Should the whole planet become secularist by the decree of the U.N.?

This sort of idea can happen for each country because of the concept of atheistic acknowledgement of the assessment of how Religions are committed to their precepts of individual leadership of the military, and common leadership by the Justice and/for financial evolution. The churches may form their own military if the specific countries involved wish so, of course, with the U.N.'s approval.:mickey::juggle:

 

It shouldn't, because then you will have a global dictatorship. However, that is the goal, and the UN will play a major role in achieving that goal.

The UN claims to be "secular," but really they have their own New Age religion.

 

The UN is a nightmare, and this has been explained many times before.


They believe government is above Human Rights, which runs totally contradictory to everything America was founded on.

Read Article 29 of the UN "Human Rights"

 

As much as I think religions are the antithesis of rational, critical thought... I think they also serve a purpose in society and can provide a much-needed counterpoint to the mainstream line of thought.

One example of this is Falun Gong in China... it's a pretty benign religion but it grew to be a political threat to the government and now they're torturing its practitioners to death and selling their organs on the black market.

It's important to have a counterpoint to the government...but I would DEFINITELY support the demise of religious states, including Israel and the Muslim countries. The state needs to be as objective and open as possible.

 

The problem of science being and having an exhaustion for moral ideas is not fulfilled to any concept of a Good moral view of the World. Thus there are engineers and natural scientists for this fulfillment of Needs in the community. So a moral view of the World has no need for the extra watch guard of the religious state, namely organized religion itself. I have never heard of a moral world ideal with the opposite attitude of open objectivity, namely a moral materially situating with constantly improving Wants and Beliefs for the members there. Organized religion could only teach us to love one another, and, yes, "I suppose read us our last Rights for the executed success or failure..." in each one of our lives. A principled idea of secularism is needed. Organized religion is international instead.

So we have environmentally the quest for humanism against I guess religious secularism. Thus religion is cooperative better with scientific environmentalist thinking. All these occupations have to be dispelled by the lesson of Morality from very much a religion. And we have no world ideal de trop, because of Environmentalism. And the rest of it should hinge around the idea of Necessity coming from the duties which after-all exist in material (and financial) situations.

Well thank you, prime minister, for teaching about dying nature in ignorance of what it is about, or what there is to do about It.

And also Nationalism is an out-moded idea.:bobby:

 

So, the only "counterpoint" to government, is other institutions which impose their will through force and violence?


And people here hate on me, for saying we should all live without the threat of force or violence.

The reason my ideology "wont work" in this society, is because we are all pinned against each other; So much so, that people actually believe the only people who can "protect us" from each other, are these institutions which kill, lie and, steal, to impose their will.


But of course, Government has been given a pass to disobey Human Rights, because of the perceived notion that it's all for the "greater good," and not just the will of a few elitist. (like it really is!)

 

What are you even talking about? There are plenty of non-violent religions. There are also some relatively non-violent governments. If you could actually wrap your head around the existence of other countries outside of America, you would understand this.

 

What is the mainstream line of thought exactly?

 

John Kerry has that one. No judgment on Love for war issues. Greed leads to less work not more on environmental issues. Which is all morally objective and intolerable for the values of any self-organized justice minded anti-cartesian.

 

No I just wanted fraggle.

 

Politics has nothing to do with the generation gap; the generation gap has to do with politics. Nia, nia,nia, ... nia.

 

I know there are other countries than America. Obviously. However, no government is non violent, and, you must know that yourself; (since you used the word "relatively.")

In fact, the government would have no legitimate purpose, if they didn't have to ability to impose their will through force.

There are times when we must impose force- But, it is scarcely needed, as opposed to how much governments use it. For example, there is only 1 country in the World, which allows people to choose what drugs they wish to ingest; Every other country puts peaceful people in PRISONS, as an alleged excuse to "stop drug use."



You're the perfect example, of those individuals I mentioned, which give government a pass; Would it be alright, if I came to your job and stole 1/5th of your paycheck? What if I did it to help other people? Obviously, it's wrong. However, when Government does it, people like you suddenly don't look at it as force.

The government would be rendered obsolete, if we could learn to live together, without force.

The idea that government is some great protector, or a democratic institution built around the people, is the lie that has perpetuated the allowance of this type of violence, and the imposition of force into our personal lives.


As far as religions go, which don't impose violence? Buddhism? I know you're not talking about Christianity, Judism, Islam or, Scientology! Btw, don't forget, I also said "lie and steal."

And the point I was making, is that certain individuals, (like you,) believe that people cannot survive without government, so, it's okay for them to impose their will by force; even if it destroys the lives of millions of other individuals at home and abroad.

 

Fraggle rock votes liberal for American Imperialism. as much as he voted conservative for the nationalism of democracy by advance peace settlements.

 

Catholics who immigrate to the US from Poland or Cuba, speak of the Church as you mention; a counterpoint to autocracy.

There was a thread on here about Irish Catholicism; The suppression of the religion made is stronger as a cultural touch point.

 

I'm not really talking about any line of thought/ideology in particular... I just mean that religions provide alternate perspectives and can be used as tools in organizing large amounts of people, helping things to be more diverse and democratic. This isn't so much a problem in the west as it is in less open societies.

Ultimately, it's probably smarter for a government to make concessions than to clamp down, unless it's the tea party or the KKK or something... but where that isn't possible I think it's important to have these kinds of organizations to affect change.

 

I'm tired of having this conversation. If you're unwilling to understand why wealth redistribution is important for an egalitarian society, then I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I don't agree with everything the government does, and I don't agree with everything they spend my tax money on-- I have said this multiple times.

I just don't think that the way to cure your headache is to cut your head off.

Buddhism has a really good track record... but there are many different sects in all religions.

People can survive without government. In fact, they survived without government for well over 100,000 years. But we've achieved a lot more with governments than we ever did without one.

The reason that millions of people didn't suffer when there was no government is that the global human population was much much smaller, and losing millions would have wiped out the entire species. It was also impossible because the technology to kill millions didn't exist, and neither did most other technology that we are currently taking for granted at this very moment.

You could survive without a government, but I really don't think that anyone would prosper.

 

You call for "wealth redistribution," yet you don't even understand the concept of money. Wealth redistribution does not work, since the money the state robs from people does not actually go to helping those in need, but merely increasing the size and scope of the state as a vehicle of control. This is what we have been seeing over the past several decades, yet how come the problems only get worse and there is more poverty than ever before?

You clearly place a lot of your trust in those with ungodly amounts of power.

 

You claim that wealth redistribution does not work, but then point out that they are not actually redistributing the wealth.

Just because the USA does not use their tax dollars efficiently to help people does not mean that the concept of taxation is inherently flawed. It seems to have worked out quite well for quite a few countries around the world (Sweden, as an example).

 

The thing is, governments create problems to give themselves more power. This is a fact. There is really no such thing as wealth redistribution (as least not downward redistribution), because the money always goes to the state and not those in need. Even still, wealth redistribution does not address the issues that causes there to be a need for such redistribution of wealth in the first place. Most of those calling for wealth redistribution don't even want to look at how the monetary system is a product of pure manipulation, which is actually designed to cause such problems pertaining to wealth disparity in the first place. The Scandinavian countries are often touted as being the socialist model for the world, but if you talk to some of the people living there, many are not happy with it. It's simply sold by the media as being some utopian society which the US should strive to be more like. Things were actually pretty good in America when it was more capitalist, as compared to the monopoly capitalist-socialist-coporatist hybrid system we have today. Also, the Scandinavian countries are very different from the US in size, cultural makeup, and other things.

 

Okay, so you don't agree with it, yet, you support it. That makes a lot of sense.

I don't support or endorse things I don't agree with.

I wouldn't equate absolute government power with a "headache;" That's a foolish comparison. Government has been trampling on our Human Rights, perpetually starting wars, killing innocent citizens and, wasting trillions of dollars to further their influence, among other countries and elite corporations. A headache can be cured, we're talking about something that when left alone, will just get worse and worse, until there's a Government Camera and Cop in everyone's house, to ensure we don't disobey their over-bearing and insane laws!

The advancement of mankind, can't logically be attributed to government expansion. In fact, I'd argue that government keeps us down. Throughout the history of the world, only government was allowed to have money and power, and everyone else would work for pennies on the dollar.

Capitalism is what created the Middle Class, and the American government was based off of individual freedom.

The problem is, Leftist always equate government with things like the interstate highway system, while failing to mention their terrible and corrupt history of meaningless wars, overspending, lying to the citizens, pushing alternative motives and, murdering innocent women and children.

These are serious problems, and the few good things government has done in the past 200 years, do not near outweigh all the bad things they have done. We are losing our Rights to be free and independent through this idea that Government is going to protect us, build us up and, help us when we're sick or hurt. The fallacy in this thinking is that no government has been truly for the people. Every government in history has lied, killed and, stolen, in order to maintain power, which rightfully belongs to the citizens who occupy the country.


I don't take technology for granted..

I disagree. I think it's just the opposite. I don't think government encourages growth, slows drug use, protects people from violence or, help more than they hurt. Trillions of dollars are wasted, while a small amount of that actually gets back to the people.

It's government control which is holding us down. I live in NY, one of the most Liberal states in the country- we also have higher taxes than anywhere in the world, and constant murders, robberies and, drug use.

This is directly caused by government prohibition and attempt to control us. No one around here has guns, so they'd all cower in fear if (IE) a Mexican Drug Cartel came to Time Square with an AK47.

"Government can't even keep drugs out of the prisons; so, how do they think they are going to solve the problem, by making all of America a prison?" ~Dr. Ron Paul~


I agree with Pressed Rat, you just put far too much faith, in people with far too much power. People can keep themselves safe, and do well for themselves, if only we weren't controlled by greedy elitist scumbags.