MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[Gunny]

in personal relations absolutely.

in politics, mmm, sometimes the guns come out.


or help create it.

The left is trying to convert everyone. It's very mission minded. and does not tolerate heretics.
I think we should be at least as honest and fervent in trying to create people who agree with us at a deep level as well.
But FAR more tolerant.

but hey maybe that's out of line.

That would be the point to this entire discussion? A plan to reform government from the ground up necessitates reforming society from the ground up as well. It requires aware people to participate in order for it to work.

You base selling that goal without riders/earmarks/whatever you wish to call duplicitous motives; especially arguably one of the most controversial, individual topics there is. Success in reforming society, regaining control of government and freedoms surrendered for protection brings with it freedom of religion. the above bolded statement of your allows none.

[Black Diamond]

I'd be all about teachers not being allowed to teach this woke crap. Any way to do that besides by decree ?

[revelarts]

The sell is reforming government to take back freedoms lost, which includes religion. Reestablishing government based on a religion does not necessarily include freedom. In fact, history shows the opposite. You mention totalitarians as your examples to support your argument, but how many people have been murdered in the name of an organized religion throughout history? Just as many if not more.

Nothing in that statement says a word about how you make your choices, via religion or not. The thought police are who you are trying to get rid of, not replace. If teh state allows no god but itself, you are free to choose nothing.

Trying to replace the thought police? really? is that what you think i'm proposing?
...
What is it that I've said about Christian INFLUENCE on laws that'd make you think it made sense to bring up the idea that I or other christians would support (or lead to) thought police, oppression and religious mass murder?

History?
History of the U.S. shows that?
Where exactly? (prohibition? you think we'll try that again?)

what's this fear really about folk?
I've being very strait forward, be nice to get a candid reply.

[fj1200]

Trying to replace the thought police? really? is that what you think i'm proposing?
...
What is it that I've said about Christian INFLUENCE on laws that'd make you think it made sense to bring up the idea that I or other christians would support (or lead to) thought police, oppression and religious mass murder?

History?
History of the U.S. shows that?
Where exactly? (prohibition? you think we'll try that again?)

what's this fear really about folk?
I've being very strait forward, be nice to get a candid reply.

IMO you keep overstating this "fear." It's not fear, it's the reality that in an increasingly secular US that religious arguments are not going to fly; and in my opinion aren't really necessary anyway. I'm almost positive that anyone here would welcome a religious revival in this country. It's just that laws are not going to lead the way; at best laws will follow any such revival.

[Kathianne]

IMO you keep overstating this "fear." It's not fear, it's the reality that in an increasingly secular US that religious arguments are not going to fly; and in my opinion aren't really necessary anyway. I'm almost positive that anyone here would welcome a religious revival in this country. It's just that laws are not going to lead the way; at best laws will follow any such revival.

If people were more moral, in practice, fewer laws would be necessary.

[Gunny]

Trying to replace the thought police? really? is that what you think i'm proposing?
...
What is it that I've said about Christian INFLUENCE on laws that'd make you think it made sense to bring up the idea that I or other christians would support (or lead to) thought police, oppression and religious mass murder?

History?
History of the U.S. shows that?
Where exactly? (prohibition? you think we'll try that again?)

what's this fear really about folk?
I've being very strait forward, be nice to get a candid reply.

I don't know, Rev. What IS your fear about? This is a political science discussion you cannot keep your religion out of. Are you afraid that freedom from totalitarianism is going to deter your right to religious freedom? To the contrary. You wish to interject your religion where it doesn't belong. Religion belongs in the hearts and minds of Man, not the mechanizations of government.

It is one of the most divisive arguments among people. Look at this thread. We can't get past you trying to force your religion on everyone. Thread progression has come to a halt. And you somehow think trying to sell infusing religion into government reform is going to end any differently? Dead on arrival.

[revelarts]

I don't know, Rev. What IS your fear about? This is a political science discussion you cannot keep your religion out of. Are you afraid that freedom from totalitarianism is going to deter your right to religious freedom? To the contrary. You wish to interject your religion where it doesn't belong. Religion belongs in the hearts and minds of Man, not the mechanizations of government.

It is one of the most divisive arguments among people. Look at this thread. We can't get past you trying to force your religion on everyone. Thread progression has come to a halt. And you somehow think trying to sell infusing religion into government reform is going to end any differently? Dead on arrival.

Without religion, freedom is dead on arrival. It has NO meaning except... what the state gives it.
That's what i'm afraid of.

strait forward enough?

what freedoms do you think you'll lose if i promote my beliefs? where you think it "does not belong"?

[Kathianne]

Without religion, freedom is dead on arrival. It has NO meaning except... what the state gives it.
That's what i'm afraid of.

strait forward enough?

what freedoms do you think you'll lose if i promote my beliefs? where you think it "does not belong"?

Not sure we're talking about the same topic anymore. You have every right to your region and to speak of and practice such. 1st amendment.

No one here is saying differently. What I for one would have a problem with is some push by a religious or even anti religious group pushing for laws created in their vision. I don't care if Christian, Muslim, Catholic, or something else.

[Gunny]

Without religion, freedom is dead on arrival. It has NO meaning except... what the state gives it.
That's what i'm afraid of.

strait forward enough?

what freedoms do you think you'll lose if i promote my beliefs? where you think it "does not belong"?

Think in context with the thread. Freedom has never had any more meaning than what the State gives it. Freedom does not require religion in any way, shape nor form.

You tell me what freedoms we have lost, Rev. Any other time you're bouncing off the walls about it.

[revelarts]

Think in context with the thread. Freedom has never had any more meaning than what the State gives it. Freedom does not require religion in any way, shape nor form.
You tell me what freedoms we have lost, Rev. Any other time you're bouncing off the walls about it.

well gunny,
in the context of the thread I just wish i could get a strait forward answer to maybe 10%-50% of my questions.
that'd be nice. rather than these dodgy comments & deflections to questions I've never asked and things i never siad.


And if you think we haven't lost any freedoms, what the heck do you keep talking about "restoring" ...."restoring" "without bringing religion into it"?
"restoring" what exactly?

[Gunny]

well gunny,
in the context of the thread I just wish i could get a strait forward answer to maybe 10%-50% of my questions.
that'd be nice. rather than these dodgy comments & deflections to questions I've never asked and things i never siad.


And if you think we haven't lost any freedoms, what the heck do you keep talking about "restoring" ...."restoring" "without bringing religion into it"?
"restoring" what exactly?

That's your problem. You DO get factual, straight-forward responses. You just don't like the answers so you reword your same questions.

Did you watch any of the videos or read any of the threads? What do you suppose the main topic is about, your continual rabbit holes and trying to make it personal aside?

Questions to ask yourself as they pertain to the topic:

Are you satisfied with government in its current form? Do you think government is in any way diminishing your rights under law? Do you think government is leaning in a totalitarian direction?

The narrator presents ideas and methods to reset government, by the people, by non-violent, non-treasonous means.

You got a better idea? Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people.

Most of all, it's an intellectual exercise, not a competition

[revelarts]

And if you think we haven't lost any freedoms, what the heck do you keep talking about "restoring" ...."restoring" "without bringing religion into it"?
"restoring" what exactly?

That's your problem. You DO get factual, straight-forward responses. You just don't like the answers so you reword your same questions.
Did you watch any of the videos or read any of the threads? What do you suppose the main topic is about, your continual rabbit holes and trying to make it personal aside?

Questions to ask yourself as they pertain to the topic:
Are you satisfied with government in its current form? Do you think government is in any way diminishing your rights under law? Do you think government is leaning in a totalitarian direction?
The narrator presents ideas and methods to reset government, by the people, by non-violent, non-treasonous means.
You got a better idea? Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people.
Most of all, it's an intellectual exercise, not a competition

so
"Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people."


OK, so you didn't name anything to be "restored" except
it's that the current controllers need to be out of power, and the power returned to "the people"
agreed.

And from earlier
talking to people about religion will turn people off so don't so it, and religion has no place in politics...just your heart.
and religion leads to violence and thought police... except in your heart i guess.

And nothing short of violence will restore "the people" to power.


I think I got it.

[Kathianne]

so
"Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people."


OK, so you didn't name anything to be "restored" except
it's that the current controllers need to be out of power, and the power returned to "the people"
agreed.

And from earlier
talking to people about religion will turn people off so don't so it, and religion has no place in politics...just your heart.
and religion leads to violence and thought police... except in your heart i guess.

And nothing short of violence will restore "the people" to power.


I think I got it.

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.

[Gunny]

so
"Nothing else short of winning an armed conflict is going to move the people currently controlling government out of power and return it rightfully to the people."


OK, so you didn't name anything to be "restored" except
it's that the current controllers need to be out of power, and the power returned to "the people"
agreed.

And from earlier
talking to people about religion will turn people off so don't so it, and religion has no place in politics...just your heart.
and religion leads to violence and thought police... except in your heart i guess.

And nothing short of violence will restore "the people" to power.


I think I got it.

Not even close.

[Gunny]

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.

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?