....and kids grow up in homes where dad is calling all the shots, holding all the power, well, it will be much easier to convince those kids that they are different, and deserving of different rights and responsibilities....
maybe what they want is their slave labor, here in america, so the jobs will stop going overseas!! working in conditions that we now consider unacceptable.
They want their "elite" royal class back.



[edit on 28-2-2005 by John bull 1]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
But the Net. Ahhh. To me it's liberation. Freedom. Like going back to university and alternately or simultaneously, like a deep meditation.

About 10 years ago an Indian elder told me she thought the Net was a physical manifestation of the psychic connection we all have. (Ie., the 'ether,' overmind or ...) ...She felt that the Net would bring those capacities into reach for everyone. I pretty much agree.


That's a good way to view it.
I love the net and agree wholeheartedly on the good at the individual level and wouldn't have it any other way. But at the cultural level, it just makes life harder is what I was saying. Not that hard is bad. But to reach that boiling point "pop" of actual psychic connection as opposed to the artificial disconnet the net fosters (both physically and figuratively) there's going to be trouble. There's no easy osmosis of understanding. Just more conflict. And the immediacy of conflict is what's come about. People now log on to look for trouble. Either an ideological fight, more proof everyhing is going to hell, or just to add to the list.

Frank Thomas (we discussed U2U) called this the non-stop Plen-T-Plainting that our increasingly angry society is based on. Vagabond, you hit the nail on the . with the Manson quote there.


It's cool and all... the Internet. But I recall TV nipple slips being quite frequent in the 70's and no big deal. I mean you freaked out, asked the kid's at school or folks around the water cooler...hey did you catch that last night? And most didn't. No big deal. It ended there.

Now we all catch it. We catch, capture, record, archive, playback and complain about everything! Each serving as "proof" of our unique agendas.

Sites like DU or FR specialize in this. The world is going to hell, and here's the captured evidence to prove it. It's trivial analogy. Political porn. Emotion, not reason. And that's as a result of the immediacy of technology.

Political assassignation has never been easier. I've a billion dollars, let's make candidate X a traitor in the next 72 hours. Sure the backchannels allow the "people" to counter better than ever, but it's war nonetheless. All divisive.

I'm not making some "modest proposal" we do anything drastic here though.
Just venting. Adding to the list.


On topic, the fundamentalist thing. I don't know. Obviously some use technology the same as everyone else, but some I know are self quarantining (much in response to arguments like I just made). That's dangerous too. The lady at Wal-Mart (true story) looking at the collections effort for the Tsunami. What tsunami? She hadn't heard of it. Has no TV. Said for news, she "reads her Bible."

These people vote too.

So it's lose-lose in this technology debate I proposed. Eh, my bad.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
.
.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by soficrow
But isn't that what life is? Learning enough to form our own big picture? .


Actually thats what thought is. Life is just a biological process which is mainly characterized by eating and pooping.




Hmmm. I'd add another category for 'conscious life.' ...Suspect it's a different breed and a bit more complicated.





IMO - It's NOT harmful, any more than "reading too many books" is harmful. Just a different path to the same place.

It's not the worst thing in the world, but imperfect context and knowledge is the root of all mistakes, which are painful. The sooner we get done thinking the sooner we're done with all of that painful learning, but without the usual caveat of being ignorant as a result.




"Mistakes" are part of learning - and hopefully, the process never ends.






...A Christian would say you can't ever see the whole picture - only God can.

I came to the strangest realization a few years ago. Christians are wrong a lot, and in the process of being wrong a lot you miss a lot of life. The Christian view on life is like being so busy thinking about dessert that you forget to eat dinner.



FYI - I had a solid Christian upbringing, which I believe gives me the right to speak directly to Christian issues. At this point in my life tho, I'm more of a Taoist-Sufi hybrid.







Yes. Needs intellectual, psychic and spiritual awareness/growth. Part of which is recognizing that there always are limitations, and absolute control is not an appropriate goal.

Not control, understanding. Holographic consciousness, Nirvana, Oneness, Communion With God, whatever you want to call it. Most newer religions see heaven as being something like this- you're done playing with life, you've been shown all of it finally, and you know when to put it down and let it be.



Hmmm. I'd say understanding is an illusion, like the possibility of control. The 'picture' keeps changing, evolving. It's not at all static. Better to learn about wind and tides, and develop a passion for sailing or surfing. ...Longest I've ever maintained that 'Oneness' in real life is about four years - after I died/almost died - and I suspect it resulted from white matter damage as much as attunement.


...But there is a school of thought says brain changes are just physical reflections of 'spiritual/psychic' activity, eg., with autism... Another time.


............RANT



But at the cultural level, it just makes life harder is what I was saying. Not that hard is bad. But to reach that boiling point "pop" of actual psychic connection as opposed to the artificial disconnet the net fosters (both physically and figuratively) there's going to be trouble. There's no easy osmosis of understanding. Just more conflict. And the immediacy of conflict is what's come about. People now log on to look for trouble. Either an ideological fight, more proof everyhing is going to hell, or just to add to the list.



Agreed. But the same process always has occurred in real life - and anger is part of the process. Before connection comes disconnection; before light, dark, yadayada. There is no evolution without need. In the words of Idries Shah, "If you would develop your powers, increase your need."



So where are we, as a culture? ...In terrible danger. No doubt about it. We're in transition, in the midst of widespread unpredictable change.

The internet is a huge catalyst. It promises fulfillment, power, yet engenders anger and discontent. It creates need. And that need will beget powers, change, evolution. And yes, revolution.

Can we influence the form that revolution takes? Can anyone? Perhaps. But control it, no.

So is that bad? Should we curl up and give up because humanity's evolution looks more every day like a devolution, a kind of rampant intellectual extinction?

Nahhh. Have a little faith. Learn to sail. After a while, you become one with wind and sail, and then it's a whole new ballgame.





FYI - Mankind's been here before - and will always be here, in exactly this same place, because every single individual ever born MUST go through an entirely personal process of learning and evolution. It's the way we're made.

Can we create a culture where everyone's needs for personal growth are met, on demand, at the right time? Where all the doors are open all the time, for anyone who wants to walk through? Dunno. But the internet comes close IMO. ...I prefer to think we all do our best - and in the end, our best will be good enough.

That's my vent - the win-win alternative.



.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
While I don’t care much for geometric representations of ideological concepts, as they are limited by rigid bounds, such representations can be useful in understanding the fundamental dynamics of discourse. If I were to play chess on a spherical board the white king would sit on the North Pole and black at the South Pole.

It would be impossible for each king to see the opposition and would result in a lot of hot air in the equatorial regions. I visit left and right wing blogs to understand the point of view of each side. Personally many of the left wing blogs are not left enough for me and at times I find that on some issues I have gone so far left I have come round right.

Lacking any overarching rigid ideology I have settled on being consistent at least in my desire to defend the Constitution, doesn’t this make me a conservative? No, not nowadays.

These labels of left and right often serve to create divisiveness where much common ground maybe found instead. I really don’t have much use for such labels as they seem to be without definition. I find hypocrisy on both sides at times.

I think this quote sounds like the kind of policy statement I can support:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”




top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join