Sounds like we need a cultural revolution, no? And the first step is love. Just because you love your leaders as fellow people doesn't mean you must follow them. If each individual truly loves themselves and wishes for the unconditional happiness/wellbeing of others (unconditional meaning without the "your not my faith/belief/ect., so you can't possibly be happy" BS), then everyone can learn and cooperate with each other without having to follow anyone.
Our leaders only have as much power as we give them, and considering all the negativity they've wrought, it would be an act of love to stop following them.

as Brave said, the Real World is what you make of it.

Yes !!


I agree the real world is what you make of it but then we must all work together and define what we want.

One man can't do it alone

I want peace and well-being for everyone. I want true justice. I want men to be treated equally if possible

. There will always be some "bad seeds" in society. It happens with primates too

I don't care what people believe as long it doesn't impose on others.

Agreed.

I myself wouldnt underestimate such a force. Love conquers all.



To be honest I dont have unconditional trust in our leaders.


Trusting them isnt our fault. Not taking responsibility for our own actions is our fault though.



If we loved them unconditionally then we would refuse to go to war when they told us to. Unconditional love isnt agreeing with everything but is always standing up for what is right without being bitter.



The bible also says to love your neighbour as yourself. But I do agree with you entirely when you say it isnt an easy task. It is a very difficult task. Me writting a few quick words about it and saying it is my opinion doesnt mean I live up to such values and standards.

Love is the hardest lesson in Christianity; but, for that reason, it should be most our care to learn it.
William Penn (quaker)

carefully listen

love and respect are the same

JC was pointing out that it is such simple for us all to do
to create heaven on earth
or at least learn the truth
that your neighbor[connection] make who you are

ironically love is hard

not because others are a pain

but because we spit at what is most like us
we spit in self hatred

thus the simple truth is

Loving thy neighbor is loving thyself

accept people as they are the only actions you control are your own

Beautifully put.

The essential dichotomy in this debate seems to be the difference between laws and ethics. All groups of more than one eventually create laws for the regulation of society. The more complex the society, the more complex the laws and the richer/ more powerful the lawyer's place in society. Nazi germany and Polpot's khymer rouge had such laws They were rigidly enforced, and created structured societies in the mould their designers wanted.

However, the golden rule and the other commandments; along with many examples from other faiths, and some based on logic alone, are examples of ethical rules. They take into consideration outcomes, balance, and a sense of right or wrong.

There are personal ethical standards which may be held by individuals, societal ethical values encompased by like minded groups or societies, and some which are called universal ethics because they are supposedly universal (in actuality, like all human constructs, they simply reflect values held by the majority of human society.) Most ethical values have two things to recommend them. They have a logical basis, and historical evidence that they actually work to the benefit of individuals and societies.

In addition, faith based ethics imply the authority of a god like figure, but they encompass the other characteristics of ethical systems.

When jesus said, "render unto caesar, that which is caesar's," he was saying that, in civil rules we are bound by the ethical standards of our society, but when he added "and to god, those things which are gods," he meant that where god's laws contradict those of the civil authority ,then god's laws take primacy.

Thus I am required to vote, because it is a civil law in my country, but because i cannot vote on the sabbath I have to organise a postal vote on another day.

However my ethical standards are even more complex. My state says that I must vote, but my personal ethical code says that it is morally wrong to compel people (who may have little knowledge of the candidate,s or what they stand for) to vote. It devalues the vote, personal freedom, and actually harms the integrity of the democracy in which I live. Because i do not wish to contribute to this harm, I have never enrolled to vote, or voted. The day it is made voluntary i will rush out and vote. The irony is that I still have to organise my wife's postal voting which takes some effort, because my duty to her supersedes, my personal desire. (Its all a bit like Asimov's three laws of robotics really, which is not suprising seeing as he devised these as a simple recommended ethical system for humans as much as robots.)

My point is that the golden rule (and in my opinion the 10 commandments) are the prime ethical position. Civil rules should reflect the golden rule and other ethical rules as far as possible; and where ethical considerations conflict with civil laws, then one has a duty to break those laws. (as long as one has taken into consideration the consequences of doing so)

This is the case in any country or society, including those with ethical standards based on different belief systems, but somewhat easier to achieve safely in a democratic country.