My Government

[vicente]

"My government is the world's leading purveyor of violence." Martin Luther King 1967

http://www.albasrah.net/images/iraqi-pow/iraqi-pow

Of course,...I've heard the Rush Limbaugh types saying they were bogus pics. I've also heard those photo's of 1940's Jewish Holocaust victims were also bogus pics, but as we prosecuted their torturers, so too will we probably prosecute the already two dozen or so Americans arrested for the bogus crimes against humanity depicted in those photos.

Makes me wonder, if it wasn't for the Lutherians, I wonder if Hitler's bogus dislike of the Jews would have been bogusly propagandized in Western history books.

http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/spring/courses/...lutherjews.html (http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/spring/courses/lutherjews.html)

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

:)

[NeverMind]

All right, I know there was a lot of people saying Donald Rumsfeld should resign for all the messed up stuff in Iraq and stuff. But then i heard somebody actually DID resign recently and I havn't been able to find out who that was. Could somebody enlighten me?

[a random hack]

why, it was that lovely chap in charge of the CIA, george tenet

http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2000jan/2000j...iso.htm#recipes (http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2000jan/2000janmiso.htm#recipes)
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2004/junio/jue...ue10/24cia.html (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2004/junio/jue10/24cia.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/03/.../tenet.resigns/ (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/03/tenet.resigns/)

a week is long time in politics, so they say....
in the meantime, we can enjoy miso soup :lol:

[sonrisa]

re: Rummy resigning (or getting fired)

this was posted on a listserv I belong to last month....

From: XXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: Dump Rumsfeld - SEND ACTION


No, no, no. Keep him! Rumsfeld's now officially a total political
liability, the political equivalent of a burnt weenie sandwich. While I agree with sending letters to people insisting that he be fired, I think it should only be done to make them think WE WANT him fired so they will do the opposite. What with Colin Powell openly attacking his bosses and HIS credibility pretty much shot, a wounded Rummy is like a lion with two bad knees. Sooner or later that thing's gonna drop, despite its ferocious roar. Firing Rumsfeld makes Dubya look like he's doing something, being decisive, cleaning house. Firing Rumsfeld gives him room to claim high ground and possibly replace him with someone who won't have enough time to make a complete ass of himself before the election. After all, better the jackass you know...

So, I'm going to send letters demanding the Bush keep Rumsfeld despite everything. Hang onto him like a frat boy grasping a long neck Budweiser. And then the Dems should keep forcing him to testify for one thing and then another until he finally snaps and screams to the cameras: You want the truth! You can't handle the truth! He should threaten to piss in someone's skull. He should leap across a table and try to gouge out the eyes of Robert Byrd. Then Tom Cruise can order him arrested and taken off to, um, Gitmo.

All we have to do to ensure that he stays is send a couple of well
placed emails with the phrase: Bill Clinton would have fired his ass.
Hilary too! Then they'll never let him go.

:devilish:

[vicente]

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

[sonrisa]

check this one out (http://www.ashcroftresign.org)

[sonrisa]

hey y'all! Just dropped in to wish everybody a Happy 4th & y'all may want to click here (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/070404J.shtml) & take this quiz sometime before the fireworks!

:)

[zygoat]

vicente,
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.(1)
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason to believe, that the divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the parliament of Great-Britain some evidence, that this dreadful authority over them, has been granted to that body. But a reverance for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great-Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desparate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms. - Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to sight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.

Our forefathers, inhabitants of the island of Great-Britain, left their native land, to seek on these shores a residence for civil and religious freedom. At the expense of their blood, at the hazard of their fortunes, without the least charge to the country from which they removed, by unceasing labour, and an unconquerable spirit, they effected settlements in the distant and unhospitable wilds of America, then filled with numerous and warlike barbarians. -- Societies or governments, vested with perfect legislatures, were formed under charters from the crown, and an harmonious intercourse was established between the colonies and the kingdom from which they derived their origin. The mutual benefits of this union became in a short time so extraordinary, as to excite astonishment. It is universally confessed, that the amazing increase of the wealth, strength, and navigation of the realm, arose from this source; and the minister, who so wisely and successfully directed the measures of Great-Britain in the late war, publicly declared, that these colonies enabled her to triumph over her enemies. --Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our sovereign to make a change in his counsels. -- From that fatal movement, the affairs of the British empire began to fall into confusion, and gradually sliding from the summit of glorious prosperity, to which they had been advanced by the virtues and abilities of one man, are at length distracted by the convulsions, that now shake it to its deepest foundations. -- The new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the unfortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and then subduing her faithful friends.

These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder. -- The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations. -- Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the "murderers" of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences, shall be transported to England to be tried.

But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power? Not a single man of those who assume it, is chosen by us; or is subject to our control or influence; but, on the contrary, they are all of them exempt from the operation of such laws, and an American revenue, if not diverted from the ostensible purposes for which it is raised, would actually lighten their own burdens in proportion, as they increase ours. We saw the misery to which such despotism would reduce us. We for ten years incessantly and ineffectually besieged the throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with parliament, in the most mild and decent language.

Administration sensible that we should regard these oppressive measures as freemen ought to do, sent over fleets and armies to enforce them. The indignation of the Americans was roused, it is true; but it was the indignation of a virtuous, loyal, and affectionate people. A Congress of delegates from the United Colonies was assembled at Philadelphia, on the fifth day of last September. We resolved again to offer an humble and dutiful petition to the King, and also addressed our fellow-subjects of Great-Britain. We have pursued every temperate, every respectful measure; we have even proceeded to break off our commercial intercourse with our fellow-subjects, as the last peaceable admonition, that our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty. -- This, we flattered ourselves, was the ultimate step of the controversy: but subsequent events have shewn, how vain was this hope of finding moderation in our enemies.

Several threatening expressions against the colonies were inserted in his majesty's speech; our petition, tho' we were told it was a decent one, and that his majesty had been pleased to receive it graciously, and to promise laying it before his parliament, was huddled into both houses among a bundle of American papers, and there neglected. The lords and commons in their address, in the month of February, said, that "a rebellion at that time actually existed within the province of Massachusetts-Bay; and that those concerned with it, had been countenanced and encouraged by unlawful combinations and engagements, entered into by his majesty's subjects in several of the other colonies; and therefore they besought his majesty, that he would take the most effectual measures to inforce due obediance to the laws and authority of the supreme legislature." -- Soon after, the commercial intercourse of whole colonies, with foreign countries, and with each other, was cut off by an act of parliament; by another several of them were intirely prohibited from the fisheries in the seas near their coasts, on which they always depended for their sustenance; and large reinforcements of ships and troops were immediately sent over to general Gage.

Fruitless were all the entreaties, arguments, and eloquence of an illustrious band of the most distinguished peers, and commoners, who nobly and strenuously asserted the justice of our cause, to stay, or even to mitigate the heedless fury with which these accumulated and unexampled outrages were hurried on. -- equally fruitless was the interference of the city of London, of Bristol, and many other respectable towns in our favor. Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute. What terms more rigid and humiliating could have been dictated by remorseless victors to conquered enemies? in our circumstances to accept them, would be to deserve them.

Soon after the intelligence of these proceedings arrived on this continent, general Gage, who in the course of the last year had taken possession of the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts-Bay, and still occupied it a garrison, on the 19th day of April, sent out from that place a large detachment of his army, who made an unprovoked assault on the inhabitants of the said province, at the town of Lexington, as appears by the affidavits of a great number of persons, some of whom were officers and soldiers of that detachment, murdered eight of the inhabitants, and wounded many others. From thence the troops proceeded in warlike array to the town of Concord, where they set upon another party of the inhabitants of the same province, killing several and wounding more, until compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression. Hostilities, thus commenced by the British troops, have been since prosecuted by them without regard to faith or reputation. -- The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind.

By this perfidy wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, the aged and the sick from their relations and friends, who wish to attend and comfort them; and those who have been used to live in plenty and even elegance, are reduced to deplorable distress.

The general, further emulating his ministerial masters, by a proclamation bearing date on the 12th day of June, after venting the grossest falsehoods and calumnies against the good people of these colonies, proceeds to "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors, to supersede the course of the common law, and instead thereof to publish and order the use and exercise of the law martial." -- His troops have butchered our countrymen, have wantonly burnt Charlestown, besides a considerable number of houses in other places; our ships and vessels are seized; the necessary supplies of provisions are intercepted, and he is exerting his utmost power to spread destruction and devastation around him.

We have rceived certain intelligence, that general Carelton[Carleton], the governor of Canada, is instigating the people of that province and the Indians to fall upon us; and we have but too much reason to apprehend, that schemes have been formed to excite domestic enemies against us. In brief, a part of these colonies now feel, and all of them are sure of feeling, as far as the vengeance of administration can inflict them, the complicated calamities of fire, sword and famine. We(2) are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. -- The latter is our choice. -- We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. -- Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. -- Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. -- We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

In our own native land, in defence of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With an humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the Universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the empire from the calamities of civil war.

(1) Primarily the work of Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.p.168 Morison, Samuel Eliot and Henry Steele Commager, William E. Leuchtenburg. The Growth of the American Republic : Volume 1. Seventh Edition. New York : Oxford University Press; 1980. (Note added by the Avalon Project). Back

(2) From this point the declaration follows Jefferson's draft. Back.

"th hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, "

[DoWalker]

Wow, how does one follow that? :)

By returning to the original question, I think. Our country is certainly violent. I think one of the Religion topics, (free will,) comes into play here. As a country, our goal is freedom. Judeo-Christianity tells us that free will is the root of sin, and I can't argue. People who can't choose to be evil certainly won't be. But treating people as children, with a (sometimes) benevolent parental govenment may keep them from sin, but it also keeps them children. Freedom has made us instead a country of adolescents, and adolescents are rules by their emotions. I only hope we have the time to mature into a nation of adults.

The invention of the printing press led to the destruction of the feudal system in Europe. The invention of the radio made possible Ghandi's peaceful resistance of the British. The television enabled the American civil rights struggle. The internet will lead to more freedom, and eventually, less violence. Historically speaking, our time is a pretty peaceful one.

[vicente]

The internet will lead to more freedom, and eventually, less violence. Historically speaking, our time is a pretty peaceful one.

I agree that the internet will encourage a speedier global awareness, and perhaps will lead to less violence. However, I disagree that we are now living in a less violent time. I see hate, mostly fueled through the Abrahamic religions, propagating at a tremendous rate,...like a pressure cooker with a near closed vent.

Hate is everywhere, in America that is. From hateful conservative radio talk, to hatefilled christian lectures, to hateful, gasguzzling SUV drivers and their roadrage,...hate and division is all over America. And with only choice in the coming American Presidential election between 'two evils', thus no real choice at all, the hate and division will continue.

So, what will it take to stop the hate and division? What would it take to let go of what divides us? The answer is religion.

So many cling to religions and their gods for their identity,...afraid to realize that what they see as wrong in others gods, is exactly what is false and dividing about theirs.

What would it take to let go of what divides us? To similtaneously come back into ourselfs as we go out, so we and Other are the samething.

Many dislike truths. For most, truths upset the beliefs they cling to. They insist there is no truth, or even more insane, that truth is always changing. The truth is however, whether ones perceptions believe it or not, there is no division in the Now.

If you are seeing division, you are in the past. That understanding is as easy as 1+1=2, yet, more than 99% cannot accept the false as the false, thus their reality of the past is 'thought' to be the true reality.

The only true, unchanging (real truth never changes) is a divisionless reality. However we continue voting for Dividers as our Representatives, like George Bush and John Kerry. Always one of "two evils",...whatever it takes for the majority to keep the Now obscured.

:)

[dustwitch]

Vicente,

You perceive the world as overflowing with hate . If you please,

what is your personal definition of hate ? I am curious.

What do you think is the proper response to hatred ? Are you your

yourself contributing to this world cache of hate ? Does liberal

radio like Air America spread hate ? What is your defintion of truth,

vicente ? The truth you say people dislike ?

I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to answer a few of

my questions , as I want to try to understand a liitle of where

where you are coming from .



Thanks.

[vicente]

hate,
To feel hostility or animosity toward.
To detest.
To feel dislike or distaste for: hates washing dishes.

Some examples of hate:

"The inability or unwillingness to hate makes a person worthless. If we do not hate detestable things, the quality of our character is suspect. The Bible commands that we hate". H. A. (Buster) Dobbs, Church of Christ.

"I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . our goal is a Christian nation. We have the biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism..." Randall Terry, Director of Operation Rescue

Conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have 'occupations of the brain' in fields like engineering, science and economics. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to flock to 'occupations of the heart." -Dick Armey

"I imagine every Christian would agree that we need to remove humanism from the public schools. There is only one way to accomplish this: Abolish the public schools." The Reverend Robert L. Thoburn

"the solution to Islam is for the United States to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter 2001

"I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George HW Bush, August 27, 1987

"In winning a nation to the gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used." R.J Rushdooney rutherford institute board of director

"I can't understand how all this can have happened, it's enough to make one lose one's faith in God!" Eva Braun (during the last days with Hitler)

"Had I known that the enemy was going to use those airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people". -George W Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Adolph Hitler

What do you think is the proper response to hatred ?

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that". Martin Luther King, Jr.


What is your defintion of truth,vicente ?

truth n. < OE. treuthe; true, honesty. 1. conformity to reality;
verity. 2. verified or undisputable certainty; mathematical truth.
3. statements, propositions, principles accepted as true by consensus
or objective reasoning; pragmatic truth. 4. that which is changeless,
non-conceptual; absolute truth. Absolute truth is not invented, it's
uncovered.

I would say there are relative truths and absolute truths. Most people fear absolute truths, for they undermined their beliefs.

be·lief n. from ME bileve, v, influenced by bileven\gelfan\leubh, to hold dear/to make palatable.
1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing confidence in another without proof that one is right in doing so.
2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something not susceptable to validation.
3.Something believed or unquestioningly accepted as true in the absence of reason, especially a particular ideology accepted by a group of persons.
4.a religious tenet or tenets.

belief is always limiting
beliefs suppress, deny, disempower, disconnect
belief always keep us unfulfilled
belief begins when reason ends
belief is in something else
belief is a barrier to Love
belief is a substitute for perceived incompleteness
beliefs are negative emotional investments
belief produces unnatural thought
belief always expects
belief implies doubt
belief is an attachment to self-bondage
belief is always dishonest.

Experience born of belief, is only experienced through the condition of that belief.

Does liberal radio like Air America spread hate ?

I have not heard Liberal radio, a new thing, following nearly 20 years of conservative hate. I watched the Fox News channel a few times in 2000-2001, and they lied no less than every 4th sentence. Personally, I do not know if 'liberal radio' is actually liberal, or really 'left-wing fanaticism'.

No liberal would be against the 1st nor 2nd Amendments,...yet John Kerry, and many other so-called liberals have voted against both.

2nd Amendment
The NRA gives Kerry a "F" Rating, and say "he has never missed an opportunity to cast an anti-gun vote"
In Detroit, Kerry attacked all NRA members when he delivered the following speech: "I don`t think that we can get elected nationally if we are not prepared to stand up against...the NRA"
Even more disturbing about Kerry's anti-2nd Amendment stance appears his bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment which reads: ”A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It doesn't say it is "the right of the militia to bear arms" it says it is "the right of the people to bear arms". The Bill of Rights as a whole, are individual rights, why should the Second Amendment be different? Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, Kerry appears to think that the Second Amendment originally protected a “collective” right of states to maintain their militias.

1st Amendment.
When the 9th District Court who said in May 2002 that the "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." and Kerry and his Senator friends did their 99-0 ruling against that, every one of those people violated their oath to the Constitution.

They said in essense that atheists, polytheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Humanists, female based monotheists, etc, are not members of the Community.

So, what is a liberal?

“a Liberal is someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, that is what a ‘Liberal’ means, and I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’” John F Kennedy
September 14, 1960

:)

[DoWalker]

Despite all of your hard word, vicente, I am keeping my dictionary. I still need a fourth leg for the couch . . . :)

The people you quoted have, indeed, said some stupid things. I hope at least one or two of them look back at those words and cringe. Obviously, they misunderstood the main points that Jesus of Nazareth was trying to make. (I may not believe he was divine, but love, compassion, and tolerence are difficult to find fault with.)

There are many people who are, I'm sure, missing some of the essential points of Buddhism, too. (Let me get this straight, you're a Buddhist who's against gun control?) I'll admit having never met the Dalai Lama, but I have met some very good-hearted Christians.

Hooray for liberals! :D

[vicente]

but love, compassion, and tolerence are difficult to find fault with

Where DoWalker?

"I came not to bring peace, but with a sword..."?

Most Christians believe the God and Jesus they invoke while spreading their faith, is Love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that this God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch's is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshipped, obeyed and prayed to.

I can't help thinking of those poor pigs who Jesus cast demons into and then set them to their deaths.

Christian love, like the love of their God, what they often call agape, is merely a conditional love. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; ie., "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more compassionate then passionate, more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their beliefs. Thus, no matter how one perceives it, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. A self-perpetuating delusion.

Passionate or emotional love, is another type of conditional love. This is the love of solicitudal desire and enthralled obsession. Such love is usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by biological, chemical or instinctual love, which manifests a yearning for the welfare, possession and companionship of another. Ordinarily, emotional love is based on something received through physiological or pyschological arousal, and commonly includes, as in Christian love, an attached expectation.

The highest love a human can awaken to, is the amoral intimacy of Conscious Love. This is the Love of the Bodhisattva; the wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition, and indifferent towards the consequences to the lover. Contrary to the thinking of many, Buddhists do not believe in a God; but they do recognize Love.

The fragrance of love is as a tremendum uncovered by surrendering expectation, and through that immediacy, witness a grand preferenceless reality. A reality of Love's own flow; unveiled of what belief and predisposition think it should be. If America's self-proclaimed moral majority want to cling to their beliefs, so be it. I would suggest however that they consider Jesus' own litmus test for determining the true christian faithful, as published in the canonized text,...Mark 16:16-18. A true Christian, "the man who accepts baptism,...will be able to drink deadly poison without harm". After all, 1 Thess 5:21 says "prove all things",...and since Christians say there are no contractions in the Bible, these good Christians should readily welcome Jesus' own test. Perhaps some of these anti-American Reconstructionists could lead the way and be the first to prove their faith.


Let me get this straight, you're a Buddhist who's against gun control

I never said I was a Buddhist,...although my views tend to be very close to Vajrayana Buddhism. I am an American however, and a strong advocate for the US Constitution.

I have met some very good-hearted Christians.

I too have met (from their point of view) some very well intented Christians. In fact, I was sort of a Christian (by parental force) once. However, as no Christian can possibly 'live in the Now' and still be a Christian, I have little tolerance for them,...in fact, I could easily be described as a bigot. That is, bigot, n. a person who is utterly intolerant of the Abrahamic belief system. To me, Christians are no better than rapists, child molesters, controllers, murderers, etc.

http://skepticreport.com/tools/10command.htm

[zygoat]

vicente,
you say that America wasn't founded on christian beliefs,yet here is an historical document written before 1776 by and with Thomas Jefferson and you say nothing......
(1) Primarily the work of Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.p.168 Morison, Samuel Eliot and Henry Steele Commager, William E. Leuchtenburg. The Growth of the American Republic : Volume 1. Seventh Edition. New York : Oxford University Press; 1980. (Note added by the Avalon Project). Back

(2) From this point the declaration follows Jefferson's draft. Back.

"th hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, "

With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves

A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.(1)

I think you should cut and paste this and save it to your hard drive!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

[dustwitch]

* Jeez , vicente, I am having a great deal of difficulty differentiating

your thoughts from the thoughts , statements, and definititions

of other sources you put forth. What do YOU think. No copy &

paste please.

Certainly by many standards , I am considered a

consevative , however , I consider most of those people you quoted

extremists and wackos. People like that , I myself would stand with

you to fight them if their ilk were to try to impose a religious state

* I think it would serve you to determine exactly who the

real hate mongers are and more importantly, who they are not.

* It may be suprising to know that from the time I was very

young, I decided independently of my parents, that religion was the

psycho-logical by product of an evolving and developing , uniquely

human sentience. * What do you say, vicente ? Who am I ? Who are

you ? Am I a hater ? Are you ? What gives ?

* Quite honestly, if I believed our country and government is as

evil and bleak as you portray it to be, I quess I would bitterly rail

and lament our fate as you do .

<_<

[sahyo]

we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves


but isn't happening usa soldiers in iraq "to die freemen rather than to live slaves"

[vicente]

Certainly by many standards , I am considered a consevative

To me your posts may suggest you are a media-ted conservative, yet I would bet that on core issues, what has been determined to be political conservatism, you are as liberal (opposite of illiberal) and progressive as I.

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
1. Fear and aggression
2. Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
3. Uncertainty avoidance
4.Need for cognitive closure


In the 17th Century, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams came up with a National Motto for America,...E Pluribus Unum. In 1956, Congress changed that motto to In God We Trust. In so doing, they declared that I'm not a full member in America.

I am a USAF Ret veteran. I made an oath which, first and foremost began: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

On August 27, 1987 George HW Bush said:
"I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

I find America, the America of the Founding Fathers, to be currently under grave danger, not only foreign, but domestic. My Country is being media-ted towards something it is not,...and each false religious idea being implanted in the minds of my Countrymen is bringing it ever closer to collapse.

Canadian poet and novelist Margaret Atwood presents in 'A Handmaid's Tale, a fascinating and horrific look into the near future, is about the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, based on far-right Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals, under the laws of the God of Jacob, have created a monotheocratic government following a terrorist attacks using 'radiation dispersal devises' and subsequent suspension of the Constitution. [George W Bush, Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, etc are all on record saying that America should be governed by the laws of the god of Jacob]. The resulting society is a feminist's/non-Christian nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their offspring over to the "morally fit" Wives. This New America, now the Republic of Gilead, is a strict and dangerous political scene, where any type of crime can result in an execution and a public hanging on The Wall, where former abortionists, transsexuals, gays, atheists, Quakers, Liberaterians, etc, are with signs posted for their crimes.

Little by little, fascist theocrats have reconstructed a new America. Most think its the way it's supposed to be, but it is not.

Under George Washington, a document was drafted in 1796, then unanimously ratified by the US Senate and sign into law on June 10, 1797 by President John Adams which said,

"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion".

Even though that document, less then two pages, was read aloud in Congress without dissension, and well publicized at the time, there were no complaints or public outcry, as when Christians balked over the illegality of the addition of 'under god' in the Pledge. In fact, at the signing of the above 1797 document, Adams said, "Now be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End, may it be observed and performed with good faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; and I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill every clause and article thereof".

Nowdays, John "war criminal" Kerry is even discussing Faith-Based initiatives.

:)

[dustwitch]

vicente

I have now determined that you are not a human being . You are

an android that vomits a thin, colorless , foul

matter that has been absorbed by the dark, spongy orbs that are

your eyes.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by vicente@Jul 12 2004, 01:34 PM
And with only choice in the coming American Presidential election between 'two evils', thus no real choice at all, the hate and division will continue.


Vicente, have you heard- the bushits want to postpone the elections (click here) (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/071204Y.shtml)
it was on the local tv yesterday as well

doesn't suprise me. The bushits fixed the last election to get in power, & now they'll do whatever it takes to hang onto it.

[DoWalker]

Originally posted by dustwitch@Jul 13 2004, 09:54 AM

I have now determined that you are not a human being .
:nono: Aw, now come on! I was hoping this website drew in a classier crowd! There's no need to resort to such personal attacks.

At least when his logic has holes in it. Point out that he's saying really hateful things about people who are supposedly hateful. Call him a hypocrite, but not a robot.

Tell him that railing against bigotry by making the biogotted statement that all Christians are bigots is not only incorrect, but laughable logic.

This is a philosophical discussion group, not an episode of Jerry Springer, right?

[sonrisa]

Yo DoWalker! you dissin my former mayor? :D

In case you haven't noticed, the 1st Amendment pretty much rules around here, which is one of the reasons I ike this forum. :)

[dustwitch]

DoWalker,


At least I'm honest . What discussion group ? Where ? This is

the vicente, sonrisa, asheera, copy & paste , hyperlink, and

playground bully exposion. You gotta love it.

[vicente]

I have now determined that you are not a human being

Dustwitch, that comment is right out of the Christian Right worksheet for truth deception. It is exactly the kind of hate and lies that George Bush and his anti-American ilk spew when they are afraid to address an issue rationally.

Republican Techniques for Truth Suppression (stolen from a Workshop for Young Republicans)

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press.

Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "leftist", "commie", "kook," "crackpot", and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

Dismiss the charges as "old news."

Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

[vicente]

The bushits fixed the last election to get in power, & now they'll do whatever it takes to hang onto it.

Yes. I have one those bumperstickers that reads:
RE-DEFEAT BUSH

http://bushspeaks.com/home.asp?did=59&dir=f
http://www.hermes-press.com/militarismindex.htm
http://www.realityexpander.com/articles/jo...es_means_2.html (http://www.realityexpander.com/articles/joewatson/end_justifies_means_2.html)
http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...Oppression.html (http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/weapons/DomesticOppression.html)
http://www.remindbush.org/
http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html
http://www.bushisamoron.org/default.php
http://www.stopdubya.com/
http://www.evilgopbastards.com/
http://www.presidentmoron.com/
http://www.rense.com/general17/lie.htm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0011128-11.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011128-11.html)

:)

[dustwitch]

See, DoWalker..... I told you so .

[zygoat]

Asheera,
but isn't happening usa soldiers in iraq "to die freemen rather than to live slaves"

if we don't defeat RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS we will not be FREE men and women!!

[zygoat]

DoWalker,
vicente is a horrible person who does NOT listen to anyone at all,a true egoist,and yes definitely a HYPOCRITE!!! I just posted a document written before 1776 where the writers one of whom he quotes out of context I MIGHT ADD,that America is and was formed by and for christians,yet the founding fathers were smart enough to write the Declaration of Independence in a way that We ,the people,in order to form a more pefecrt union,with rights endowed by our Creator,will not have to suffer under a Nationalized religion,that's all,end of story!!Pilgrims came to America so as not to suffer persecution,lest we forget.

[todd]

if we don't defeat RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS we will not be FREE men and women!!

Defeat means kill, because this doesn't sound like persuade?
So they want to kill us and we want to kill them.
The law of "an eye for an eye".
Soon we will forget who started it.

[vicente]

vicente is a horrible person...and yes definitely a HYPOCRITE!!!

HYPOCRITE n : a person who professes religious beliefs, virtures, principles that they do not hold or actually possess.

I wonder if you moron Christian Fascists will ever learn to speak english,...what does the word hypocrite have to do with me? It's as about as silly as the RNC responding to Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 by saying Moore is fat. What has Moore being husky have to do with his film?

Pilgrims came to America so as not to suffer persecution,lest we forget.

What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?
The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were "Pilgrims" seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the "wrong" faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt

rights endowed by our Creator

Zygoat, you're such a Limbaughite. The term creator has naught to do with the Christian God, the Jewish G-d, nor Islams Allah. To the Deists who wrote those words, the creator was a personal thing.

Stop trying to reconstruct an America that did not exist,..to do so is anti-American.

:)

[DoWalker]

Originally posted by dustwitch@Jul 14 2004, 05:02 AM
What discussion group ? Where ? This is

the vicente, sonrisa, asheera, copy & paste , hyperlink, and

playground bully exposion. You gotta love it.
I hope you're wrong. There's got to be somewhere on the internet where people can exchange ideas without falling to petty, overemotional arguments. Perhaps I've come to the wrong site. I'm going to give it a while longer before I totally give up, though.

"In case you haven't noticed, the 1st Amendment pretty much rules around here, which is one of the reasons I ike this forum."

Absolutely, and thank God. However, just because we can say anything we want here is no reason not to weigh our words first, right?

"if we don't defeat RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS we will not be FREE men and women!!"

Terrorism is, indeed, wrong. We should definately try everything within our power to stop it. War was, in this instance, unwarrented. Terrorists care nothing for civilian casualties; they help rather than hinder the cause. What makes us the "good guys" is that we do (or at least should) care about civilian casualties. That's why war is a weapon of last result -- there are always civilian casualties on a grand scale. There were no huge stockpiles of WMDs, there was no feasible nuclear program, and there was no real collaboration between Bin Laden and Hussein. Therefore, other techniques should have been utilized to fight the terrorists.

"HYPOCRITE n : a person who professes religious beliefs, virtures, principles that they do not hold or actually possess.

I wonder if you moron Christian Fascists will ever learn to speak english,...what does the word hypocrite have to do with me?"

The American Heritage Dictionary omits the word "religious" from your definition. Forgiveness, tolerance, and love are all beliefs, virtues, principles.

As a not-so-moronic buddhist liberal with an English degree, let me ask you: these Christians, Muslims, Jews, who you say are so guilty of spewing hate -- do you love them? Do you forgive them? Do you have tolerance for them?

Vicente, we have a lot in common. Can we not discuss phiolsophy, politics, and religion from a rational, not emotional, standpoint? Your point about Michael Moore was well made -- using a man's appearance to discredit his ideas is illogical. Also, you were correct about the pilgrims and the seperation of church and state -- Cromwell's Roundheads wanted to leave for the new world so they would be free to outlaw dancing, among other things. Jefferson was pretty clear in his other writings that "we should erect a mighty wall betwixt religion and the state." Also, even our current conservative Supreme Court upholds the interpretation of the establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment to maintain your right to atheism.

But do we all have to insult each other like 3rd graders on a playground?

P.S.: So's your mother! :lol:

[vicente]

let me ask you: these Christians, Muslims, Jews, who you say are so guilty of spewing hate -- do you love them? ...Do you have tolerance for them?

Of course I love them,...I only despise their perceived beliefs, especially when they directly infringe on me, my family, Country and Humanity.

Vicente, we have a lot in common. Can we not discuss phiolsophy, politics, and religion from a rational, not emotional, standpoint?

You must have me confused with dustwitch and zygoat, both self professed, Bush loving neo-cons who want America to reflect their views, not the views of the US Constitution.

But do we all have to insult each other like 3rd graders on a playground?

No, we do not have to insult each other. However, to follow Spirit without hesitation, we do need to respond to the reflections at hand,...not from our own indoctrinated, predisposed point of view, but responding in-kind, ie., if we look in a mirror with a frown, should we really expect the mirror to reflect a smile?

Zygoat has a long history on this form (since early 2001,...before the new board) of attacking everything not within his neo-con media-ed world view. I wouldn't expect to respond to your "considerate/thoughtful" posts as I respond to his inconsiderate ones.

Did you ever read 'Tilopa's Shoe'?
http://www.ontosophy.com/tilopa.html

:)

[slayer]

[Vicente...]I wonder if you moron Christian Fascists will ever learn to speak english,...what does the word hypocrite have to do with me?
All the following definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition.

hypocrisy 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; esp : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

hypocrite : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or regilion

Notice how hypocrisy needn't be about virtues or religion at all?! It is especially applicable in the feigning of virtues or religions, but that isn't part of the definition.

Notice how a hypocrite is someone who puts on this false appearance (that is, does the feigning)?!

Also notice how the "or" which separates "virtues" and "religion" makes it quite clear that virtues needn't be religious virtues, so one can be a hypocrite about non-religious matters.

It is unimportant whether or not the the words "hypocrisy" and "hypocrite" were first applied to religious matters, because the words have come to take on non-religious connotations, also -- defintions which we're all familiar with.

So what does Vicente do instead of addressing the hypocrite charge? He tries to save face by arguing that the word "hypocrite" has nothing to do with him. And on top of this falseness, he takes the occasion to take a stab a Christians, thereby doubling his ethical crime. Not very Christian of you, Vicente.

Vicente, did you think no one call you on your dishonesty? And I see I'm the not the first to do so about this point. How silly to attempt it.

You are a disingenuous fool.

disingenuous : lacking in candor; also : giving a false apppearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING

fool 1 : a person lacking in judgment or prudence

the slayer of disingenuous fools,

slayer

[vicente]

So what does Vicente do instead of addressing the hypocrite charge?

Slayer, your bizarre diatribe makes about as much sense as Zygoat's. I haven't a hypocritical drop in my body so to say,...why not call me a girl, a monkey, a republican,...they are all just as meaningless.

You are a disingenuous fool

That's a hoot coming from someone who concedes he never had a direct, authentic experience in his perceived life.

And on top of this falseness

Just for you Slayer, I'll repeat Eckhart Tolle's statement:

"unless you learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into the illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself".

Wasn't it with you Slayer whom I recently made a wager if you can prove me wrong regarding what is the past and the Now? But no,...neo-cons do not wish truth, only to sustain their delusions through meaningless psychobabble.

It is obvious that yourself, Zygoat and dustwitch have no interest in anything other then feeding your beliefs. So, as the Buddhist saying goes, "don't throw pearls to swine", I'll bid you three an adios.

:)

[slayer]

Slayer, your bizarre diatribe makes about as much sense as Zygoat's. I haven't a hypocritical drop in my body so to say,...why not call me a girl, a monkey, a republican,...they are all just as meaningless.
So the way you've decided to counter-argue the charge that you're a hypocrite is by simply stating that you're not? Nice strategy. Very compelling. And yet even if you're not a hypocrite, though I think you are, the way in which you've opted to defend yourself against this charge displays your poor thinking, disingenuity, and foolishness, so these charges are accurate regardless of whether or not you're a hypocrite.

That's a hoot coming from someone who concedes he never had a direct, authentic experience in his perceived life.
Tell me, does the hoot make my accusation wrong? Of course not, silly boy, this is just an irrelevant ad hominem argument. And yet I don't recall conceding anything of the kind. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've conceded to feeling pain, and since this counts as a direct, authentic experience, it makes your claim false.

And in response to the charge of being false you give us some obscure drivel. Listen, simple one, make an explicit argument. What does the quote you provided have to do with any of this? Are you saying you weren't being false? No. Are you saying that I've mischaracterized what is false? No. All you've done is provide some obscure quote that you think helps you. It doesn't.

Here is how compelling your moronic quoting is. Here is my response to your thinking that I'm mistaken.

Uhm, Vicente, let me just quote you this: ""unless you learn to recognize the false as the false, there can be no lasting transformation, and you will always be drawn back into the illusion, for that is how the false perpetuates itself" -- by Eckhart Tolle's

You see how utterly idiotically useless it is to give that quote as your defense? Of course you don't. I'll explain. It's because it contributes nothing, as both of us could recommend the other heed its words.

If you could think past your online links, you would have spared us all that nonsense.

your reasoning hero,

slayer

PS. I recall no wager between us. And I doubt we'd have such a wager since I don't think you've even given a coherent account of what this Now is.

[DoWalker]

Originally posted by vicente@Jul 13 2004, 06:52 AM
"Most Christians believe the God and Jesus they invoke while spreading their faith, is Love."
"The highest love a human can awaken to, is the amoral intimacy of Conscious Love."
"I too have met (from their point of view) some very well intented Christians."
Elsewhere on this political page, I found myself arguing that facts are irrefutable, and the only thing that differentiates conservatives and liberals is the spin we put on those facts. (As long as we do, indeed, have the right facts.) Our perspective is what makes belief systems and philosophies. I would like to submit that religions are also based upon the spin put on fundimental truths.

While reading the gnostic gospels, I was struck by how buddhist they seemed to me, especially the seeming emphasis Jesus put on self-knowledge and meditation as a means of discovering the truth of love.

If some Christians, from vicente's perspective, misunderstand their faith, and their interpretation leads them to a truer personal definition of love, then I cannot see the wrong. The same is true for all religions -- for some, Islam is a very loving religion. Yes, there are parts of the Koran that are used to justify terrible attrocity, and yes, parts of the Bible and Torah have been used the same way. This is one reason I chose to veer away from the religions of the book. However, if a person is using their faith as a way to a more loving existence, it cannot be an entirely bad thing.

I realize that this is the political page, not the religion page, but one of the major themes seems to be that differences in religion lead to differences in politics.

Therefore, to return to the original question of violence, I feel that we must blame individuals, not dogma. Hate, anger, and fear are our foes. We can make progress as a species by combatting them, and energies directed at furthering hate and intolerance between religious groups merely holds us back.

[vicente]

Elsewhere on this political page, I found myself arguing that facts are irrefutable

Irrefutable is irrefutable,...it cannot be proved to the contrary, which means it is the truth. If I say it is irrefutable that Xians cannot realize Enlightenment if they remain attached to their definition of love as put forth in their 1 Cor 13:7, that is to say, ""love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", then what I am saying is that belief in that definition is an impenetratable barrier to authentic awareness.

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an
expected payoff.

Is there a more dishonest word than hope?

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition,...an attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Heart? The belief of hope is a barrier which obscures the Heart's inherent unconditional preferencelessness. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or bad.

If our attention is on seeking hope, how are we to ever experience immediacy,...the Now? If we seek hope, our overall frequency pattern will be one of projecting a self-manifested incompleteness, and thus can only attract to itself, that incompleteness. It is no different than a mirror in ones bathroom; if you look into the mirror with a frown, it will not reflect back a smile. In other words, our hope will never be realized as long as we hope; just like joy is never actualized if we are looking for it.

Hope is a condition,...Love is Unconditional. Hope can never enter Love, because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. Thus, if there is one action in the world which could precipitate a tremendum of Collective metanoic proportions, it would be the deletion of the word hope from our vocabulary.

I realize that this is the political page, not the religion page

The insanity of religion permeates everything. This thread is titled My Government and as such, as long as neo-cons and Leftwingers both, continue to force their religion on Americans, religion will come up in nearly every subject.

Hate, anger, and fear are our foes.

Our greatest foe is hope. If we could remove only that one word from our vocabulary, that is, make its use the worse 4 letter word in the world,...peace, love, respect would be in our grasp.

vicente
:)

[todd]

No religion, no faith, no belief, no good or evil, no me nor you, no reality, ...just no.
In fact this is you, your belief, your good and evil, your reality, your faith...your religion.

[vicente]

No religion, no faith, no belief equals the end of falsity, deceit and lies, and the threshold of a Humanity dedicated to compassion, honesty and a pursuit of truth.

:)

[DoWalker]

"Hate, anger, and fear are our foes."

'Our greatest foe is hope. If we could remove only that one word from our vocabulary, that is, make its use the worse 4 letter word in the world,...peace, love, respect would be in our grasp.'

I think you are right in a sense, but I'd like to clarify. The two parents of attatchment are hope and fear -- hope that things will work out, fear that they will not. Fear leads to anger when we percieve something as causing our fear. Repeated anger towards the same subject leads to hate, which is destructive to all.

Hope and fear are two sides of the same coin, because both have to do with anticipation of the future, so I guess you could label regret, which is attatchment to the past, as another enemy.

However, while eschewing attatchment is one of my big goals, I would not characterize the hope that others have as "our greatest foe." If the population of the world stops speaking and acting out of hatred, I'd be satisfied in the short term, while a world without hope would probably foster more violence.

Oh, man -- I'm hoping again, aren't I? Aurgh! :)

[vicente]

However, while eschewing attatchment is one of my big goals, I would not characterize the hope that others have as "our greatest foe." If the population of the world stops speaking and acting out of hatred, I'd be satisfied in the short term, while a world without hope would probably foster more violence.

On the contrary,...without hope, the anticipation of something else, there would be no hate, violence or neo-cons.

Buddha's 2nd Noble Truth: Suffering is a consequence of our desire for things to be other than they are.
In other words, suffering is caused through hope.

Tilopa's Mahamudra says:
15."In the transcending of mind's dualities is Supreme vision;
In a still and silent mind is Supreme Meditation;
In spontaneity is Supreme Activity;
And when all hopes and fears have died, the Goal is reached".

The key to Enlightenment is the Now,...not the perceived now/present, but the actual Now. No matter how media-ted the Sheeple are in believing hope is good; the truth of the word is that hope is always in direct opposition to the Now.

:)

[zygoat]

todd,
defeat..
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: de·feat·ed, de·feat·ing, de·feats
1. To win victory over; beat. 2. To prevent the success of; thwart: Internal strife defeats the purpose of teamwork. 3. Law To make void; annul.
NOUN: 1. The act of defeating or state of being defeated. 2. Failure to win. 3. A coming to naught; frustration: the defeat of a lifelong dream. 4. Law The act of making null and void.

[zygoat]

vicente,
while looking up the word hypocrite,I came upon what might be a synonym for what you are ...ready..
WHITED SEPULCHER..
Definition: [n] a person who is inwardly evil but outwardly professes to be virtuous

Synonyms: whited sepulchre

See Also: dissembler, hypocrite, phoney, phony, pretender

[NeverMind]

i dont like white people in general. Much less whited sepulchres.

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by zygoat@Jul 16 2004, 11:07 PM

WHITED SEPULCHER..
Definition: [n] a person who is inwardly evil but outwardly professes to be virtuous

Synonyms: whited sepulchre

See Also: dissembler, hypocrite, phoney, phony, pretender

yep, sounds like dubya to me

[zygoat]

Nevermind,
then you definitely should not like vicente!!

Sonrisa,
no it sounds like vicente!!

[NeverMind]

DEATH TO WHITEY!

[a random hack]

whitey is dead, silly :)

[NeverMind]

I'll share a little conversation I had with my brother, Andy on the plane from Dallas to Seattle

Andy: "I think George Bush has become THE MAN"
NM: "What?"
Andy: "You know, like STICK IT TO THE MAN! He's become the man!"
NM: "Why, I do believe you're right, you stupid hippie. So when you say 'Death to Whitey' you're really saying 'Death to George Bush'! Brilliant!
Andy: "Yeah"
NM: "Where'd you get that idea?"
Andy: "Kevin Smith"
NM: "You mean Silent Bob?"
Andy: "Yeah, he's talking about Whitey in Wizard magazine (comic book collector magazine)"
NM: "Gimme that."
Andy: "No. I'm still reading it"
NM: "(in Napoleon Dynamite accent) God, Tiffany! You're so freaking fat! I bet if I cut your belly, skittles would come out! I bet you sweat frosting!"
Andy:(laughing) "What?"
NM: "Yeah, that's what I thought."

[a random hack]

:lol: :lol:

NM,
first, why were you flying dallas to seattle?

second,
whitey is already dead.
he's like the legendary chicken with it's head cut off,,,
but, instead of missing his head, he's missing his heart,,,
and, can we find a term less derogatory to men and whiteys?
I could be seen as both, see? :D
don't want to go alienating the whiteys and men, now do we?;)

which reminds me of a thought the other day;
if we regarded other countries as other planets, and their inhabitants, as aliens, would we learn to respec them a lil more, or less?
just that this 'one world' BS doesn't seem to work, noone seems to believe it... <_<
not that it ain't true, mind

[sonrisa]

actually, Random, we already consider y'all aliens-
click here (http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/address.htm)

[NeverMind]

Random:

I was flying to Seattle because I live in the great northwest, I was flying from Dallas because my grandma died and her funeral was in Austin and Dallas is Delta's hub.
Au comtraire, mon ami.
Whitey is alive and well in the WHITE house. It's not that difficult to figure that one out. The MAN is keeping us down!
second,
whitey is already dead.
he's like the legendary chicken with it's head cut off,,,
but, instead of missing his head, he's missing his heart,,,
and, can we find a term less derogatory to men and whiteys?
I could be seen as both, see?
don't want to go alienating the whiteys and men, now do we?

I do not understand your thought process.
Do you honestly find "the Man" and "whitey" derogitory? come on