Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ChloeB

Cognitive dissonance

58 posts in this topic

For what it's worth, I think gay marriage should be allowed in our world. Our society (my Australian, your American) is not a Christian society, it is a secular one. And even the Bible tells us that we are strangers in a strange land, aliens without a true home of our own (until we reach heaven). So why oh why should we force a secular world to bow to Christian morality? If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum tomorrow to vote on the issue of gay marriage, I would vote "Yes", provided that a church who disagrees with homosexual relationships has the Right to not officiate such a ceremony if it goes against their beliefs. Though to be fair, I don't know if many of my fellow Christians at church would take that same action. But considering only 2% of Australians attend church regularly, I doubt church attendance would have a large bearing on the outcome of any vote on the matter.

I've never lived in a society where gun ownership was acceptable. In Australia, it's been illegal for as long as I've been alive. I don't believe a population deserves the Right to gun ownership. If the Australian government were to hold a Referendum on gun ownership, in contrast to my stance on gay marriage, I would vote "No", we should not have gun ownership. Interesting contrast here, a Christian against gun ownership and for gay marriage. This has nothing to do with my morality. My morality governs my own actions, and no further than that. My reasoning is based entirely on secular ideals. People who don't adhere to my Christian morality shouldn't be forced to adhere to it.

A libral Christian... What do you know? Never met one before. Refreshing actually, I have always thought the aggressiveness of some Christians was a glaring contradiction to what Jesus taught.

Australia has a pop around 22 mil. Just California is 38 mil. Australia does not have the same urban socio economics and gang problems not to mention a neighbor home to cartels and other types of chaos. Our population is huge and diverse.

Unfortunately most of us ( though a dwindling number) are not willing to be pacifist in a Mexican stand off.

We also want our country to be a free country where government does not tell us what to do ( within reason) but we tell it what to do. It was founded on that idea. Does it come with consequences... Absolutely everything does. But as I have mentioned, in America, you are more likely yo die from driving to work than a gun shot wound. Would you vote 'yes' to ban automobiles? What about cheeseburgers or jackdanials.

The issue is less about guns themselves, but more about erroding of freedoms.

We protect our presidents with.... guns.

We protect our congressmen with .... guns.

We protect our money with..... Guns.

We protect priceless art, artifacts, actors, actresses, singers, sporting events, important buildings, gold, silver, platinum, our police station, entrences to national parks, borders, etc etc....

With ...... Guns. Then we protect our children with a sign that says " this is a gun free zone", and legislators who have ARMED guards for themselves and their families want to take guns out of my home. sometimes I can barely believe that such hypocracy exists.

After running a few numbers I have found that any civilian owned gun in the united states is five times more likely to be used for violence than in Australia. http://www.gunpolicy.org/

This says nothing about guns, austrailians own them to. To me it highlights the fact it's simply more violent in America we have got sprawling inner cities and socioeconomic problems that involve more people that even live in Australia. To Deni the law abiding citizens access to guns is send them out as sheep amoungst the wolves. I will give up mine, when the gang members 3 exits down the hwy give up theirs. ;)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Then don't you wonder why we don't see efforts comparable to their massive anti-gay marriage efforts to make getting remarried after a divorce illegal as well if it's proper for them to legislate against sins clarified in the bible? I don't see any of them caring about that at all. Isn't that a threat to the biblical definition of marriage as well and 2nd marriages after divorce deemed sinful and even adulterous (and adultery is on the BIG 10, a boast gay marriage and homosexuality can't even claim)? Where is their outrage and efforts for that?

A couple of things here.

Although you don't see Christians on TV or even on college campi or in front of divorce lawyers offices protesting divorce, there was Christian opposition to the lossening of the divorce laws and the cultural shift that occurred, what was it 20? 30? years ago, but conservative Christians back then did not really go in for demonstrations too much, they wrote letters to their congressmen and they preached against it from the pulpit. We still do! There are still churches which will not allow divorcees to serve in any ministry position, much less have a pastor who is divorced. Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean the opposition doesn't exist.

Also, most Christians I know are not rabid homosexual haters. I really can't recall the last time I had a conversation about homosexuality with my Christian friends. It's not really a big issue, and I live in a VERY conservative part of Texas. The only time I have extended discussions on homosexuality is when I post responses on UM.

Christians were not the ones who made "same-sex marriage" a major media topic, homosexuals did. So, for proponents of same-sex marriage to then turn around and act indignant about the reaction of Christians is more than a little disingenuous.

Personally, I agree with PA. The US is NOT a Christian nation, it is a secular nation and it's Constitutional protection should apply equally to all citizens. It is my opinion that the government should never have gotten involved in defining marriage or providing particular benefits or protections for married people. As far as gun ownership is concerned I could not disagree more with PA. I agree with Seeker.

They'll use any excuse to get their religion written into law. I can't even tell you how many people here were saying that keeping prayer and God out of the classroom is responsible for Sandy Hook. That is how crazy they are! They could have God and prayer in that school all day, that kid didn't even go to that school. What is it like some prayer protective force field they think will happen? I am just dumbfounded by them. Religion and God doesn't make mentally ill people not mentally ill, but they try to say if he'd had God, he would have never done that, but truth is, sometimes mentally ill people are made worse by religious preoccupation.

The thing is Chloe, "They' are just like you or anyone else, "They" are humans, "They" fear and distrust what is different, "They" try to keep what they fear at bay. So, please don't make it seem like "They" are so amazingly different and horrible. If Buddhists were the majority in the US, then they would be trying to sway legisltation to favor their views, if Muslims, were, they also would be doing the same thing, ditto for Druids, Wiccans, animists, and even atheists. Edited by IamsSon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why or what the connection is with people who are most passionate about their freedoms, their right to bear arms, on and on and on about not getting their guns taken away, are the first ones to be more than happy to demand freedoms be taken away from others because they object to it based on their "belief in the bible"? How hypocritical is it to demand and claim you are entitled to the freedoms that you want for yourself and you seem to understand that, but for someone else, their rights are not near as important? And I'm surrounded by these people and more than fed up with them and to try to reason with them and they've got their bible, nothing else matters that you say, no amount of reasoning and I read something today and I think this is the core root of it: "If you can reconcile all the direct kill orders God gives in the bible with 'Thou shalt not kill', you can rationalize anything." And it's true, to be on board with that belief, you absolutely have this sort of cognitive dissonance ingrained within you or it would crumble and there's just no hope in trying to reason with a person who holds on to that so dearly. I used to defend people who believe in it, live and let live, everyone has their right to their religious beliefs, but these people I'm taking up for are the same people who are so quick to rip away rights from other's that I care about, and it's not the other way around, but they play victim and say don't stereotype me for my beliefs, but what you can't get through their thick heads are their beliefs are fine for THEM, they have no business saying their beliefs in a very questionable book has any bearing on anyone else, but THEM, the person who freely chooses to follow and gamble on that book being truly of God. I'm done with it though, I'm convinced the book and the belief is toxic and the cognitive dissonance required to follow along with it warps people minds and maybe some good has been a result, but I think people are capable of that regardless and when it comes down to it, I think the world would be better off without it, period. I'm convinced of it now. I think trying to reconcile things like God saying kill, kill, kill and then thou shalt not kill has poisoned people's mind at a very fundamental level until they can justify anything when they have convinced themselves God is behind them. I'm done, when you start using your freedoms to rob other's of their's, I hope your's is the one that goes away and yes, I'm mad, forgive me for the rant.

Taking your rant, and going one step further, I find christian culture in the United States to be extremely wierd. It is the christians who want to bear arms! It is the christians, who want a conservative government, but according what the word actually means, they are not being conservative at all.

I can understand their stance on gay marriage, but what they don't seem to understand is that, that is something that should have no influence on a secular government, which in itself goes a long way to protect them as christians. As a christian myself, I am very wary of religion dominating in government, it can easily be led into areas religion has no place being a part of. That is what effectively destroyed the early church, it became a government instead of a faith.

Most christians here in Portugal and I am talking of fundamentalist, Protestant christianity, are SOCIALISTS... Guns are for the police and criminals, honest citizens have no need of them, that is why a police force exists.. to protect and serve its citizens.

Christians in the United States seem to have forgotten their foundations in this respect of politics, they are there to aid and help others, they are there to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, how is it that they can have political affiliations with principles that effectively close the door on these things. They are against helping the poor, they are against the government relieving suffering among the afflicted, they are against people having better and more quality health care under government....

In terms of ideaologies they have their heads screwed on the wrong way...christians should be natural socialists, yet here they are defending the opposite of what they believe in and preach-.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Taking your rant, and going one step further, I find christian culture in the United States to be extremely wierd. It is the christians who want to bear arms! It is the christians, who want a conservative government, but according what the word actually means, they are not being conservative at all.

I can understand their stance on gay marriage, but what they don't seem to understand is that, that is something that should have no influence on a secular government, which in itself goes a long way to protect them as christians. As a christian myself, I am very wary of religion dominating in government, it can easily be led into areas religion has no place being a part of. That is what effectively destroyed the early church, it became a government instead of a faith.

Most christians here in Portugal and I am talking of fundamentalist, Protestant christianity, are SOCIALISTS... Guns are for the police and criminals, honest citizens have no need of them, that is why a police force exists.. to protect and serve its citizens.

Christians in the United States seem to have forgotten their foundations in this respect of politics, they are there to aid and help others, they are there to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth, how is it that they can have political affiliations with principles that effectively close the door on these things. They are against helping the poor, they are against the government relieving suffering among the afflicted, they are against people having better and more quality health care under government....

In terms of ideaologies they have their heads screwed on the wrong way...christians should be natural socialists, yet here they are defending the opposite of what they believe in and preach-.

I am constantly surprised to find Christians who adopt liberal/leftist values since they are unbiblical.

Liberalism at it's core has the belief that man is inherently altruistic, that if given the opportunity man will do the right thing; that the only reason people don't do the right thing is because external pressures prevent them from doing so (they are simply poor victims that need to be protected) and that those who are able to overcome these pressures should be given the authority necessary to provide the protection for the victims (those in government are all altruistically simply seeking to help those not as smart, not as strong, not as capable as themselves). This is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches. Man is inherently self-interested and if given the opportunity will do what's best for him or what he perceives to be best for him.

What do we see in the Bible regarding government? God chose Israel to be His people, He was to be their direct and only ruler, but no they wanted a king and a government like the other countries around. So what happened? Read Kings I&II and Chronicles I&II, they got exactly what they wanted, a government like the one the other countries had: the kings and their administrators took advantage of the people, dispensed justice unfairly, helping their friends and disregarding the widows and orphans.

Furthermore, given that Christians in the US not only feed the poor and help the unemployed in the US, but also donate MILLIONS of dollars to help worldwide, it is incredibly innacurate to say we are against helping the poor. What we oppose is government's attempt to make people dependent on it.

Christians should be naturally conservative, questioning the motives of those seeking more and more power and authority for themselves. Government is not an entity, it is not a being, it is a group of inherently self-interested people seeking power and wealth for themselves using the excuse that they want to help others as a means to achieve their goal.

As to the guns issue. The United States is based on the ideal that GOD gives man rights, and that those rights need to be protected from government's attempt to limit those rights. American Christians believe God gives man the right to defend himself, his family, his neighbors and his property, and that he has the right to access the tools that make this possible. Since guns are available, man has the right to own guns. I fervently pray I will never have to use my guns to injure or kill someone in order to protect someone else, but I believe that just like The Lord has given us the ability to develop life-saving medicines, and equipment so that we would use them to preserve health and life when possible (all of the while acknowledging He is the Creator and the Healer and the one whose will be done) He has also provided us with the way to develop the means to defend ourselves against those who seek to cause us harm (all the while acknowledging He is the Creator, and the Life-giver, and the one whose will be done).

I don't know about Portugal, but in the US, there is case law proving that the role of the police is NOT to protect individual citizens, but to protect "society" whatever that may mean. Additionally, police usually don't show up in time to prevent a crime, they show up after a crime is either in progress or has been committed.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am constantly surprised to find Christians who adopt liberal/leftist values since they are unbiblical.

Liberalism at it's core has the belief that man is inherently altruistic, that if given the opportunity man will do the right thing. This is the antithesis of what the Bible teaches. Man is inherently self-interested and if given the opportunity will do what's best for him or what he perceives to be best for him.

What do we see in the Bible regarding government? God chose Israel to be His people, He was to be their direct and only ruler, but no they wanted a king and a government like the other countries around. So what happened? Read Kings I&II and Chronicles I&II, the kings and their administrators took advantage of the people, dispensed justice unfairly, helping their friends and disregarding the widows and orphans.

Furthermore, given that Christians in the US not only feed the poor and help the unemployed in the US, but also donate MILLIONS of dollars to help worldwide, it is incredibly innacurate to say we are against helping the poor. What we oppose is government's attempt to make people dependent on it.

Christians should be naturally conservative, questioning the motives of those seeking more and more power and authority for themselves. Government is not an entity, it is not a being, it is a group of inherently self-interested people seeking power and wealth for themselves using the excuse that they want to help others as a means to achieve their goal.

As to the guns issue. The United States is based on the ideal that GOD gives man rights, and that those rights need to be protected from government's attempt to limit those rights. American Christians believe God gives man the right to defend himself, his family, his neighbors and his property, and that he has the right to access the tools that make this possible. Since guns are available, man has the right to own guns.

I don't know about Portugal, but in the US, there is case law proving that the role of the police is NOT to protect individual citizens, but to protect "society" whatever that may mean. Additionally, police usually don't show up in time to prevent a crime, they show up after a crime is either in progress or has been committed.

Hi Iams,

Personally I don't see it that way, yes man is inherently self seeking that is absolutely true, but it is also a matter of ideaology more than biblical belief that the government doesn't protect us. I personally believe in a strong government, but also a government that can be brought down if it misbehaves, that can only happen in democracy. I know for a fact that most Americans don't like the word socialism, for them it invokes some strange imagery, but it is that ideology that most closely resembles christian attitudes and thinking, this is the very opposite of what the traditional christian politcal movement in the US believes.

I don't know about the details in the US, but very few people enjoy "needing" government assistance, they would rather have a job. There are always a few leeches in every society, but the minority do not and should not reflect the majority.

I don't see the biblical christians carrying guns around, or their equivalent for that time. I don't accept christianity as an excuse to carry guns which are just as likely to be used against the owner or others as in self defense. It is not that owning a gun is wrong, but there are guns, and then there are guns.... what private citizen needs a military automatic or semi-automatic weapon?

It truthfully can only really be used to kill people.

PS - Here is an article that actually shares the views that I'm trying to transmit in my statements, it makes for some deep reflection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/from-jesus-socialism-to-capitalistic-christianity/2011/08/12/gIQAziaQBJ_blog.html

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi Iams,

Personally I don't see it that way, yes man is inherently self seeking that is absolutely true, but it is also a matter of ideaology more than biblical belief that the government doesn't protect us.

I didn't say the government doesn't protect it's citizens, obviously it does. The thing is, if you look at human history, including Biblical history, the one thing government doesn't protect the people from is itself. Read any of the minor prophets, why was God punishing Israel? Because the government was not treating people justly, because the kings were not following God, they were taking care of themselves and their friends, the priests were "Yes, men" telling the king whatever he wanted to hear and they were taking care of themselves and not the people. Hugo Chavez's democratically elected government took such good care of the people that now there are more poor and poorer people than before it began taking care of them, electrical power is even less trustworthy than it was before his democratically elected socialist government took over, gasoline is more expensive, food is scarcer and more expensive, but Chavez died with $2 Billion more than he had before he began taking care of the poor. Have elections been fair in that country since Chavez strengthened the government? Not at all. Has the peoples' vote changed that government? Not at all.
I personally believe in a strong government, but also a government that can be brought down if it misbehaves, that can only happen in democracy. I know for a fact that most Americans don't like the word socialism, for them it invokes some strange imagery, but it is that ideology that most closely resembles christian attitudes and thinking, this is the very opposite of what the traditional christian politcal movement in the US believes.
You say you believe in a strong government that can be taken down by the people in a democratic way, please explain how a government that decides it will no longer pay attention to the will of the people will be taken down by a vote. When was the last time a despotic government was overthrown by a vote?
I don't know about the details in the US, but very few people enjoy "needing" government assistance, they would rather have a job. There are always a few leeches in every society, but the minority do not and should not reflect the majority.
Maybe Portuguese people are just better, but that's not what the news coming out of Portugal indicate, so I will venture to say there are as many leeches in Portugal as in the US and if you don't realize that, then you are fooling yourself. Sure, there are people who do not enjoy having to take government assistance and they find ways to get off it, but there are just as many that somehow never seem to get off, or if they do, it's not for long. Given your government's financial woes, I am willing to bet there are leeches in Portugal just like in the US.

When I was a college student I spent some time working as a substitute teacher. I was already a commissioned lieutenant in the Army and would be going off to training as soon as I finished my studies, so I already had a very military appearance, including the short sharp haircut. The students of one of the classes I substituted in asked me why my hair was so short and I told them. So, then I began asking them what they planned to do. One student told me he was planning to live on unemployment like his father and let me support him! Jor-el, there ARE leeches. It's human nature. It's sin nature.

I don't see the biblical christians carrying guns around, or their equivalent for that time. I don't accept christianity as an excuse to carry guns which are just as likely to be used against the owner or others as in self defense. It is not that owning a gun is wrong, but there are guns, and then there are guns.... what private citizen needs a military automatic or semi-automatic weapon?
I seem to recall Jesus disciples carried swords, which are the equivalent of today's guns. As Christians are we not supposed to discourage others from giving in to temptation? Believe me, any would-be thief, who attempts to enter my house will be very quickly discouraged when he sees I am well armed.
It truthfully can only really be used to kill people.
That's where you're completely wrong. A well armed society is a polite society.
PS - Here is an article that actually shares the views that I'm trying to transmit in my statements, it makes for some deep reflection.

http://www.washingto...iaQBJ_blog.html

Here is an article that explains my views. Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why or what the connection is with people who are most passionate about their freedoms, their right to bear arms, on and on and on about not getting their guns taken away, are the first ones to be more than happy to demand freedoms be taken away from others because they object to it based on their "belief in the bible"? How hypocritical is it to demand and claim you are entitled to the freedoms that you want for yourself and you seem to understand that, but for someone else, their rights are not near as important? And I'm surrounded by these people and more than fed up with them and to try to reason with them and they've got their bible, nothing else matters that you say, no amount of reasoning and I read something today and I think this is the core root of it: "If you can reconcile all the direct kill orders God gives in the bible with 'Thou shalt not kill', you can rationalize anything." And it's true, to be on board with that belief, you absolutely have this sort of cognitive dissonance ingrained within you or it would crumble and there's just no hope in trying to reason with a person who holds on to that so dearly. I used to defend people who believe in it, live and let live, everyone has their right to their religious beliefs, but these people I'm taking up for are the same people who are so quick to rip away rights from other's that I care about, and it's not the other way around, but they play victim and say don't stereotype me for my beliefs, but what you can't get through their thick heads are their beliefs are fine for THEM, they have no business saying their beliefs in a very questionable book has any bearing on anyone else, but THEM, the person who freely chooses to follow and gamble on that book being truly of God. I'm done with it though, I'm convinced the book and the belief is toxic and the cognitive dissonance required to follow along with it warps people minds and maybe some good has been a result, but I think people are capable of that regardless and when it comes down to it, I think the world would be better off without it, period. I'm convinced of it now. I think trying to reconcile things like God saying kill, kill, kill and then thou shalt not kill has poisoned people's mind at a very fundamental level until they can justify anything when they have convinced themselves God is behind them. I'm done, when you start using your freedoms to rob other's of their's, I hope your's is the one that goes away and yes, I'm mad, forgive me for the rant.

I've missed a bit, in that I havent read all the posts yet, but to answer the basic point of your OP. The bible requires no more cognitive disannace than my own current state laws.

The bible explains to its readers of the time, when and why killing is lawful or sanctioned, and when it is not. So do my state laws. The bible prohibits unlawful killing, but not killing. The whole bible is full of what was considered lawful killing. The kiling of christ, on which the whole of christianity is based, is an example of lawful killing. If it was not allowed and christ was not killed, then there would BE no christianity.

What one can disagree about is the comparative morality of old biblical laws and ethics, and with the concept of a god deciding what is ethical and legal and what is not.

Of course an atheist would argue that god does not exist; in which case all biblical laws are in actuality laws devised by humans to make their society safer and better ordered..In every humane society we surrender individual freedoms to create a safer more ordered society which nurtures and protects all but alos creates equalities of outcome; from the weakest and most vulnerable to the strongest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can someone explain to me why or what the connection is with people who are most passionate about their freedoms, their right to bear arms, on and on and on about not getting their guns taken away, are the first ones to be more than happy to demand freedoms be taken away from others because they object to it based on their "belief in the bible"? How hypocritical is it to demand and claim you are entitled to the freedoms that you want for yourself and you seem to understand that, but for someone else, their rights are not near as important? And I'm surrounded by these people and more than fed up with them and to try to reason with them and they've got their bible, nothing else matters that you say, no amount of reasoning and I read something today and I think this is the core root of it: "If you can reconcile all the direct kill orders God gives in the bible with 'Thou shalt not kill', you can rationalize anything." And it's true, to be on board with that belief, you absolutely have this sort of cognitive dissonance ingrained within you or it would crumble and there's just no hope in trying to reason with a person who holds on to that so dearly. I used to defend people who believe in it, live and let live, everyone has their right to their religious beliefs, but these people I'm taking up for are the same people who are so quick to rip away rights from other's that I care about, and it's not the other way around, but they play victim and say don't stereotype me for my beliefs, but what you can't get through their thick heads are their beliefs are fine for THEM, they have no business saying their beliefs in a very questionable book has any bearing on anyone else, but THEM, the person who freely chooses to follow and gamble on that book being truly of God. I'm done with it though, I'm convinced the book and the belief is toxic and the cognitive dissonance required to follow along with it warps people minds and maybe some good has been a result, but I think people are capable of that regardless and when it comes down to it, I think the world would be better off without it, period. I'm convinced of it now. I think trying to reconcile things like God saying kill, kill, kill and then thou shalt not kill has poisoned people's mind at a very fundamental level until they can justify anything when they have convinced themselves God is behind them. I'm done, when you start using your freedoms to rob other's of their's, I hope your's is the one that goes away and yes, I'm mad, forgive me for the rant.

Which god are we talking about here? THere are so many gods.

You misuse the concept of "cognitive dissonance". I think you mean "obvious contradiction" instead.

Cognitive dissonance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.

Democrats didn't want their gun rights taken away either. Other than in the US Congress, it was a bipartisan effort to keep gun rights.

I gave up Christianity for good when it went political. I always called them gun-toting Christians, as a derogatory.

I don't have that contradiction. That is all I can say. I am FOR gun-ownership, any and all of the kinds of guns. I am not for nukes, any and all kinds of nukes.

List of US Senators who voted to remove our gun rights:

Harkin (D-IA)

Hirono (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Baldwin (D-WI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bennet (D-CO)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Coons (D-DE)

Cowan (D-MA)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Franken (D-MN)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hirono (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kaine (D-VA)

King (I-ME)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Merkley (D-OR)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murphy (D-CT)

Murray (D-WA)

Nelson (D-FL)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schatz (D-HI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Udall (D-CO)

Udall (D-NM)

Warner (D-VA)

Warren (D-MA)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

None of them should ever be allowed to run for president. Obama, had he still been a Senator, would have voted to remove them too.

I will no longer support any of these Senators on any other of their bills, while I am always calling my Congresswoman/men. Will instruct that there should be no more support for anything these people present. Let them crawl for a while.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak to the conservative right in Texas but as a christian as far as gay marriage goes here is what I do see.

- The government of a country is required to be secular to represent the rights of ALL it's people, regardless of religious belief, creed, colour or origin.

- A secular government should apply the legal definition of marriage to all who wish to participate in a legal life partnership with a single other person, allowing for the legal rights applied within the marriage of inheritance, taxability, health care provision for partners etc to be applied in exactly the same way to a couple be they gay or straight. In the matter of secular governance, regardless of the personal beliefs of the polititians they should have their eye to encompassing all their citizenry equally under the law and just get on with it. There is no legitimate reason for a gay couple not to be considered legally married before the secular law.

- A secular government cannot however have a say in whether there is discrimination within a religious belief if said religious belief does not allow gay marriage to be enacted as a sacred ceremony within it's chosen "house of God".

I think that is where the line belongs, matters such as gay priests having rights to preach the christian gospel or gay couples having the right to be married within a church or by the Pastor/Priest of a particular religion need to be distinctly dis-entangled from the secular rights of citizens within the law of a country.

There is some muck in all that, no question. How can you not "discriminate" by the legal definition of the term and also practice freedom of religion if you deny one citizen access to a ceremony but allow another the same access if both have been baptized into a faith and are thereby legitimate members of said faith who are simply enacting a different sin than their equally but differently sinful brethren? AKA: A "liar" or "covetous" or "prideful" person would not by all accounts be denied a church wedding if he/she is of a faith and his/her partner is of the opposite sex for instance.

Simply put, you can't enact "sin" before the altar or within church walls and certainly not within the ceremonies of the faith, it would be a blatant "blasthemy" of the purpose of the altar and church walls - again the place where the line belongs as far as the chosen doctrine's definition of sin is concerned. So while many have sinned as far as their chosen faith's definition of sin is concerned - they have not asked their particular sin to be sanctioned before the altar of the church they participate in and would not, even though they may regularly attend and wish to express faith and repentance as much as they are able just the same.

It seems to me that the matter of doctrinal ceremony within church walls needs to be legally exempted from particular secular laws in specific instances before the tensions surrounding gay marriage laws can be eased.

It also seems to me that there are those who are questioning the level of exemptions that christians and other faiths are entitled to within their walls and when does secular law supercede doctrinal law in the matter of human rights - specifically the right to be treated equally in all matters and this is right at the heart of the stumbling block that conservative politics are struggling with.

Why SHOULD a secular govt apply those standards or moralities? Because you believ in them?

A secular govt, elected by the people should represent the wishes of the people. (actually it has to or it will be replaced by one which does)

And so gay marriage really has nothing to do with religious objection. Opposition to it is part of a wider morality or belief system among many secular people. For example in australia many people are against it for non religious reasons. This is both an innate conservatism of an older population who have always invested a grea tdeal of imoortance and significance in life long marriage betwen a male and a female, and a reluctance to embrance change because of the perceived dangers of change. Hence we have only passed about 7 out of 25 constitutional amendments in the last 100 years. It is quite conceivable that mostly conservative populaiton, religious or secular, might oppose gay mariage for many reasons. Also in australia and in america it might require a constituional change to the definition of a marriage which presently formally states it can only occur between a man and a woman. Peole are reluctant to alter a constituion.

However among young people, not only gay mariage but strangely the idea of mariage as a life time contract is changing. As a generation grows up with alternate values and ethics it may well influence future decisions in this area.

Personallyly i think weakening the traditional marriage is a dangerous idea, especially for women and children who gain the most benefit from a marriage contract,, but that homosexuals have the same rights to all benefits gained by marriage as heterosexuals. I am not sure that gay peole can ever be actually married in the technical sense of the word but they should have the right to use the term and to gain all benefits conferred by it.My one concern is how this will effect the right and lives of children. But then they are already in such a mess with breakdown of the traditonal family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

A libral Christian... What do you know? Never met one before. Refreshing actually, I have always thought the aggressiveness of some Christians was a glaring contradiction to what Jesus taught.

Australia has a pop around 22 mil. Just California is 38 mil. Australia does not have the same urban socio economics and gang problems not to mention a neighbor home to cartels and other types of chaos. Our population is huge and diverse.

Unfortunately most of us ( though a dwindling number) are not willing to be pacifist in a Mexican stand off.

We also want our country to be a free country where government does not tell us what to do ( within reason) but we tell it what to do. It was founded on that idea. Does it come with consequences... Absolutely everything does. But as I have mentioned, in America, you are more likely yo die from driving to work than a gun shot wound. Would you vote 'yes' to ban automobiles? What about cheeseburgers or jackdanials.

The issue is less about guns themselves, but more about erroding of freedoms.

We protect our presidents with.... guns.

We protect our congressmen with .... guns.

We protect our money with..... Guns.

We protect priceless art, artifacts, actors, actresses, singers, sporting events, important buildings, gold, silver, platinum, our police station, entrences to national parks, borders, etc etc....

With ...... Guns. Then we protect our children with a sign that says " this is a gun free zone", and legislators who have ARMED guards for themselves and their families want to take guns out of my home. sometimes I can barely believe that such hypocracy exists.

After running a few numbers I have found that any civilian owned gun in the united states is five times more likely to be used for violence than in Australia. http://www.gunpolicy.org/

This says nothing about guns, austrailians own them to. To me it highlights the fact it's simply more violent in America we have got sprawling inner cities and socioeconomic problems that involve more people that even live in Australia. To Deni the law abiding citizens access to guns is send them out as sheep amoungst the wolves. I will give up mine, when the gang members 3 exits down the hwy give up theirs. ;)

Ok so we compel the gang members and all others to give up their guns. Now would you surrender yours?

I owned guns since i was eight or nine, for about 50 years. I did so legally and, in the last 30 years or so as required, with a licence and a permit/registered gu ncertificate.. I used them for the purposes for which they were designed. I surrendered mine when i moved into town and no longer had the need for one. In america the real problem is not the ownership of guns (Switzerland has a law which basically compels every adult male to own and keep an automatic firearm in their house as part of their armed neutrality concept, and a tiny degree of gun related violence) it is the historical attitude of Americans towards giuns and their use. What was neccesary and productive in the past is no longer so or even relevant. I mean some americans actually fear their govt and consider guns a legitimate way to preserve their freedoms from govt. It can't work like that. In a civil society with a democratically elected govt no one has a right to use guns against its own lected govt , representaives or armed forces. In practice no paramilitary militia has any chance against the US army or other forces anyway and the belief that they do is dumb and dangerous..

America is tragically trapped in some ways by its historical origins. All the other problems you allude to are social problems. They can be solved by a society in which no one owns guns, as easily as in a society where everyone owns one.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so we compel the gang members and all others to give up their guns. Now would you surrender yours?

I owned guns since i was eight or nine, for about 50 years. I did so legally and, in the last 30 years or so as required, with a licence and a permit/registered gu ncertificate.. I used them for the purposes for which they were designed. I surrendered mine when i moved into town and no longer had the need for one. In america the real problem is not the ownership of guns (Switzerland has a law which basically compels every adult male to own and keep an automatic firearm in their house as part of their armed neutrality concept, and a tiny degree of gun related violence) it is the historical attitude of Americans towards giuns and their use. What was neccesary and productive in the past is no longer so or even relevant. I mean some americans actually fear their govt and consider guns a legitimate way to preserve their freedoms from govt. It can't work like that. In a civil society with a democratically elected govt no one has a right to use guns against its own lected govt , representaives or armed forces. In practice no paramilitary militia has any chance against the US army or other forces anyway and the belief that they do is dumb and dangerous..

America is tragically trapped in some ways by its historical origins. All the other problems you allude to are social problems. They can be solved by a society in which no one owns guns, as easily as in a society where everyone owns one.

Yeah it's silly that they think their little ARs are going to do something against drones and stealth bombers. You are so correct our problems have nothing to do with guns.

We do not have a democratically elected government anymore either. We are spoon fed two candidates completely designed by media and the people/parties/corporations behind them. Most Americans that I know consider the electoral college system a joke. We have lost all faith in true democracy. I'm not talking about back woods red necks here. I'm talking about highly intelligent engeneers, carpenters, and business owners.

I suppose I wouldn't want to unless compelled to. I'd more willing to if they it were ensured that criminals did not have access to them. But I think I see your point. I would be much more worried about the power of a government to acomplish such a thing.

I keep weapons for several reason. I have WWII heirlooms, I do like to hunt wild boar, ( the only thing I hunt with a rifle, (they are ferrill and damaging but also supply my family with meat not tainted by feed lots and hormones). I have several survival weapons a .22 to teach my kids to shoot, a light weight 410 that is collapsable and back packable. Two AR style weapons one is collapsable made of carbon and it's a light weight survival weapon, and one military style modified to fit my local laws. The 20 gauge is for home defense. The military style weapon is fun to shoot, but honestly I have it because I do not have faith in the continuity of our society. I know intimately that even a simple oil shock can send this country especially urban areas in utter chaos. And I have a family to look after. I admit it .... I'm a bit of a preper as a hobby. What can I say I teach self defense for a living, I teach people everyday for the what ifs the world can throw at them. I suppose it's part of my personality growing up living on my own since 15 and rough neighborhoods along with other experiences. I suppose I should work on that root chakra. :) :).

I like knowing I can collect meat for my family, protect them with high efficiency, and teach my chikdren a valuable skill that they might need someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why SHOULD a secular govt apply those standards or moralities? Because you believ in them?

I don't actually believe in them for my own life, however, I believe I get to choose how I live my life and I don't like others telling me what I should or should not be able to do with it. I therefore extend the same privilege to all others. What possible difference is it going to make to me if two men or women live together and marry? Absolutely none.

A secular govt, elected by the people should represent the wishes of the people. (actually it has to or it will be replaced by one which does)

Yes, it should represent the wishes of ALL it's people and that is best done by applying secular law with the least potential of discrimination as each generation comes to understand the term.

And so gay marriage really has nothing to do with religious objection. Opposition to it is part of a wider morality or belief system among many secular people. For example in australia many people are against it for non religious reasons. This is both an innate conservatism of an older population who have always invested a grea tdeal of imoortance and significance in life long marriage betwen a male and a female, and a reluctance to embrance change because of the perceived dangers of change. Hence we have only passed about 7 out of 25 constitutional amendments in the last 100 years. It is quite conceivable that mostly conservative populaiton, religious or secular, might oppose gay mariage for many reasons. Also in australia and in america it might require a constituional change to the definition of a marriage which presently formally states it can only occur between a man and a woman. Peole are reluctant to alter a constituion.

You are right, it is not a religious matter. What a person has attached value to in their own lives aka " an innate conservatism and great deal of importance in the significance of lifelong marriage between a male and a female", is distinctly their own. So that person is free to live their life by those values, however, why does this same person get to decide how others live their lives?

Personallyly i think weakening the traditional marriage is a dangerous idea, especially for women and children who gain the most benefit from a marriage contract,, but that homosexuals have the same rights to all benefits gained by marriage as heterosexuals. I am not sure that gay peole can ever be actually married in the technical sense of the word but they should have the right to use the term and to gain all benefits conferred by it.My one concern is how this will effect the right and lives of children. But then they are already in such a mess with breakdown of the traditonal family.

I don't see what children has to do with this at all. The matter of children is SEPARATE from the matter of marriage, they are not the same issue at all. The parental obligation to children is not about marriage it is about whether one is a mother or father. Marriage does not automatically entail children and people become parents without marriage quite regularly, throughout history this has been the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My faith is restored!!! If this guy of all people can come to this conclusion, there's hope for everyone: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/09/hell-freezes-over-as-glenn-beck-endorses-marriage-equality-video/

glenn-beck.jpg

It’s safe to say that Glenn Beck has been one of the most extreme and certainly one of the most insane right-wing hosts in the media. I never thought I’d write something good about Glenn Beck, but, for a brief minute on Monday, Beck had a moment of sanity that is sure to generate fury from fellow conservatives.

During his radio program, Glenn Beck practically endorsed marriage equality, something not even a handful of Senate Republicans are willing to do. Beck stated that the fight for marriage equality is now about freedom, which is what America is all about, and that is why marriage equality proponents are winning the argument. But that wasn’t the end of it. At the conclusion of his short commentary on the subject, Beck called marriage equality a “principle” that “is right,” thus signaling that hell must have frozen over sometime in the last 48 hours.

BECK: “Why have we been arguing about marriage? We have been so foolish…it is not about gays, it is not about homosexuals, it is not about any of them. It is about freedom and the reason why they have won is because they have made it about freedom! And freedom, everyone basically understands freedom. That more freedom, not less, and so the argument has been ‘Who are you to tell me what I can and can not do?’ And by saying ‘Well because it always is! What’s happened?,’ you’ve lost, and by doing so, by not turning into it soon enough, what’s happened is you’ve been painted into a corner of a bigot! That’s why they have won, because the principle of it is right. The principle is easy to understand. Who are you to say?”

Glenn Beck has not exactly been a friend to the LGBT community over the course of his career, and the LGBT community hasn’t been particularly fond of Beck either. That may change given these recent statements. But now that Beck has said this wonderful thing about marriage equality, the only question is how long will it be before he reverses himself? I guess we’ll have to reluctantly stay tuned.

Nevertheless, Glenn Beck’s statement is a big score for marriage equality and it gives hope to same-sex couples and those who support marriage equality everywhere that perhaps soon, other conservatives will follow Beck’s example. After all, if Glenn Beck can reach a logical conclusion, or see the light, to put it in the Christian Right vernacular, so can others.

[media=]

[/media]

Usually I can't stand him, but he amazed me, and he GETS it, it's about freedom, not religion, not homosexuality, but the people who are so passionate about their own freedom, like my gun example, should realize they aren't the only ones entitled.

Anyway, thank you all for your responses. I'm short on time and I apologize for any unintentional generalizations made. I had heard so much and I was about to let loose on some people, some family, and it was good to vent here and not lose it.

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though to be fair, I don't know if many of my fellow Christians at church would take that same action. But considering only 2% of Australians attend church regularly, I doubt church attendance would have a large bearing on the outcome of any vote on the matter.

I don't think most I know would either, even if they weren't vocal or really invested in it, I think it would be a matter of conscience on them to vote that way that supported secular society, but voting to allow something they believe their God is against, like betraying or disobeying God I would guess. Maybe I can understand that some, but as Jorel said, it's better for even religious people to keep that separation of church and state and that has to be consistent, not just when it benefits the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't say the government doesn't protect it's citizens, obviously it does. The thing is, if you look at human history, including Biblical history, the one thing government doesn't protect the people from is itself. Read any of the minor prophets, why was God punishing Israel? Because the government was not treating people justly, because the kings were not following God, they were taking care of themselves and their friends, the priests were "Yes, men" telling the king whatever he wanted to hear and they were taking care of themselves and not the people. Hugo Chavez's democratically elected government took such good care of the people that now there are more poor and poorer people than before it began taking care of them, electrical power is even less trustworthy than it was before his democratically elected socialist government took over, gasoline is more expensive, food is scarcer and more expensive, but Chavez died with $2 Billion more than he had before he began taking care of the poor. Have elections been fair in that country since Chavez strengthened the government? Not at all. Has the peoples' vote changed that government? Not at all.

We are responsible for electing people to office, if we choose people who have no character, then that is the country we will have. Iarael never had a choice Monarchy does not elect its King, blood does. Even so, the people of Israel always had a choice, and that choice was revolt against a leadership that was not following God and tread on its own citizenry. Leaders should always be aware that they can be taken out and down if they abuse the responsability they are given, that is why the despots are always behind closed doors and soldiers,

I'm interested in the example you provided of Hugo Chavez, is it because he was a well known figure or is it because that is simply the worst example of socialism you could find?

Do you know that he was the most popular President over the last decade and a half, he created a coalition against American intersests that were bleeding the country dry,

Venezuela had been dominated by a rich white élite descended from Europeans who ruled over a poor indigenous, mestizo, and Afro-Venezuelan majority. This U.S.-backed élite monopolized wealth and power and kept more than 50% of Venezuelans mired in poverty even though their country had become the world’s fifth biggest oil producer. With Washington’s support, the Venezuelan upper class proved to be one of the most corrupt in the world, looting the country’s oil wealth for 40 years. When the people protested, they were killed, as in the Caracazo massacre in 1989 when security forces slaughtered 3,000 people. Because of this brutal repression and imposed poverty, a popular movement arose and spread, eventually electing Hugo Chavez the country’s President in 1998. Chavez then launched the Bolivarian Revolution, which turned out to be the forerunner of the broader Latin American Revolution.

Before Chavez, more than half the people in Venezuela lived in poverty, a figure that he had succeeded in reducing by half before his death. He instituted free universal health care and free education, raising the country’s literacy rate to an astonishing 100%. He implemented land reforms and created government supermarkets which cut the cost of food by 40%. Before these major social improvements, 70% of Venezuelans had no access to basic medical care, and 40% of them were illiterate. Chavez also increased the minimum wage by more than 600%, reduced unemployment from 20% to 6%, and moved Venezuela up four positions in the United Nations Human Development Index.

The reason the American s didn't like him is simply because he stood up against their interests, how interesting that he is portrayed as a monster in some circles. The very people who elected him also mourned him when he dies, it took a week for the hundreds of thoudands of people to visit him one last time, that is not the sign of a despot, that is a sign of a liberator. That is why the vote has not changed, because the people actually did vote for him.

Can one say the same for other despots we have known? Saddam Hussein, is one such example that comes to mind

You say you believe in a strong government that can be taken down by the people in a democratic way, please explain how a government that decides it will no longer pay attention to the will of the people will be taken down by a vote. When was the last time a despotic government was overthrown by a vote?

Do believe that socialism is anti-democratic?

Do you know that most European countries are actually socialist?

Socialism is not despotism, even if that is the imagery and influence most Americans have, they fear the word itself, its like poison to them, I've seen this personally when the subject comes up with Americans I know personally. This is not just one or two ignorant people, this is almost an entire nation thinking like that. Amercian politicians use the word almost as an equivalent to a doomsday prophecy or swearword. Man there are people who actually think accusing Obama of being a socialist is a good way to get rid of him...

“Is Obama a socialist?” Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness. (and this is from Forbes magazine!)

Maybe Portuguese people are just better, but that's not what the news coming out of Portugal indicate, so I will venture to say there are as many leeches in Portugal as in the US and if you don't realize that, then you are fooling yourself. Sure, there are people who do not enjoy having to take government assistance and they find ways to get off it, but there are just as many that somehow never seem to get off, or if they do, it's not for long. Given your government's financial woes, I am willing to bet there are leeches in Portugal just like in the US.

No Portuguese people are not better the Portuguese have their own problems, but essentially suffering the consequences of 2 decades of European Union preffering to give subsidies to end competition and become a client state of a French- German industrial base. The money was easy, the consequences are not, we are now exactly where the EU wants us, under their control, they didn't even need to invade us, we casually gave the EU our very independance.

But or socialist state did work until the money started getting used for other things like build highways and starting companies that are then given away to private industry and we still have to pay them for the favour, now there isn't enough to go around and pay our social programs. People are close to starving because the government who was supposed to look out for them, now has different priorities, like paying billions of Euros in interest for the bailout that the very countries who put us in the straits we are in were so happy to give us... there is a hole and it keeps getting deeper and someone is making maillions from this and it ain't us.

When I was a college student I spent some time working as a substitute teacher. I was already a commissioned lieutenant in the Army and would be going off to training as soon as I finished my studies, so I already had a very military appearance, including the short sharp haircut. The students of one of the classes I substituted in asked me why my hair was so short and I told them. So, then I began asking them what they planned to do. One student told me he was planning to live on unemployment like his father and let me support him! Jor-el, there ARE leeches. It's human nature. It's sin nature.

Do you know how many young people Portugal has lost to emmigration due to the impossibility of finding a job in this country? They are not all leeches, they are honest people who want to make a living.

45.000 people in just one year, between the ages of 25 to 30. That is not counting family like children. This from a country that has 10 million people of which an entire third are over 65 and retired. Yes there are leeches, but most of us want to work and get on with our lives not sit on our behinds all day. We hate the embarressment of being on unemployment, and having to move in with our parents because the banks foreclosed on our houses. We hate the fact that we spent 5 years getting a University degree only to have to move to Germany to find employment.

I seem to recall Jesus disciples carried swords, which are the equivalent of today's guns. As Christians are we not supposed to discourage others from giving in to temptation? Believe me, any would-be thief, who attempts to enter my house will be very quickly discouraged when he sees I am well armed.

No, I seem to recall only one sword, and historically you know it is inaccurate to state that christians went around armed, the exact opposite is true. We do not know of any cases where christians defened themselves with violence from the persecution the were being subjected to. And even if there is a case or two they pale to insignificance compared to the thousands of cases of christians who did not fight.

That's where you're completely wrong. A well armed society is a polite society.

Here is an article that explains my views.

I know the saying but I don't believe it. Americans are not known for being a polite society...

As for the article, it doesn't stick, you can own a gun, there is no problem with that, the problem is thinking that you are entitled to own a semi automatic or automatic weapon. What would you use it for? hunting squirrels?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's silly that they think their little ARs are going to do something against drones and stealth bombers. You are so correct our problems have nothing to do with guns.

We do not have a democratically elected government anymore either. We are spoon fed two candidates completely designed by media and the people/parties/corporations behind them. Most Americans that I know consider the electoral college system a joke. We have lost all faith in true democracy. I'm not talking about back woods red necks here. I'm talking about highly intelligent engeneers, carpenters, and business owners.

I suppose I wouldn't want to unless compelled to. I'd more willing to if they it were ensured that criminals did not have access to them. But I think I see your point. I would be much more worried about the power of a government to acomplish such a thing.

I keep weapons for several reason. I have WWII heirlooms, I do like to hunt wild boar, ( the only thing I hunt with a rifle, (they are ferrill and damaging but also supply my family with meat not tainted by feed lots and hormones). I have several survival weapons a .22 to teach my kids to shoot, a light weight 410 that is collapsable and back packable. Two AR style weapons one is collapsable made of carbon and it's a light weight survival weapon, and one military style modified to fit my local laws. The 20 gauge is for home defense. The military style weapon is fun to shoot, but honestly I have it because I do not have faith in the continuity of our society. I know intimately that even a simple oil shock can send this country especially urban areas in utter chaos. And I have a family to look after. I admit it .... I'm a bit of a preper as a hobby. What can I say I teach self defense for a living, I teach people everyday for the what ifs the world can throw at them. I suppose it's part of my personality growing up living on my own since 15 and rough neighborhoods along with other experiences. I suppose I should work on that root chakra. :) :).

I like knowing I can collect meat for my family, protect them with high efficiency, and teach my chikdren a valuable skill that they might need someday.

Like me, you then have legitimate uses for your firearms, and as a regular user will be very aware of safety and responsible use. You are unlikely to use them irresponsibly. I know it makes youu feel safer having guns to protect yourslef (it certainly did me) but statistically it puts you at greater risk. We are not allowed to have guns for self protection in australia although I would have used mine(and quite legally)to defend my wife or self when I lived over 30 miles from the nearest and often unmanned police station.To own one however i had to have other logicla reaosns to need one Because we lived in a rural area, the control of vermin and putting down injured animals constitured such a reason.When getting my gun licence I made a joke about control of two legged vermin The police officer "told me off" but then winked at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't actually believe in them for my own life, however, I believe I get to choose how I live my life and I don't like others telling me what I should or should not be able to do with it. I therefore extend the same privilege to all others. What possible difference is it going to make to me if two men or women live together and marry? Absolutely none.

Yes, it should represent the wishes of ALL it's people and that is best done by applying secular law with the least potential of discrimination as each generation comes to understand the term.

You are right, it is not a religious matter. What a person has attached value to in their own lives aka " an innate conservatism and great deal of importance in the significance of lifelong marriage between a male and a female", is distinctly their own. So that person is free to live their life by those values, however, why does this same person get to decide how others live their lives?

I don't see what children has to do with this at all. The matter of children is SEPARATE from the matter of marriage, they are not the same issue at all. The parental obligation to children is not about marriage it is about whether one is a mother or father. Marriage does not automatically entail children and people become parents without marriage quite regularly, throughout history this has been the case.

My basic point was that in a democracy there is no requisite need for the govt to be secular , just democratic. So in a democratic society where say 80% of people are jews or muslims one can expect laws to reflect this. Eg shops not opening on a sabbath or certian dietary restrictions, or not serving alcohol in public.

If that is what the people want then they have a right to it While SOME basic rights of a minority can be proteted it is not right or necessary to (for example) protect an individuals right to drink in public in a society where this is not condoned or to go naked where this is not accpetable. There is no ned or rightness in a democratic govt being secualr The american govt is not it simply separates govt and religion so that a state religion cannot be formed but it is still formed around religious beliefs and principles.

A govt could represent many denominations and beliefs if this was the makeup of the community. Australia is multi faith and thus multi religious. The govt and people, rather than being secular, as in non religious, represent inclusively all religious beliefs including non belief.

All govts make rules which determine citizens rights and obligations. That includes who can and cannot get married. If a society and its democratically elected govt. decides 14 year olds cannot get married, or brothers and sisters, cant get married, or homosexual people cannot get married, then that represents the values and moralities of the citizens. If a democratic govt (secular or religious)representing the wishes of its people, decides divorce is not to be allowed and that adultery is a criminal offence (as once was) Or that euthansia wil be legalised, and abortion on demand made illegal. We might disagree, but in a democracy we have to live under the law.

Now reverse all these. If a democratic govt allows all these things then the people who live inthat democracy still have to live under those laws whether we personally agree with them or not. None of these are absolute values and none are basically right or wrong. They are based on what "we" believe to be best for people.

ALL people have 3 choices . Llive under the law. Work to cahnge the law. Or break the law. In a democratic society, breaking the law has consequences and correctly so. Yes a modern govt not only has the right but the obligation to determine how its citizens behave in every apsect of their life. UNless those citizens decide otherwise.

The importanance o f children and their protectionis paramount in my life and value systems; personally professionally and socially. I observe and live with the tragedy of modern childhood on a daily basis. Suicide is the highest cause of death Mental illness depression etc is increasing rapidly. Modern childen in the richest countries are living sad lonely and miserable lives compared whith how they could live. This is almost entirelyt caused by the falling apart of, the extended family framework,of the nuclear family, and of local community.

Many children live with one or both parents who are not their biological parents and who have no real love for or attachment to them and who feell therefore no real obligation to sacrifice for them to discipline and care for them and to esure they are educated nurtured and integrated into society.

Even where such children are loved the trauma, loss, and disconnection of living in such a condition causes behavioural and psychological problems, difficulties with schooling, anger, violence, and often drug and alcohol use, as well as crime. As part of social and govt legal contracts parents should be obliged to provide for and care forrhteir biologicla chilren the traditiona forma arrangemnt of marriage supported this obligation And i think it should be extended to homosexuals with children As it is today children have lost the protection of a long term stable family which nurtures, loves, disciplines, protects and educates them. That is the tragedy and the results are self evidenti the children of today compared with those of the past. I phones and facebook do not replace the love and connectivity of a family relationship.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually believe in them for my own life, however, I believe I get to choose how I live my life and I don't like others telling me what I should or should not be able to do with it. I therefore extend the same privilege to all others. What possible difference is it going to make to me if two men or women live together and marry? Absolutely none.

Yes, it should represent the wishes of ALL it's people and that is best done by applying secular law with the least potential of discrimination as each generation comes to understand the term.

You are right, it is not a religious matter. What a person has attached value to in their own lives aka " an innate conservatism and great deal of importance in the significance of lifelong marriage between a male and a female", is distinctly their own. So that person is free to live their life by those values, however, why does this same person get to decide how others live their lives?

I don't see what children has to do with this at all. The matter of children is SEPARATE from the matter of marriage, they are not the same issue at all. The parental obligation to children is not about marriage it is about whether one is a mother or father. Marriage does not automatically entail children and people become parents without marriage quite regularly, throughout history this has been the case.

My basic point was that in a democracy there is no requisite need for the govt to be secular , just democratic. So in a democratic society where say 80% of people are jews or muslims one can expect laws to reflect this. Eg shops not opening on a sabbath or certian dietary restrictions, or not serving alcohol in public.

If that is what the people want then they have a right to it While SOME basic rights of a minority can be proteted it is not right or necessary to (for example) protect an individuals right to drink in public in a society where this is not condoned or to go naked where this is not accpetable. There is no ned or rightness in a democratic govt being secualr The american govt is not it simply separates govt and religion so that a state religion cannot be formed but it is still formed around religious beliefs and principles.

A govt could represent many denominations and beliefs if this was the makeup of the community. Australia is multi faith and thus multi religious. The govt and people, rather than being secular, as in non religious, represent inclusively all religious beliefs including non belief.

All govts make rules which determine citizens rights and obligations. That includes who can and cannot get married. If a society and its democratically elected govt. decides 14 year olds cannot get married, or brothers and sisters, cant get married, or homosexual people cannot get married, then that represents the values and moralities of the citizens. If a democratic govt (secular or religious)representing the wishes of its people, decides divorce is not to be allowed and that adultery is a criminal offence (as once was) Or that euthansia wil be legalised, and abortion on demand made illegal. We might disagree, but in a democracy we have to live under the law.

Now reverse all these. If a democratic govt allows all these things then the people who live inthat democracy still have to live under those laws whether we personally agree with them or not. None of these are absolute values and none are basically right or wrong. They are based on what "we" believe to be best for people.

ALL people have 3 choices . Llive under the law. Work to cahnge the law. Or break the law. In a democratic society, breaking the law has consequences and correctly so. Yes a modern govt not only has the right but the obligation to determine how its citizens behave in every apsect of their life. UNless those citizens decide otherwise.

The importanance o f children and their protectionis paramount in my life and value systems; personally professionally and socially. I observe and live with the tragedy of modern childhood on a daily basis. Suicide is the highest cause of death Mental illness depression etc is increasing rapidly. Modern childen in the richest countries are living sad lonely and miserable lives compared whith how they could live. This is almost entirelyt caused by the falling apart of, the extended family framework,of the nuclear family, and of local community.

Many children live with one or both parents who are not their biological parents and who have no real love for or attachment to them and who feell therefore no real obligation to sacrifice for them to discipline and care for them and to esure they are educated nurtured and integrated into society.

Even where such children are loved the trauma, loss, and disconnection of living in such a condition causes behavioural and psychological problems, difficulties with schooling, anger, violence, and often drug and alcohol use, as well as crime. As part of social and govt legal contracts parents should be obliged to provide for and care forrhteir biologicla chilren the traditiona forma arrangemnt of marriage supported this obligation And i think it should be extended to homosexuals with children As it is today children have lost the protection of a long term stable family which nurtures, loves, disciplines, protects and educates them. That is the tragedy and the results are self evidenti the children of today compared with those of the past. I phones and facebook do not replace the love and connectivity of a family relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like me, you then have legitimate uses for your firearms, and as a regular user will be very aware of safety and responsible use. You are unlikely to use them irresponsibly. I know it makes youu feel safer having guns to protect yourslef (it certainly did me) but statistically it puts you at greater risk. We are not allowed to have guns for self protection in australia although I would have used mine(and quite legally)to defend my wife or self when I lived over 30 miles from the nearest and often unmanned police station.To own one however i had to have other logicla reaosns to need one Because we lived in a rural area, the control of vermin and putting down injured animals constitured such a reason.When getting my gun licence I made a joke about control of two legged vermin The police officer "told me off" but then winked at me.

I tutord statistics for several years in college as such I am whoelly unimpressed by them. I know that statistically accidents happen more than self defense scenerios, but I'm more likely to injur myself and family driving them to school than a gun accident or even a fall down the stairs is more likely. That dosnt mean I don't drive or move to a house without stairs. Constant minute risk mitigation seems sort of silly to me.

In martial arts training injuries and bad accidents are rare but more likely than defending oneself from attack also, but If people followed minute statistics with risk managment I'd be out of business, Kids would not play football, climb trees, or even eat hot dogs... (Choking hazed) :( )

I teach in the evenings. I like knowing that my wife has access to a shotgun should she feel threatened in my absence. The psychological benefits outweighs the minute risks, just as the benefits of driving outweighs the potential of being injured in an accident. These are risk benefit choices I should be able to make for myself. This is the crux of a free society. Self defense not being a legitimate reason to own a gun is a very foreign idea for me. I have stumbled into pot farms in my back packing adventures, had a rancher sick his dogs on me ( I was on public land.... It's a long story.... He just did not want me there), and was even charged by a mama black bear. In the case of the dogs, my side arm probably made the difference. In the other incidents it could have. Mama bear backed off.... Thank god. I suppose my need for it might be more than others given my activities, but other peoples minute risk Managment trying to disarm me, a law abiding citizen, puts me at much greater risk and infringes upon the kind of life I wish to lead. If the gun lobby manages to disarm me, there will still be illegal weapons out there in the hands of those who will misuse them, still be drug traficking and growing with illegally armed men, and still be those willing to assault others. Only a handful of domestic accidents will be prevented. I find myself being afraid of the sentiment "if we can save just one it's worth it". It's a fear based and freedom eroding attitude with a slippery slope of emense proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I tutord statistics for several years in college as such I am whoelly unimpressed by them. I know that statistically accidents happen more than self defense scenerios, but I'm more likely to injur myself and family driving them to school than a gun accident or even a fall down the stairs is more likely. That dosnt mean I don't drive or move to a house without stairs. Constant minute risk mitigation seems sort of silly to me.

In martial arts training injuries and bad accidents are rare but more likely than defending oneself from attack also, but If people followed minute statistics with risk managment I'd be out of business, Kids would not play football, climb trees, or even eat hot dogs... (Choking hazed) :( )

I teach in the evenings. I like knowing that my wife has access to a shotgun should she feel threatened in my absence. The psychological benefits outweighs the minute risks, just as the benefits of driving outweighs the potential of being injured in an accident. These are risk benefit choices I should be able to make for myself. This is the crux of a free society. Self defense not being a legitimate reason to own a gun is a very foreign idea for me. I have stumbled into pot farms in my back packing adventures, had a rancher sick his dogs on me ( I was on public land.... It's a long story.... He just did not want me there), and was even charged by a mama black bear. In the case of the dogs, my side arm probably made the difference. In the other incidents it could have. Mama bear backed off.... Thank god. I suppose my need for it might be more than others given my activities, but other peoples minute risk Managment trying to disarm me, a law abiding citizen, puts me at much greater risk and infringes upon the kind of life I wish to lead. If the gun lobby manages to disarm me, there will still be illegal weapons out there in the hands of those who will misuse them, still be drug traficking and growing with illegally armed men, and still be those willing to assault others. Only a handful of domestic accidents will be prevented. I find myself being afraid of the sentiment "if we can save just one it's worth it". It's a fear based and freedom eroding attitude with a slippery slope of emense proportions.

I agree the psychological benefits are considerable, but none the less people with guns in their houses are more likely to be shot and generally by those very guns. That is logical. People with no guns in a house can only be shot by an intruder who enters with a gun. People with a gun in the house can ALSO be shot by an intruder who gets hold of their gun, by another family member or by themselves. The last two scenarios can happen by accident or by design eg murder /suicide, but they cannot happen if there are no guns in a house; and thus people who own guns are ALWAYS more likely to be shot by guns than people who do not own guns..

Perhaps because i come from a different society, I think that only people with a real need for a gun should be allowed to own one, and that self defence in a civil society is NOT a legitimate reason to own a firearm if other firearms are closely controlled and reistered. There is something deeply and fundamentally flawed with a nation and a society whose citizens think they have to own guns to protect themsleves from other fellow citizens of that country.

All firearms should be registered and all owners licenced, with serious training and police checks before a gun licence is issued. Illegal gun ownership and use will always be a problem, but that can be dealt with using adequate policing and effective sentencing. Ps I would suggest tha tI am far freere than an American inmy life and my society that includes physical freedoms and also psychological freedom. if i want a legal gun (pistol rifle shot gun etc.) i can have one as long as I meet certain criteria like being a member of a gun club or a registered shooter etc. but i live in a society where i can live without fear, leave my back and front door open and my car unlocked all night and never have to worry, so i dont need to own a gun any more.

The last time i had to ring the police about an intruder ( 40 years ago, when i lived in a city) they were at my front door in less than two minutes, before i could even get my gun out of the cupboard, load it and go after the bloke. Ps youre brave letting your wife loose with a shot gun. On the farm my wife used one to kill snakes. She never actually managed to hit a snake (they can be both fast and hard to trac in a garden area of an acre and a half; although she killed a number with a piece of fencing wire)

But she shot holes in our main pipe (twice) tank once, and shed, as well as blasting quite a bit of our garden to pieces. Still, she had a better chance with her 410 than blazing away from inside our house with an armalite rifle at a snake 20 yards away. I Dont think she even got close to that one despite using a full magazine. it was good practice for her and made her more comfortable, familiar and ready to use a shot gun if she needed to The shot gun was our weapon of choice if intruders were about because it had a psychological effect and was a lot easier to hit a person with. But in 30 years of living on a farm our dogs scared unwanted people away at night before i had to go out with a gun, and we only ever used it on foxes and snakes. We also used automatic floodlighting which lit up several acres around the house as bright as day while the house stayed in darkness. We could see anyone outside, while they were looking into 2000 watt spot lights.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha yes, the first time my wife carried the shot gun to the house from the rv she tip toed bouncing up and down holding it by the beryl looking like Tom on Tom and Jerry cartoons sneaking up on jerry in broad day light in our front yard. Since then she has spent considerable time at the range.

I'm not opposed to extensive back ground checks, required classes, qualifying tests, even longer waiting periods. Non of these things will prevent a law abiding citizen from ownership if they are serious and willing to train. To get a CWP all of these things are required. If I want one and willing to invest mysekf I can jump through the hoops and get one.

I agree that Australia is more free than the us. I have tried to talk my wife into moving there. I'm a big fan. She won't have it. Then again I tried to talk her into giving up modern convinences and living in a wigwam to. No luck I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha yes, the first time my wife carried the shot gun to the house from the rv she tip toed bouncing up and down holding it by the beryl looking like Tom on Tom and Jerry cartoons sneaking up on jerry in broad day light in our front yard. Since then she has spent considerable time at the range.

I'm not opposed to extensive back ground checks, required classes, qualifying tests, even longer waiting periods. Non of these things will prevent a law abiding citizen from ownership if they are serious and willing to train. To get a CWP all of these things are required. If I want one and willing to invest mysekf I can jump through the hoops and get one.

I agree that Australia is more free than the us. I have tried to talk my wife into moving there. I'm a big fan. She won't have it. Then again I tried to talk her into giving up modern convinences and living in a wigwam to. No luck I'm afraid.

LOL most of Australia is more civilized than living in a wigwam, although I and my wife (when a bit younger) have camped out under the stars for months at a time, on a simple piece of canvas, in places where few if any other humans have ever trodden That lack of population, especially, in most of Australia is another aspect of the freedom of the pace, although you can also live in the very centre of cosmopolitan cities if that is your preference. Can't stand it myself, and havent been into a city for nearly 10 years, and only then for medical or work day trips. I can travel form one side of australia to the other and back without ever having to identify or explaoin myslef But try to hop on a plane and you feel like a criminal so i do not fly by commercial airlines. If i want to go somewhere I can hop in a friend's light plane and no one will ever know where I am going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

I am new here, and I have to strange and/or relatively unknown things to discuss about this cognitive dissonance and religion topic, which may be of interest to some of you. Is anyone still interested in this thread?

Regards, ACG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

I am new here, and I have to strange and/or relatively unknown things to discuss about this cognitive dissonance and religion topic, which may be of interest to some of you. Is anyone still interested in this thread?

Regards, ACG

Welcome to the boards. You don't need to ask, just throw yourself in and tell us what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the boards. You don't need to ask, just throw yourself in and tell us what you think.

My concern is that all kinds of ideas pop into my head from time to time. And about all sorts of things, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. I am not concerned about being seen as crazy, but as I am new here I am VERY concerned about being seen as pushy and trying to push a personal agenda, instead of seeking a wide range of feedbacks. about my unconventional ideas.For example, I've written a free ebook that explores the possibility of a GNOS (God and/or Nature's Operating System). Admittedly, a crazy idea, but associated with many well-known and little known factoids. And it includes references to Leibniz and to Godel (the Incompleteness Theorem mathematician) who was sure that there was a conspiracy to suppress many of Leibniz' ideas. It looks to me that this kind of stuff is okay to talk about in this thread and on other parts of this forum, BUT I am not sure what to point to and when. As I said, I am VERY concerned about wearing out my welcome..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.