MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[Black Diamond]

The point of mentioning armed insurrection was to contrast it to the idea presented in the videos. Non-violent and non-treasonous replacement. Nothing more to that than that.

The only other points I've tried to make, that you and FJ appear in agreement on, is when appealing to the masses, you appeal to something all want in common (govt reform) and don't appeal to something that is divisive (religion) and will hurt the primary cause.

Not sure what the disconnect is. Nothing there says "no religion". Nothing there says one cannot use religion as the basis for one's beliefs. It's as simple as religion is not just not good for the sales pitch being made, but detrimental to it. The idea being to succeed with the goal of reforming government?

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

[Kathianne]

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

I don't have a problem with removal of regions articles from public buildings. OTOH I also have no problem with kids silently saying a prayer OR if a school makes accommodations for Muslim students, they should provide same for any students requesting same time.

[revelarts]

I'm lost on where you and Gunny have gone with this, somehow I've lost clarity on what you're seeking.

Exactly how do you wish to incorporate religious beliefs into laws? Specifically it looks like laws pertaining to lgbq+++? I'm going out on a limb here, but think Gunny and myself would be pretty much in agreement with you on what we'd expect from schools. I'd like this to be addressed by courts in avor of kids benefit, but highly doubt God would be brought up in law or ruling. How do you think it should go, cause on that particular you seem to disagree.

Well from My POV
as i mentioned.
I'm really not saying anything new. just adding historical context.

My initial point was only that the roots of all our freedoms. and the way most conservatives think about what the moral lines are, and what should be legal or not is BASED ... comes from the christian Bible based culture from Europe, filtered through Aquinas, Wycliff, Calvin etc, brought to the U.S. promoted by the Puritans, Baptist, Quakers, Catholics etc, imbibed by Deist and even "infidels"/atheist. who assumed the morals to be true.

And that today we've forgotten those roots and without the knowledge of that root, and more people going back to those roots, the freedoms we ASSUME "everybody knows" are going to slip away.


Having tried to say that a few times and few different ways.
It seems everyones take away from that is that I want everyone to lead every political conversation with that info.
Or that I want to the church to take over gov't or to try and get voters to make baptist doctrine into laws or something.
Things I've never proposed in any way.
But some how it seems people's serious concerns come out with anyone even mentioning the facts of history that religion/Christianity played. still plays.
As the root of western moral & legal standards.

So somehow the response is that religion CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be brought up in politics. And how bad religion is... violent even.
I'm not sure what i'm not communicating clearly and why folks are jumping to every negative conclusion about "religion" after mentioning historical facts.

And as i mentioned before, I want no new laws.
I want REPEAL of new laws so that the old laws stand.
The old laws that ALIGN CLOSER with "religion".

Amazingly it seems that the old laws align closer to "religion" specifically, broad brush Conservative Christianity.
It's almost like the people who wrote them were religious or influenced by religion or maybe even Christian or something.

[fj1200]

... I just wish i could get a strait forward answer to maybe 10%-50% of my questions.

It's hard because you ask between 2x and 10x too many questions and they typically seem rhetorical in nature.

[Gunny]

Well from My POV
as i mentioned.
I'm really not saying anything new. just adding historical context.

My initial point was only that the roots of all our freedoms. and the way most conservatives think about what the moral lines are, and what should be legal or not is BASED ... comes from the christian Bible based culture from Europe, filtered through Aquinas, Wycliff, Calvin etc, brought to the U.S. promoted by the Puritans, Baptist, Quakers, Catholics etc, imbibed by Deist and even "infidels"/atheist. who assumed the morals to be true.

And that today we've forgotten those roots and without the knowledge of that root, and more people going back to those roots, the freedoms we ASSUME "everybody knows" are going to slip away.


Having tried to say that a few times and few different ways.
It seems everyones take away from that is that I want everyone to lead every political conversation with that info.
Or that I want to the church to take over gov't or to try and get voters to make baptist doctrine into laws or something.
Things I've never proposed in any way.
But some how it seems people's serious concerns come out with anyone even mentioning the facts of history that religion/Christianity played. still plays.
As the root of western moral & legal standards.

So somehow the response is that religion CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be brought up in politics. And how bad religion is... violent even.
I'm not sure what i'm not communicating clearly and why folks are jumping to every negative conclusion about "religion" after mentioning historical facts.

And as i mentioned before, I want no new laws.
I want REPEAL of new laws so that the old laws stand.
The old laws that ALIGN CLOSER with "religion".

Amazingly it seems that the old laws align closer to "religion" specifically, broad brush Conservative Christianity.
It's almost like the people who wrote them were religious or influenced by religion or maybe even Christian or something.

You aren't listening. That current law is based on Judeo-Christian morality was dealt with first or second page of the thread. Law is worded in a secular manner as to include all, religious and non-religious. Law based solely on religion would be challenged at every turn by the non-religious (as they already have done and do) simply because it is based on religion.

Nobody's forgetting anything, Rev. It's about addressing issues in appropriate forums. It's about attempting to sell one idea at a time which has a better chance of success than piling a bunch of wants into one package like Congress does. The non-religious are never going to agree that our laws are Judeo-Christian-based, nor to support that they should be. They have message board pages of pages denying any such thing regardless the fact they are wrong.

The non-religious however are part of society and have the same Rights as religious people. As intended. Attempting to sell an idea to the people includes all. Not going to sell much when when your pitch takes away/tramples on the rights of some.

[Gunny]

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

I don't have a problem with removal of regions articles from public buildings. OTOH I also have no problem with kids silently saying a prayer OR if a school makes accommodations for Muslim students, they should provide same for any students requesting same time.

I personally do not care whether or not the Ten Commandments appear as a donated decoration in a courthouse. I have a MAJOR issue with the crybaby fuckwits claiming it somehow infringes on the Establishment clause/their rights. That's stupid leftists in their neverending mission to destroy our history and culture and rewrite it. A basic tenet of totalitarianism, which this thread is about.

"School prayer" amounted to saying a prayer at lunchtime over your Daniel Boone lunchbox. "Karma" got OHare for that shit. If I felt like praying over my lunch at school I'd do it. Fuck them.

[Black Diamond]

I personally do not care whether or not the Ten Commandments appear as a donated decoration in a courthouse. I have a MAJOR issue with the crybaby fuckwits claiming it somehow infringes on the Establishment clause/their rights. That's stupid leftists in their neverending mission to destroy our history and culture and rewrite it. A basic tenet of totalitarianism, which this thread is about.

"School prayer" amounted to saying a prayer at lunchtime over your Daniel Boone lunchbox. "Karma" got OHare for that shit. If I felt like praying over my lunch at school I'd do it. Fuck them.

The argument as you probably know says the more we get God (meaning the Christian one) out of our schools and society and maybe government the more we decline.
I am interested in this stuff but I also feel that my post got to the crux of what you and rev are discussing

[Gunny]

The argument as you probably know says the more we get God (meaning the Christian one) out of our schools and society and maybe government the more we decline.
I am interested in this stuff but I also feel that my post got to the crux of what you and rev are discussing

I saw your post as a side issue as I was not and am not arguing about getting God out of anything. God is always with those of us He is always with. We are not the only members of society. The appeal is societal freedom and reform. reform society and the government follows as reformed members of society fill government seats.

Hard enough to sell for a spoiled society used to instant gratification. Reforming society from the ground up would take awhile. None of us would live to see the outcome. We're just caught in the current struggle.

[Gunny]

Why should religion be kept out of government? Couple of examples. One worse than the other. Hopefully, cooler heads in Israel will prevail.

https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...tion-of-women/

[revelarts]

Why should religion be kept out of government? Couple of examples. One worse than the other. Hopefully, cooler heads in Israel will prevail.

https://thehill.com/opinion/internat...tion-of-women/

who's not listening?

"And as i mentioned before, I want no new laws.
I want REPEAL of new laws so that the old laws stand.
The old laws that ALIGN CLOSER with "religion".

Amazingly it seems that the old laws align closer to "religion" specifically, broad brush Conservative Christianity.
It's almost like the people who wrote them were religious or influenced by religion or maybe even Christian or something."

[revelarts]

...
..
But OK, In away I hear you, I guess my problem with the way it's put is that when people say don't bring "religion" into law.
It basically tells me I'm not allowed to have input into laws. My faith says everything I do or promote has a "religious" connotation.
For many "religious" people that's the general POV.
For at least some Christian people nearly EVERY issue that's brought up as law is a "religious" issue.
Because laws that are important ARE moral
...
My point here I guess is this, on many issues the points turn on someone's understanding of reality. INCLUDING so called "religious" understandings.
People are in different places and we have to be EXTREMELY careful when we say .. "don't bring religion into it" especially if it's "for the greater good".
///
BTW
Hitler wanted to get religion out of politics too, he became the religion.
Stalin wanted to get religion out of politics, the state became the religion.
Mao same as Stalin.
French revolution "Liberty, EQUALITY, Fraternity", we agree on those basics right? They wanted to get religion out of politics too.
didn't turn out so good.
Hitler co-oped the churches (they let themselves be co-oped)
Stalin, Mao, and Robespeire Killed a lot of Clergy... plenty of Roman Catholic priest & nuns.
just sayin'

I don't recall anyone ever saying that.

Government Allegedly Refuses to Let Husband and Wife Participate in Foster Care, Adoption Over Biblical Views: ‘Their Faith Is Not Supportive’
https://www.faithwire.com/2023/08/29...ot-supportive/

Can't have religion or religious people involved in or giving input into laws or gov't controlled activities.
That'b be bad. "mind control", "theocracy" & the history of religious violence you know.

The gov't here is obviously just following the Golden Rule.
those in gov't just want the BEST for children, and religious people are not "supportive".
And the secular gov't officials wouldn't want THIER CHILDREN raised by religious people so .. boom. do unto others.
Golden Rule APPLIED.

Maybe this makes it a little clearer WHY I say, when I hear "you can't have religion in politics" it rubs the wrong way.
It's this kinda crap.
Because it almost means , by default, not only "no religious laws" but no "religious people".

The fact that "no one HERE" has SAID that... or thinks they mean that, is no comfort.
The point is, the logical application of the way it's phrased, and the secular mindset means exclusion.
As a start.

And Please don't tell me that 'the courts will fix it' and this is an extreme case and it will never happen as policy.
I don't want to list the things I've warned of as logical extensions of bad legal/court precedents & ideas that have come to pass.

Ideas have consequences... sometime unintended.. sometimes intended.
If we look at the principals 1st & add pinch of honest understanding of human nature.
We can often get a clue of what direction somethings head towards.

[Gunny]

Government Allegedly Refuses to Let Husband and Wife Participate in Foster Care, Adoption Over Biblical Views: ‘Their Faith Is Not Supportive’
https://www.faithwire.com/2023/08/29...ot-supportive/

Can't have religion or religious people involved in or giving input into laws or gov't controlled activities.
That'b be bad. "mind control", "theocracy" & the history of religious violence you know.

The gov't here is obviously just following the Golden Rule.
those in gov't just want the BEST for children, and religious people are not "supportive".
And the secular gov't officials wouldn't want THIER CHILDREN raised by religious people so .. boom. do unto others.
Golden Rule APPLIED.

Maybe this makes it a little clearer WHY I say, when I hear "you can't have religion in politics" it rubs the wrong way.
It's this kinda crap.
Because it almost means , by default, not only "no religious laws" but no "religious people".

The fact that "no one HERE" has SAID that... or thinks they mean that, is no comfort.
The point is, the logical application of the way it's phrased, and the secular mindset means exclusion.
As a start.

And Please don't tell me that 'the courts will fix it' and this is an extreme case and it will never happen as policy.
I don't want to list the things I've warned of as logical extensions of bad legal/court precedents & ideas that have come to pass.

Ideas have consequences... sometime unintended.. sometimes intended.
If we look at the principals 1st & add pinch of honest understanding of human nature.
We can often get a clue of what direction somethings head towards.

You are using bad government as an example. Isn't this thread about how to overcome bad government? Or it was

You are not keeping it in context of the discussion. I consider the decision you cite to be incorrect, and unconstitutional. It's religious persecution.

When the right people take back government, such a decision is rare, and would more than likely be overturned. Religion belongs to the people. Government belongs to the people. Government does not belong to religion and it should not. That doesn't mean religious people in government cannot make decisions based on their morals/ethics. They are in fact expected to and elected to office based on where they state they stand.

The wrong people are in office. Replacing them with the right people solves ALL people's issues, not just yours nor any other individual's.

[revelarts]

You are using bad government as an example. Isn't this thread about how to overcome bad government? Or it was

You are not keeping it in context of the discussion. I consider the decision you cite to be incorrect, and unconstitutional. It's religious persecution.

When the right people take back government, such a decision is rare, and would more than likely be overturned. Religion belongs to the people. Government belongs to the people. Government does not belong to religion and it should not. That doesn't mean religious people in government cannot make decisions based on their morals/ethics. They are in fact expected to and elected to office based on where they state they stand.

The wrong people are in office. Replacing them with the right people solves ALL people's issues, not just yours nor any other individual's.

I'm partly saying, sort of, what you were saying in the other tread about BEING RAISE with religion.
Even though you and i didn't "believe it" at least I still thought the principals and teaching were basically OK, and a decent moral framework. if not 100% correct.
MOST PEOPLE in the U.S. did.

As a matter of course, not a matter of Gov't mandate. Or religious take over.
the religion and it's morals simply permeated the culture.
the ideas that made the consensus framework of most people's thinking of "right and wrong" was basically Christian.

But now that a growing portion of secular society think Christianity is bad or at least suspect.
why should they adhere to the the general framework of morals in or out of law/politics?

there was NO NEED for Priest, Pastors or "the church" to make the laws because the people all ready GENERALLY believed that there were only 2 genders, and God or somehow we all have the right to freedom of speech, religion. The right not to have our home busted in without warrant, or be tortured, or torture.
Those things were the RIGHT thing to do.
Now it's ANYTHING goes.
Free speech they say is Too dangerous.
So the golden rule says "do unto others" So the thing to do is Protect people from harmful hateful speech that will cause pain and suicide.
Since religion teaches things that are hateful and bigoted by a NON Christian framework, then it must be suppressed... for the greater good.
"do unto others" is the greater law.. so the constitutional protections don't apply Gunny.
except the "promote the general welfare".

bottom line is thsi
the nation had a basic overall POV that was Christian. Now not so much.
and that means what was set up BY people thinking under a general Christian framework (not theocracy) can't be defended fully.
And it is being dismantled, cannibalized.
And assumed as changeable in definition as gender, man & woman.

the whole culture needs to be renewed to the the older way of thinking.. it's roots.
and that has to be organic, not by Christians making new laws or taking over but by MORE people understanding who God is.
because at this point,
Well there's a verse from the old testament that summed up a time when Israel went to crap politically and spiritually.


"...In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes...."

If there is no objective framework for morals then ,at best, the laws will become a mishmash of ideologies and personal visions of right & wrong.
people "doing unto others" what they think is best.

It won't be right people, but people who think they are right.

[fj1200]

Government Allegedly Refuses to Let Husband and Wife Participate in Foster Care, Adoption Over Biblical Views: ‘Their Faith Is Not Supportive’
https://www.faithwire.com/2023/08/29...ot-supportive/

...

Horrible, but apparently MA DCF isn't even following MA law.

Basic rights of foster parents:

• To be treated with dignity and respect.
• To be free from all forms of discrimination in their role as a foster parent.
• To be free from any retaliation for asserting the rights outlined in this new law.
• To have information regarding the foster home (including all household members) be kept confidential.

https://www.mspcc.org/maff/fpbor/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Okay do you not want any religion in government? Is it good the 10 commandments are gone from court houses and the like ? What omar being sworn in on a Quran? Prayer gone from public school ? Are these things good ?

OK, NO BIBLE BUT OK THE QURAN....HMMMMMM
SEE no favoritism, right?
SWEAR THE CAMEL FFKKKERS IN ON THEIR BOOK BUT DO AWAY WITH THE BIBLE. Goooooooood show Dem O Rats....focj..--Tyr