Christmas To Be Banned In USA? (just like the Puritians did in 1659)

[CrusaderFrank]

Leftists quoting Scripture; ironic. What's next, Hitler's favorite Torah portion?

 

[emilynghiem]

A bit of historical FACTS for nitwits and Trumpies at USMB

In the modern Religious Right’s view of America, society would greatly improve if we just went back to the social mores of the era preceding the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. Some even say that we should look even farther back for a cultural model, returning to the days of the colony at Plymouth, when governing authorities looked to the Bible and resisted secular influences.


Far from being champions of religious freedom, the early Pilgrim and Puritan settlers actually persecuted religious dissidents, particularly Quakers, Catholics and Baptists.


The two groups also loathed Christmas, the holiday which Religious Right leaders today claim is under attack from liberals who fail to say “Merry Christmas” when greeting people and cafes that don’t put the two words on their coffee cups.


The Pilgrims proscribed Christmas celebrations and lambasted the holiday as a blasphemous corruption of Christianity. The Puritans who led the Massachusetts Bay Colony deemed Christmas festivities unbiblical and banned the holiday in 1659. One Massachusetts Bay Colony law stated:

For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accountants as aforesaid, every person so offending shall pay of every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.

​

Christmas is pagan in origin.

This will be a surprise to most cons who scream about observing Christmas.

There is no bigger group of snowflakes than right wing Christians. They manufacture reasons to be offended and to try to inject their brand of Christianity into the laws of the land, completely ignoring the separation of Church and state.

There is no “War on Christmas” and never has been. Even atheists celebrate Christmas. But Christmas has been co-opted as a massive secular holiday with the emphasis on family, presents and Santa Claus. It’s become a commercial bonanza, largely stripped of its religious significance.

The so-called “Christian right” constantly whine about religious freedom, while attempting to strip others of their rights and freedoms - like removing birth control from employees health care, calling for bans on abortions, refusing to serve gays. To me, the worst is blaming the poor for being poor.

These people would turn away Jesus Christ himself. After all, He was a full grown healthy man who chose not to work and lived off the kindness of others. Even worse, he encouraged His disciples to do the same.

When I watch someone like Joel Osteen on TV, I see no element of Jesus’ teachings in his brand of “prosperity Christianity”. It’s all selfishness, achieving your full potential and maximizing your income through the Gospel. I’m reminded of the false preachers Jesus warned us about.

Dear Dragonlady
Just like there were isolated cases of "bullying" transgender kids at school asked to use the faculty restroom, but this was enough to trigger city and state reforms to change bathroom policies across the country.

There are Individual cases of people and secular organizations suing or demanding to remove:
*Crosses
*Bible references (Ten commandments, Bible's on display on Capitol grounds, scriptures on school sponsored event banners etc)
*Christmas references from nativity scenes to "merry Christmas" to one fight at a school over Christmas trees at a field trip to see the Nutcracker.

Each of these individual cases adds up. Just like cases of transgender discrimination that is even a Smaller fraction of infractions yet led to national campaigns.

But I *DO agree with you* Dragonlady to take each case *one by one* to resolve them locally with just those individuals involved, separately from the other cases - if we do this with both LGBT conflicts and with Christmas or with Christian expressions in school or govt, there wouldnt be any "wars" over this in the media. Just be fair and do the same with conflicts over LGBT beliefs equally as Christian beliefs or Christmas references, and yes we can make peace instead of war. By working one on one, case by case as I was explaining to frigidweirdo also.

Merry Christmas and have a happy prosperous and productive New Year! We all need and deserve that!

 

[emilynghiem]

Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists don’t even celebrate Christmas at all, because the current traditions have pagan origins.

Jesus Christ, astronomy is not "pagan." Europeans celebrated the winter soltice for tens of thousands of years. Then a middle east cult figured they would insert their failed neo-essene messiah into the storyline.

Then there’s Chapter 10 of the Book of Jeremiah which says not to cut down trees or adorn them with silver and gold which is the “way of the heathen”.

No offense, but did you graduate high school?
That has absolutely nothing to do with European culture of Xmas trees since the faggot rabbis who wrote and often plagiarized content to manufacture the "bible" did not even know Europe existed. That narrative in the "bible" is the jewish deity "Yahweh" being intimidated by other tribes making totem poles.

Dear Snouter people use the word "pagan" to mean traditions of secular culture in general. Anything that is outside the spirit of Christ the Bible and God's ideal will is called "heathen" or "pagan" but a lot of times people mean "secular society".

Note: Christian's who say some Catholics, JW, Muslims, Mormons, masons etc are not "Christian's" are basically throwing them in with "secular Gentiles" who are non-believers in Christ Jesus as divine authority of God's laws and justice. However even these secular followers are under Jesus authority as Justice over civil laws, so these aren't outside God but just under natural laws that ppl will call "heathen or pagan" for lack of specific terms.

This is a real problem just like blaming all "Muslims" collectively instead of making a distinction between people and groups individually.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

But it’s Easter I have real problems with. The most solemn and serious of Christian Holy Days should not be celebrated with rabbits, chocolate or eggs.

Amen! Easter is not about a fictitious bunny rabbit!

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear @frig

I don't really understand most of what you've just said.

No, I wasn't implying that people are arguing to burn Muslims on the cross, I was merely using this is a possible future outcome of people's hatred towards Muslims and their attempts at getting rid of them.

There are those on the right, like that fuckhead Bannon, who want to get rid of Muslims. They've looked to Israel and seen that if you keep things in a constant state of war, you can turn people's opinions against those you're targeting and then you can use this to implement laws that are unconstitutional under the guise of keeping people safe (while making things less safe).

Do you realize you are doing this same tactic frigidweirdo
when you rail against Republicans the way you criticize Bannon for railing against Muslims?

Do you realize there's a big difference between Muslims and Republicans?

Also, do you realize I'm not saying ban Republicans like they're saying ban Muslims?

No, you're wrong.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Conservatives and Republicans who take what Jihadists do and
blame Muslims for enabling that by association or affiliation
are like
2. you taking what SOME extreme rightwing fundamentalists do,
and blaming Republicans as a group. When you exaggerate and say "this could
lead to rallying the courts to rule it constitutional to burn Muslims on the cross"
that's like conservatives saying that Muslims want to push shariah law in
this country. No, the Muslims who are lawabiding Americans RESPECT
civil laws, govt and authority by following the same Bible and Constitution as Christians.

What Muslims and Republicans have in common are conservative values
based on scriptural and natural laws they both believe in.

Muslims I know RESPECT the Bible and Constitution, so yes,
they DO have these values in common with Republican conservatives.

Leaders such as Quanell X have addressed audiences of Conservative Republicans
to focus on family values and other conservative values shared in common. Mustafaa
Carroll of CAIR has met and talked directly with Christian groups with questions
and criticisms. He has Christian pastors in his family and friends, who work together
on peace and justice outreach. There is more in common than there are differences,
mostly from conflicts in understanding that CAN and have been overcome by talking
one and one to resolve these matters.

In fact, I believe the leadership coming from the Black Christian and Muslim
communities is what will help unite people across party lines by focusing on
values and principles we share in common.

That is greater than the partisan labels we've divided ourselves into.

The values, beliefs and principles shared in common are greater than
the manmade divisions perpetrated through politics and medica
to "divide and conquer" people by groups for profit and power.
That game will not last. We cannot afford to waste resources fighting,
and will learn that by uniting on common solutions we can solve our own problems more effectively.

We're not there yet, frigidweirdo.
You can predict greater wars in the future, but I also see greater
opportunity for collaboration and alliance, out of pure necessity
to relieve and end the tax burdens, debts and damages that the public cannot afford much longer.

Yes there is war and talk of war, but this is so costly,
we cannot sustain that culture. And the leaders who can
make peace and work together across political and religious
lines are going to lead the way of the future in solving these problems
instead of merely fighting and projecting blame back and forth in endless circles getting nowhere.

Thanks frigidweirdo You are right that these conflicts exist,
but I am pointing to the future and you are focused on the past.

Problem is this isn't "right wing fundamentalists", this is A LOT OF REPUBLICANS.

How anti-Muslim are Americans? Data points to extent of Islamophobia

"Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims might sound outrageous, but it could appeal to the 55% of Americans who voice an unfavorable opinion of Islam"

White, older Republicans or independents are most likely to not like Islam.

That in itself is nothing really. The real issue is that 55% of those people, you're looking at 1/4 or more of Republicans, want a ban on Muslims. Potentially it's even more than this.

"Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held among older respondents and those who were Republican."

This isn't a fundamentalist view, this is a view held by a large group of people.

Dear frigidweirdo:
1. The same thing I said, about checking Christian's and Constitutionalists against their own laws, applies to these "large groups of people" -- it just requires addressing EACH person saying this ONE on ONE in Person! I've done this and keep doing this because it works. My own boyfriend is one. I've had to explain it to him one on one how a Muslim is different from a Jihadist.
2. There are conservatives, one i heard on the air standing in for Sean Hannity and my bf cited the written source, AGREEING that we *need to make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists.* That is the key and there are conservatives promoting this distinction in public. The media is lazy, it's easier to go on and on and say "Muslims" in general, just like blaming "black thugs" and get people and ratings hyped up. frigidweirdo you even did this, and mouthed off about imagining people wanting to "legalize burning Muslims on the cross" as a gross exaggeration which you didn't mean Literally. That's the political tactic used in the media but it can't be taken literally all the time. When I talk with you directly your meaning and message is different, and same with individuals vs what their whole group or party says in the media.
3. But frigidweirdo just like you and I *DO NOT fit* the vast stereotype of progressive minded people, when we talk with each other ONE on ONE Directly, the dynamic is Different from what we are told by the collective media. And FW whenever I address ppl one on one, I can get to the person underneath stereotypes even their own projections. That's how I can look past your projections and know that underneath you are trying to express valid points. The vast Republicans blaming Muslims are trying to say that if Muslims aren't held to the Bible or Bill of Rights like Christian's and Constitutionalists, they can't be checked. Well frigidweirdo the same is true of Christian's and Constitutionalists, secular Gentiles or believers, Democrats or Republicans, libertarians or Greens -- if any of these aren't held to Constitutional or Christian or their own principles "one on one" they can't be checked EITHER!!!!

People in groups are still human beings, and human beings by natural laws and conscience respond to their own laws, their own peers especially Democrats, and their own authorities God gives us. When I approach someone as a Peer not an adversary frigidweirdo I get a different response. We can talk as equals and actually get somewhere. The worst we get is a deadlock. I deadlock a lot with my own bf so I'm used to that, that's just human, but I keep working through the process.

The process is you address one on one first, then you isolate key pinpointed yes no issues and bring in others to mediate and resolve those points. You build one point at a time to reach consensus as equal peers. frigidweirdo you do not blast whole groups because that's not where change occurs, bit only begets group resistance so it fails. It takes time to build relationships and consensus but that's how the human process works.


4. Difference with Muslims vs. other "large groups" of Christian's Republicans etc:

If a Muslim is a secular Gentile who uses the Bible as natural laws, then you address them that way. I've found Muslims who approach natural laws from God but through secular ways or Muslim teachings. This is a different ANGLE than other Christian's or Constitutionalists who are direct believers in Christ Jesus who invoke that authority directly.

When I address secular Gentiles by natural laws from God this way, I have much better success - and that goes for Muslims for Jehovah Witnesses Mormons and others who often respond as secular Gentiles following the Bible as natural laws.

My own bf is a good example of a righteous gentile under natural laws. We argue like Jefferson would with himself, so that's a lot of work and lots of fun ha ha. Been there still doing that!!!

Still working on that FW.
Since 2001 with him (and started in 1990s with others when I latched on to what Constitutionalists are doing by holding each other to those laws as Christian's hold each other to the Bible. Matthew 18:15-20 applies to both laws but in their separate contexts respectively and the process works) I can list the points on one hand where he and I agree.. still using those points to build consensus based on agreement on the laws.

5. Btw the group dynamic is a huge factor. When I say something one on one I'm competing with a collective media and party line saying something else. So it's David vs Goliath. You know the feeling frigidweirdo yet the Goliath doesn't stop you as David from hitting the key target when your point is correct and the Goliath is wrong. The key is aiming at the point that has impact. I'm trying to get to the David in each person and we hit those key points together to bring down the mass Goliath's. That way we all win. We defeat the Goliath and we each get credit for the key points we each find that contributes to success.

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, that is the straw man that you put up in place of actual 'modern religious right's views.'

What you really mean is that I’m confusing the issue with facts. Here’s a few more.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists don’t even celebrate Christmas at all, because the current traditions have pagan origins.

Then there’s Chapter 10 of the Book of Jeremiah which says not to cut down trees or adorn them with silver and gold which is the “way of the heathen”.

I also had no idea that the “modern religious right” view of Christianity was the only one that matters especially considering that that they’re only 26% of the population and aren’t even the majority of Christians. Christians form 65% of the population so you can see that the views of the “modern religious right” are really not the majority in any sense of the word.

There’s another 20% of the population which are atheist, but many of them celebrate Christmas. That group is only slightly smaller than the evangelicals so shouldn’t their views of Christmas be considered too?

When churches are putting up billboards to remind us that “Jesus is the reason for the season”, you know that any religious significance for the season has been perverted beyond recognition.

Nope.

I am saying, quite clearly, that your straw man is asinine.

 

[FA_Q2]

But it’s Easter I have real problems with. The most solemn and serious of Christian Holy Days should not be celebrated with rabbits, chocolate or eggs.

Amen! Easter is not about a fictitious bunny rabbit!

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Commercialism - it will always find a way to profit.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @frig

Do you realize you are doing this same tactic frigidweirdo
when you rail against Republicans the way you criticize Bannon for railing against Muslims?

Do you realize there's a big difference between Muslims and Republicans?

Also, do you realize I'm not saying ban Republicans like they're saying ban Muslims?

No, you're wrong.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Conservatives and Republicans who take what Jihadists do and
blame Muslims for enabling that by association or affiliation
are like
2. you taking what SOME extreme rightwing fundamentalists do,
and blaming Republicans as a group. When you exaggerate and say "this could
lead to rallying the courts to rule it constitutional to burn Muslims on the cross"
that's like conservatives saying that Muslims want to push shariah law in
this country. No, the Muslims who are lawabiding Americans RESPECT
civil laws, govt and authority by following the same Bible and Constitution as Christians.

What Muslims and Republicans have in common are conservative values
based on scriptural and natural laws they both believe in.

Muslims I know RESPECT the Bible and Constitution, so yes,
they DO have these values in common with Republican conservatives.

Leaders such as Quanell X have addressed audiences of Conservative Republicans
to focus on family values and other conservative values shared in common. Mustafaa
Carroll of CAIR has met and talked directly with Christian groups with questions
and criticisms. He has Christian pastors in his family and friends, who work together
on peace and justice outreach. There is more in common than there are differences,
mostly from conflicts in understanding that CAN and have been overcome by talking
one and one to resolve these matters.

In fact, I believe the leadership coming from the Black Christian and Muslim
communities is what will help unite people across party lines by focusing on
values and principles we share in common.

That is greater than the partisan labels we've divided ourselves into.

The values, beliefs and principles shared in common are greater than
the manmade divisions perpetrated through politics and medica
to "divide and conquer" people by groups for profit and power.
That game will not last. We cannot afford to waste resources fighting,
and will learn that by uniting on common solutions we can solve our own problems more effectively.

We're not there yet, frigidweirdo.
You can predict greater wars in the future, but I also see greater
opportunity for collaboration and alliance, out of pure necessity
to relieve and end the tax burdens, debts and damages that the public cannot afford much longer.

Yes there is war and talk of war, but this is so costly,
we cannot sustain that culture. And the leaders who can
make peace and work together across political and religious
lines are going to lead the way of the future in solving these problems
instead of merely fighting and projecting blame back and forth in endless circles getting nowhere.

Thanks frigidweirdo You are right that these conflicts exist,
but I am pointing to the future and you are focused on the past.

Problem is this isn't "right wing fundamentalists", this is A LOT OF REPUBLICANS.

How anti-Muslim are Americans? Data points to extent of Islamophobia

"Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims might sound outrageous, but it could appeal to the 55% of Americans who voice an unfavorable opinion of Islam"

White, older Republicans or independents are most likely to not like Islam.

That in itself is nothing really. The real issue is that 55% of those people, you're looking at 1/4 or more of Republicans, want a ban on Muslims. Potentially it's even more than this.

"Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held among older respondents and those who were Republican."

This isn't a fundamentalist view, this is a view held by a large group of people.

Dear frigidweirdo:
1. The same thing I said, about checking Christian's and Constitutionalists against their own laws, applies to these "large groups of people" -- it just requires addressing EACH person saying this ONE on ONE in Person! I've done this and keep doing this because it works. My own boyfriend is one. I've had to explain it to him one on one how a Muslim is different from a Jihadist.
2. There are conservatives, one i heard on the air standing in for Sean Hannity and my bf cited the written source, AGREEING that we *need to make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists.* That is the key and there are conservatives promoting this distinction in public. The media is lazy, it's easier to go on and on and say "Muslims" in general, just like blaming "black thugs" and get people and ratings hyped up. frigidweirdo you even did this, and mouthed off about imagining people wanting to "legalize burning Muslims on the cross" as a gross exaggeration which you didn't mean Literally. That's the political tactic used in the media but it can't be taken literally all the time. When I talk with you directly your meaning and message is different, and same with individuals vs what their whole group or party says in the media.
3. But frigidweirdo just like you and I *DO NOT fit* the vast stereotype of progressive minded people, when we talk with each other ONE on ONE Directly, the dynamic is Different from what we are told by the collective media. And FW whenever I address ppl one on one, I can get to the person underneath stereotypes even their own projections. That's how I can look past your projections and know that underneath you are trying to express valid points. The vast Republicans blaming Muslims are trying to say that if Muslims aren't held to the Bible or Bill of Rights like Christian's and Constitutionalists, they can't be checked. Well frigidweirdo the same is true of Christian's and Constitutionalists, secular Gentiles or believers, Democrats or Republicans, libertarians or Greens -- if any of these aren't held to Constitutional or Christian or their own principles "one on one" they can't be checked EITHER!!!!

People in groups are still human beings, and human beings by natural laws and conscience respond to their own laws, their own peers especially Democrats, and their own authorities God gives us. When I approach someone as a Peer not an adversary frigidweirdo I get a different response. We can talk as equals and actually get somewhere. The worst we get is a deadlock. I deadlock a lot with my own bf so I'm used to that, that's just human, but I keep working through the process.

The process is you address one on one first, then you isolate key pinpointed yes no issues and bring in others to mediate and resolve those points. You build one point at a time to reach consensus as equal peers. frigidweirdo you do not blast whole groups because that's not where change occurs, bit only begets group resistance so it fails. It takes time to build relationships and consensus but that's how the human process works.


4. Difference with Muslims vs. other "large groups" of Christian's Republicans etc:

If a Muslim is a secular Gentile who uses the Bible as natural laws, then you address them that way. I've found Muslims who approach natural laws from God but through secular ways or Muslim teachings. This is a different ANGLE than other Christian's or Constitutionalists who are direct believers in Christ Jesus who invoke that authority directly.

When I address secular Gentiles by natural laws from God this way, I have much better success - and that goes for Muslims for Jehovah Witnesses Mormons and others who often respond as secular Gentiles following the Bible as natural laws.

My own bf is a good example of a righteous gentile under natural laws. We argue like Jefferson would with himself, so that's a lot of work and lots of fun ha ha. Been there still doing that!!!

Still working on that FW.
Since 2001 with him (and started in 1990s with others when I latched on to what Constitutionalists are doing by holding each other to those laws as Christian's hold each other to the Bible. Matthew 18:15-20 applies to both laws but in their separate contexts respectively and the process works) I can list the points on one hand where he and I agree.. still using those points to build consensus based on agreement on the laws.

5. Btw the group dynamic is a huge factor. When I say something one on one I'm competing with a collective media and party line saying something else. So it's David vs Goliath. You know the feeling frigidweirdo yet the Goliath doesn't stop you as David from hitting the key target when your point is correct and the Goliath is wrong. The key is aiming at the point that has impact. I'm trying to get to the David in each person and we hit those key points together to bring down the mass Goliath's. That way we all win. We defeat the Goliath and we each get credit for the key points we each find that contributes to success.

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. you need to read IM2's thread on individualism.
So we want to talk about individualism
I think you are on the same page.

2. some people in the pack think and change their minds on their own,
some follow the leader. The trick, frigidweirdo is to find the ones who
will change on their own, AND the ones who are in a position where OTHERS
will follow their lead! So if the key people in a group change, it creates a chain
reaction where they influence others. Peers will listen to peers first. And if a leader of the group flips, that helps a lot more follow that same process.

You are right that some will wait and follow the pack.
That is why I look for the people like you who think for yourself
and will lead the pack not follow it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear @frig

Do you realize there's a big difference between Muslims and Republicans?

Also, do you realize I'm not saying ban Republicans like they're saying ban Muslims?

No, you're wrong.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Conservatives and Republicans who take what Jihadists do and
blame Muslims for enabling that by association or affiliation
are like
2. you taking what SOME extreme rightwing fundamentalists do,
and blaming Republicans as a group. When you exaggerate and say "this could
lead to rallying the courts to rule it constitutional to burn Muslims on the cross"
that's like conservatives saying that Muslims want to push shariah law in
this country. No, the Muslims who are lawabiding Americans RESPECT
civil laws, govt and authority by following the same Bible and Constitution as Christians.

What Muslims and Republicans have in common are conservative values
based on scriptural and natural laws they both believe in.

Muslims I know RESPECT the Bible and Constitution, so yes,
they DO have these values in common with Republican conservatives.

Leaders such as Quanell X have addressed audiences of Conservative Republicans
to focus on family values and other conservative values shared in common. Mustafaa
Carroll of CAIR has met and talked directly with Christian groups with questions
and criticisms. He has Christian pastors in his family and friends, who work together
on peace and justice outreach. There is more in common than there are differences,
mostly from conflicts in understanding that CAN and have been overcome by talking
one and one to resolve these matters.

In fact, I believe the leadership coming from the Black Christian and Muslim
communities is what will help unite people across party lines by focusing on
values and principles we share in common.

That is greater than the partisan labels we've divided ourselves into.

The values, beliefs and principles shared in common are greater than
the manmade divisions perpetrated through politics and medica
to "divide and conquer" people by groups for profit and power.
That game will not last. We cannot afford to waste resources fighting,
and will learn that by uniting on common solutions we can solve our own problems more effectively.

We're not there yet, frigidweirdo.
You can predict greater wars in the future, but I also see greater
opportunity for collaboration and alliance, out of pure necessity
to relieve and end the tax burdens, debts and damages that the public cannot afford much longer.

Yes there is war and talk of war, but this is so costly,
we cannot sustain that culture. And the leaders who can
make peace and work together across political and religious
lines are going to lead the way of the future in solving these problems
instead of merely fighting and projecting blame back and forth in endless circles getting nowhere.

Thanks frigidweirdo You are right that these conflicts exist,
but I am pointing to the future and you are focused on the past.

Problem is this isn't "right wing fundamentalists", this is A LOT OF REPUBLICANS.

How anti-Muslim are Americans? Data points to extent of Islamophobia

"Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims might sound outrageous, but it could appeal to the 55% of Americans who voice an unfavorable opinion of Islam"

White, older Republicans or independents are most likely to not like Islam.

That in itself is nothing really. The real issue is that 55% of those people, you're looking at 1/4 or more of Republicans, want a ban on Muslims. Potentially it's even more than this.

"Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held among older respondents and those who were Republican."

This isn't a fundamentalist view, this is a view held by a large group of people.

Dear frigidweirdo:
1. The same thing I said, about checking Christian's and Constitutionalists against their own laws, applies to these "large groups of people" -- it just requires addressing EACH person saying this ONE on ONE in Person! I've done this and keep doing this because it works. My own boyfriend is one. I've had to explain it to him one on one how a Muslim is different from a Jihadist.
2. There are conservatives, one i heard on the air standing in for Sean Hannity and my bf cited the written source, AGREEING that we *need to make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists.* That is the key and there are conservatives promoting this distinction in public. The media is lazy, it's easier to go on and on and say "Muslims" in general, just like blaming "black thugs" and get people and ratings hyped up. frigidweirdo you even did this, and mouthed off about imagining people wanting to "legalize burning Muslims on the cross" as a gross exaggeration which you didn't mean Literally. That's the political tactic used in the media but it can't be taken literally all the time. When I talk with you directly your meaning and message is different, and same with individuals vs what their whole group or party says in the media.
3. But frigidweirdo just like you and I *DO NOT fit* the vast stereotype of progressive minded people, when we talk with each other ONE on ONE Directly, the dynamic is Different from what we are told by the collective media. And FW whenever I address ppl one on one, I can get to the person underneath stereotypes even their own projections. That's how I can look past your projections and know that underneath you are trying to express valid points. The vast Republicans blaming Muslims are trying to say that if Muslims aren't held to the Bible or Bill of Rights like Christian's and Constitutionalists, they can't be checked. Well frigidweirdo the same is true of Christian's and Constitutionalists, secular Gentiles or believers, Democrats or Republicans, libertarians or Greens -- if any of these aren't held to Constitutional or Christian or their own principles "one on one" they can't be checked EITHER!!!!

People in groups are still human beings, and human beings by natural laws and conscience respond to their own laws, their own peers especially Democrats, and their own authorities God gives us. When I approach someone as a Peer not an adversary frigidweirdo I get a different response. We can talk as equals and actually get somewhere. The worst we get is a deadlock. I deadlock a lot with my own bf so I'm used to that, that's just human, but I keep working through the process.

The process is you address one on one first, then you isolate key pinpointed yes no issues and bring in others to mediate and resolve those points. You build one point at a time to reach consensus as equal peers. frigidweirdo you do not blast whole groups because that's not where change occurs, bit only begets group resistance so it fails. It takes time to build relationships and consensus but that's how the human process works.


4. Difference with Muslims vs. other "large groups" of Christian's Republicans etc:

If a Muslim is a secular Gentile who uses the Bible as natural laws, then you address them that way. I've found Muslims who approach natural laws from God but through secular ways or Muslim teachings. This is a different ANGLE than other Christian's or Constitutionalists who are direct believers in Christ Jesus who invoke that authority directly.

When I address secular Gentiles by natural laws from God this way, I have much better success - and that goes for Muslims for Jehovah Witnesses Mormons and others who often respond as secular Gentiles following the Bible as natural laws.

My own bf is a good example of a righteous gentile under natural laws. We argue like Jefferson would with himself, so that's a lot of work and lots of fun ha ha. Been there still doing that!!!

Still working on that FW.
Since 2001 with him (and started in 1990s with others when I latched on to what Constitutionalists are doing by holding each other to those laws as Christian's hold each other to the Bible. Matthew 18:15-20 applies to both laws but in their separate contexts respectively and the process works) I can list the points on one hand where he and I agree.. still using those points to build consensus based on agreement on the laws.

5. Btw the group dynamic is a huge factor. When I say something one on one I'm competing with a collective media and party line saying something else. So it's David vs Goliath. You know the feeling frigidweirdo yet the Goliath doesn't stop you as David from hitting the key target when your point is correct and the Goliath is wrong. The key is aiming at the point that has impact. I'm trying to get to the David in each person and we hit those key points together to bring down the mass Goliath's. That way we all win. We defeat the Goliath and we each get credit for the key points we each find that contributes to success.

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. you need to read IM2's thread on individualism.
I think you are on the same page.

2. some people in the pack think and change their minds on their own,
some follow the leader. The trick, frigidweirdo is to find the ones who
will change on their own, AND the ones who are in a position where OTHERS
will follow their lead! So if the key people in a group change, it creates a chain
reaction where they influence others. Peers will listen to peers first. And if a leader of the group flips, that helps a lot more follow that same process.

You are right that some will wait and follow the pack.
That is why I look for the people like you who think for yourself
and will lead the pack not follow it.

The problem is I have about $25 and the Koch brothers are spending half a billion a year on politics.

The US is for sale.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @frig

Dear frigidweirdo
1. Conservatives and Republicans who take what Jihadists do and
blame Muslims for enabling that by association or affiliation
are like
2. you taking what SOME extreme rightwing fundamentalists do,
and blaming Republicans as a group. When you exaggerate and say "this could
lead to rallying the courts to rule it constitutional to burn Muslims on the cross"
that's like conservatives saying that Muslims want to push shariah law in
this country. No, the Muslims who are lawabiding Americans RESPECT
civil laws, govt and authority by following the same Bible and Constitution as Christians.

What Muslims and Republicans have in common are conservative values
based on scriptural and natural laws they both believe in.

Muslims I know RESPECT the Bible and Constitution, so yes,
they DO have these values in common with Republican conservatives.

Leaders such as Quanell X have addressed audiences of Conservative Republicans
to focus on family values and other conservative values shared in common. Mustafaa
Carroll of CAIR has met and talked directly with Christian groups with questions
and criticisms. He has Christian pastors in his family and friends, who work together
on peace and justice outreach. There is more in common than there are differences,
mostly from conflicts in understanding that CAN and have been overcome by talking
one and one to resolve these matters.

In fact, I believe the leadership coming from the Black Christian and Muslim
communities is what will help unite people across party lines by focusing on
values and principles we share in common.

That is greater than the partisan labels we've divided ourselves into.

The values, beliefs and principles shared in common are greater than
the manmade divisions perpetrated through politics and medica
to "divide and conquer" people by groups for profit and power.
That game will not last. We cannot afford to waste resources fighting,
and will learn that by uniting on common solutions we can solve our own problems more effectively.

We're not there yet, frigidweirdo.
You can predict greater wars in the future, but I also see greater
opportunity for collaboration and alliance, out of pure necessity
to relieve and end the tax burdens, debts and damages that the public cannot afford much longer.

Yes there is war and talk of war, but this is so costly,
we cannot sustain that culture. And the leaders who can
make peace and work together across political and religious
lines are going to lead the way of the future in solving these problems
instead of merely fighting and projecting blame back and forth in endless circles getting nowhere.

Thanks frigidweirdo You are right that these conflicts exist,
but I am pointing to the future and you are focused on the past.

Problem is this isn't "right wing fundamentalists", this is A LOT OF REPUBLICANS.

How anti-Muslim are Americans? Data points to extent of Islamophobia

"Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims might sound outrageous, but it could appeal to the 55% of Americans who voice an unfavorable opinion of Islam"

White, older Republicans or independents are most likely to not like Islam.

That in itself is nothing really. The real issue is that 55% of those people, you're looking at 1/4 or more of Republicans, want a ban on Muslims. Potentially it's even more than this.

"Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held among older respondents and those who were Republican."

This isn't a fundamentalist view, this is a view held by a large group of people.

Dear frigidweirdo:
1. The same thing I said, about checking Christian's and Constitutionalists against their own laws, applies to these "large groups of people" -- it just requires addressing EACH person saying this ONE on ONE in Person! I've done this and keep doing this because it works. My own boyfriend is one. I've had to explain it to him one on one how a Muslim is different from a Jihadist.
2. There are conservatives, one i heard on the air standing in for Sean Hannity and my bf cited the written source, AGREEING that we *need to make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists.* That is the key and there are conservatives promoting this distinction in public. The media is lazy, it's easier to go on and on and say "Muslims" in general, just like blaming "black thugs" and get people and ratings hyped up. frigidweirdo you even did this, and mouthed off about imagining people wanting to "legalize burning Muslims on the cross" as a gross exaggeration which you didn't mean Literally. That's the political tactic used in the media but it can't be taken literally all the time. When I talk with you directly your meaning and message is different, and same with individuals vs what their whole group or party says in the media.
3. But frigidweirdo just like you and I *DO NOT fit* the vast stereotype of progressive minded people, when we talk with each other ONE on ONE Directly, the dynamic is Different from what we are told by the collective media. And FW whenever I address ppl one on one, I can get to the person underneath stereotypes even their own projections. That's how I can look past your projections and know that underneath you are trying to express valid points. The vast Republicans blaming Muslims are trying to say that if Muslims aren't held to the Bible or Bill of Rights like Christian's and Constitutionalists, they can't be checked. Well frigidweirdo the same is true of Christian's and Constitutionalists, secular Gentiles or believers, Democrats or Republicans, libertarians or Greens -- if any of these aren't held to Constitutional or Christian or their own principles "one on one" they can't be checked EITHER!!!!

People in groups are still human beings, and human beings by natural laws and conscience respond to their own laws, their own peers especially Democrats, and their own authorities God gives us. When I approach someone as a Peer not an adversary frigidweirdo I get a different response. We can talk as equals and actually get somewhere. The worst we get is a deadlock. I deadlock a lot with my own bf so I'm used to that, that's just human, but I keep working through the process.

The process is you address one on one first, then you isolate key pinpointed yes no issues and bring in others to mediate and resolve those points. You build one point at a time to reach consensus as equal peers. frigidweirdo you do not blast whole groups because that's not where change occurs, bit only begets group resistance so it fails. It takes time to build relationships and consensus but that's how the human process works.


4. Difference with Muslims vs. other "large groups" of Christian's Republicans etc:

If a Muslim is a secular Gentile who uses the Bible as natural laws, then you address them that way. I've found Muslims who approach natural laws from God but through secular ways or Muslim teachings. This is a different ANGLE than other Christian's or Constitutionalists who are direct believers in Christ Jesus who invoke that authority directly.

When I address secular Gentiles by natural laws from God this way, I have much better success - and that goes for Muslims for Jehovah Witnesses Mormons and others who often respond as secular Gentiles following the Bible as natural laws.

My own bf is a good example of a righteous gentile under natural laws. We argue like Jefferson would with himself, so that's a lot of work and lots of fun ha ha. Been there still doing that!!!

Still working on that FW.
Since 2001 with him (and started in 1990s with others when I latched on to what Constitutionalists are doing by holding each other to those laws as Christian's hold each other to the Bible. Matthew 18:15-20 applies to both laws but in their separate contexts respectively and the process works) I can list the points on one hand where he and I agree.. still using those points to build consensus based on agreement on the laws.

5. Btw the group dynamic is a huge factor. When I say something one on one I'm competing with a collective media and party line saying something else. So it's David vs Goliath. You know the feeling frigidweirdo yet the Goliath doesn't stop you as David from hitting the key target when your point is correct and the Goliath is wrong. The key is aiming at the point that has impact. I'm trying to get to the David in each person and we hit those key points together to bring down the mass Goliath's. That way we all win. We defeat the Goliath and we each get credit for the key points we each find that contributes to success.

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. you need to read IM2's thread on individualism.
I think you are on the same page.

2. some people in the pack think and change their minds on their own,
some follow the leader. The trick, frigidweirdo is to find the ones who
will change on their own, AND the ones who are in a position where OTHERS
will follow their lead! So if the key people in a group change, it creates a chain
reaction where they influence others. Peers will listen to peers first. And if a leader of the group flips, that helps a lot more follow that same process.

You are right that some will wait and follow the pack.
That is why I look for the people like you who think for yourself
and will lead the pack not follow it.

The problem is I have about $25 and the Koch brothers are spending half a billion a year on politics.

The US is for sale.

Not to worry frigidweirdo
Two people with the right idea focused on true solutions,
where everyone succeeds and wins,
is going to influence more people than a million people or
a million dollars wasted creating more problems doomed to failure.

Jesus and Buddha influenced more people across more
continents and centuries because they taught true
laws of wisdom and justice that helped people universally.

They didn't have a dime to their names either!

If you have 25 bucks, consider donating to Pacifica public radio.
The more people support indy media and get people organized
around solutions, we can do a lot more even with smaller numbers.

You have the right idea, you can get it out to people who want to hear it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dear @frig

Problem is this isn't "right wing fundamentalists", this is A LOT OF REPUBLICANS.

How anti-Muslim are Americans? Data points to extent of Islamophobia

"Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims might sound outrageous, but it could appeal to the 55% of Americans who voice an unfavorable opinion of Islam"

White, older Republicans or independents are most likely to not like Islam.

That in itself is nothing really. The real issue is that 55% of those people, you're looking at 1/4 or more of Republicans, want a ban on Muslims. Potentially it's even more than this.

"Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held among older respondents and those who were Republican."

This isn't a fundamentalist view, this is a view held by a large group of people.

Dear frigidweirdo:
1. The same thing I said, about checking Christian's and Constitutionalists against their own laws, applies to these "large groups of people" -- it just requires addressing EACH person saying this ONE on ONE in Person! I've done this and keep doing this because it works. My own boyfriend is one. I've had to explain it to him one on one how a Muslim is different from a Jihadist.
2. There are conservatives, one i heard on the air standing in for Sean Hannity and my bf cited the written source, AGREEING that we *need to make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists.* That is the key and there are conservatives promoting this distinction in public. The media is lazy, it's easier to go on and on and say "Muslims" in general, just like blaming "black thugs" and get people and ratings hyped up. frigidweirdo you even did this, and mouthed off about imagining people wanting to "legalize burning Muslims on the cross" as a gross exaggeration which you didn't mean Literally. That's the political tactic used in the media but it can't be taken literally all the time. When I talk with you directly your meaning and message is different, and same with individuals vs what their whole group or party says in the media.
3. But frigidweirdo just like you and I *DO NOT fit* the vast stereotype of progressive minded people, when we talk with each other ONE on ONE Directly, the dynamic is Different from what we are told by the collective media. And FW whenever I address ppl one on one, I can get to the person underneath stereotypes even their own projections. That's how I can look past your projections and know that underneath you are trying to express valid points. The vast Republicans blaming Muslims are trying to say that if Muslims aren't held to the Bible or Bill of Rights like Christian's and Constitutionalists, they can't be checked. Well frigidweirdo the same is true of Christian's and Constitutionalists, secular Gentiles or believers, Democrats or Republicans, libertarians or Greens -- if any of these aren't held to Constitutional or Christian or their own principles "one on one" they can't be checked EITHER!!!!

People in groups are still human beings, and human beings by natural laws and conscience respond to their own laws, their own peers especially Democrats, and their own authorities God gives us. When I approach someone as a Peer not an adversary frigidweirdo I get a different response. We can talk as equals and actually get somewhere. The worst we get is a deadlock. I deadlock a lot with my own bf so I'm used to that, that's just human, but I keep working through the process.

The process is you address one on one first, then you isolate key pinpointed yes no issues and bring in others to mediate and resolve those points. You build one point at a time to reach consensus as equal peers. frigidweirdo you do not blast whole groups because that's not where change occurs, bit only begets group resistance so it fails. It takes time to build relationships and consensus but that's how the human process works.


4. Difference with Muslims vs. other "large groups" of Christian's Republicans etc:

If a Muslim is a secular Gentile who uses the Bible as natural laws, then you address them that way. I've found Muslims who approach natural laws from God but through secular ways or Muslim teachings. This is a different ANGLE than other Christian's or Constitutionalists who are direct believers in Christ Jesus who invoke that authority directly.

When I address secular Gentiles by natural laws from God this way, I have much better success - and that goes for Muslims for Jehovah Witnesses Mormons and others who often respond as secular Gentiles following the Bible as natural laws.

My own bf is a good example of a righteous gentile under natural laws. We argue like Jefferson would with himself, so that's a lot of work and lots of fun ha ha. Been there still doing that!!!

Still working on that FW.
Since 2001 with him (and started in 1990s with others when I latched on to what Constitutionalists are doing by holding each other to those laws as Christian's hold each other to the Bible. Matthew 18:15-20 applies to both laws but in their separate contexts respectively and the process works) I can list the points on one hand where he and I agree.. still using those points to build consensus based on agreement on the laws.

5. Btw the group dynamic is a huge factor. When I say something one on one I'm competing with a collective media and party line saying something else. So it's David vs Goliath. You know the feeling frigidweirdo yet the Goliath doesn't stop you as David from hitting the key target when your point is correct and the Goliath is wrong. The key is aiming at the point that has impact. I'm trying to get to the David in each person and we hit those key points together to bring down the mass Goliath's. That way we all win. We defeat the Goliath and we each get credit for the key points we each find that contributes to success.

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. you need to read IM2's thread on individualism.
I think you are on the same page.

2. some people in the pack think and change their minds on their own,
some follow the leader. The trick, frigidweirdo is to find the ones who
will change on their own, AND the ones who are in a position where OTHERS
will follow their lead! So if the key people in a group change, it creates a chain
reaction where they influence others. Peers will listen to peers first. And if a leader of the group flips, that helps a lot more follow that same process.

You are right that some will wait and follow the pack.
That is why I look for the people like you who think for yourself
and will lead the pack not follow it.

The problem is I have about $25 and the Koch brothers are spending half a billion a year on politics.

The US is for sale.

Not to worry frigidweirdo
Two people with the right idea focused on true solutions,
where everyone succeeds and wins,
is going to influence more people than a million people or
a million dollars wasted creating more problems doomed to failure.

Jesus and Buddha influenced more people across more
continents and centuries because they taught true
laws of wisdom and justice that helped people universally.

They didn't have a dime to their names either!

If you have 25 bucks, consider donating to Pacifica public radio.
The more people support indy media and get people organized
around solutions, we can do a lot more even with smaller numbers.

You have the right idea, you can get it out to people who want to hear it.

You know, I come on here and I use evidence, I use logic, I use facts, and people still reject the things I say when they have nothing. Because they know what they want to believe and they'll make sure they always do.

There's a reason Trump is in the White House, it's because he was willing to say anything to get there. Nationalism is successful because people want to hear what they want to hear. People play the politics game and they're successful because they LIE and MANIPULATE and CHEAT.

That's life. Most people are just stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear @frig
Dear frigidweirdo:
1. The same thing I said, about checking Christian's and Constitutionalists against their own laws, applies to these "large groups of people" -- it just requires addressing EACH person saying this ONE on ONE in Person! I've done this and keep doing this because it works. My own boyfriend is one. I've had to explain it to him one on one how a Muslim is different from a Jihadist.
2. There are conservatives, one i heard on the air standing in for Sean Hannity and my bf cited the written source, AGREEING that we *need to make a distinction between Muslims, Islamists and Jihadists.* That is the key and there are conservatives promoting this distinction in public. The media is lazy, it's easier to go on and on and say "Muslims" in general, just like blaming "black thugs" and get people and ratings hyped up. frigidweirdo you even did this, and mouthed off about imagining people wanting to "legalize burning Muslims on the cross" as a gross exaggeration which you didn't mean Literally. That's the political tactic used in the media but it can't be taken literally all the time. When I talk with you directly your meaning and message is different, and same with individuals vs what their whole group or party says in the media.
3. But frigidweirdo just like you and I *DO NOT fit* the vast stereotype of progressive minded people, when we talk with each other ONE on ONE Directly, the dynamic is Different from what we are told by the collective media. And FW whenever I address ppl one on one, I can get to the person underneath stereotypes even their own projections. That's how I can look past your projections and know that underneath you are trying to express valid points. The vast Republicans blaming Muslims are trying to say that if Muslims aren't held to the Bible or Bill of Rights like Christian's and Constitutionalists, they can't be checked. Well frigidweirdo the same is true of Christian's and Constitutionalists, secular Gentiles or believers, Democrats or Republicans, libertarians or Greens -- if any of these aren't held to Constitutional or Christian or their own principles "one on one" they can't be checked EITHER!!!!

People in groups are still human beings, and human beings by natural laws and conscience respond to their own laws, their own peers especially Democrats, and their own authorities God gives us. When I approach someone as a Peer not an adversary frigidweirdo I get a different response. We can talk as equals and actually get somewhere. The worst we get is a deadlock. I deadlock a lot with my own bf so I'm used to that, that's just human, but I keep working through the process.

The process is you address one on one first, then you isolate key pinpointed yes no issues and bring in others to mediate and resolve those points. You build one point at a time to reach consensus as equal peers. frigidweirdo you do not blast whole groups because that's not where change occurs, bit only begets group resistance so it fails. It takes time to build relationships and consensus but that's how the human process works.


4. Difference with Muslims vs. other "large groups" of Christian's Republicans etc:

If a Muslim is a secular Gentile who uses the Bible as natural laws, then you address them that way. I've found Muslims who approach natural laws from God but through secular ways or Muslim teachings. This is a different ANGLE than other Christian's or Constitutionalists who are direct believers in Christ Jesus who invoke that authority directly.

When I address secular Gentiles by natural laws from God this way, I have much better success - and that goes for Muslims for Jehovah Witnesses Mormons and others who often respond as secular Gentiles following the Bible as natural laws.

My own bf is a good example of a righteous gentile under natural laws. We argue like Jefferson would with himself, so that's a lot of work and lots of fun ha ha. Been there still doing that!!!

Still working on that FW.
Since 2001 with him (and started in 1990s with others when I latched on to what Constitutionalists are doing by holding each other to those laws as Christian's hold each other to the Bible. Matthew 18:15-20 applies to both laws but in their separate contexts respectively and the process works) I can list the points on one hand where he and I agree.. still using those points to build consensus based on agreement on the laws.

5. Btw the group dynamic is a huge factor. When I say something one on one I'm competing with a collective media and party line saying something else. So it's David vs Goliath. You know the feeling frigidweirdo yet the Goliath doesn't stop you as David from hitting the key target when your point is correct and the Goliath is wrong. The key is aiming at the point that has impact. I'm trying to get to the David in each person and we hit those key points together to bring down the mass Goliath's. That way we all win. We defeat the Goliath and we each get credit for the key points we each find that contributes to success.

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. you need to read IM2's thread on individualism.
I think you are on the same page.

2. some people in the pack think and change their minds on their own,
some follow the leader. The trick, frigidweirdo is to find the ones who
will change on their own, AND the ones who are in a position where OTHERS
will follow their lead! So if the key people in a group change, it creates a chain
reaction where they influence others. Peers will listen to peers first. And if a leader of the group flips, that helps a lot more follow that same process.

You are right that some will wait and follow the pack.
That is why I look for the people like you who think for yourself
and will lead the pack not follow it.

The problem is I have about $25 and the Koch brothers are spending half a billion a year on politics.

The US is for sale.

Not to worry frigidweirdo
Two people with the right idea focused on true solutions,
where everyone succeeds and wins,
is going to influence more people than a million people or
a million dollars wasted creating more problems doomed to failure.

Jesus and Buddha influenced more people across more
continents and centuries because they taught true
laws of wisdom and justice that helped people universally.

They didn't have a dime to their names either!

If you have 25 bucks, consider donating to Pacifica public radio.
The more people support indy media and get people organized
around solutions, we can do a lot more even with smaller numbers.

You have the right idea, you can get it out to people who want to hear it.

You know, I come on here and I use evidence, I use logic, I use facts, and people still reject the things I say when they have nothing. Because they know what they want to believe and they'll make sure they always do.

There's a reason Trump is in the White House, it's because he was willing to say anything to get there. Nationalism is successful because people want to hear what they want to hear. People play the politics game and they're successful because they LIE and MANIPULATE and CHEAT.

That's life. Most people are just stupid.

Dear frigidweirdo
You and I are having a conversation where we are talking and sharing as individuals. I don't see you as a THEY as a talking head "representing a whole group."

Until we can change enough numbers to show up in large groups,
you me Trump everyone else started with just people AROUND US.

We focus on the WE the US, not the THEY we can't reach.

If Edison, if Einstein worried about the majority of people who didn't see or get what they were driving at, then maybe we wouldn't have the lightbulb,
or the knowledge of physics or relativity that changed how people saw things.

Focus on where you can change things and the rest will follow.

frigidweirdo people are not all stupid, but I will say stubborn!
just find the 2% within each person or relationship, that you can agree on or change or do something constructive with. the diamond is the tiniest % of the lump of coal it came from, but it's the most valuable part. priceless!

the one element Edison found that made the lightbulb work was one out of how many materials or attempts that he tried and failed at? thousands!

We can't judge ourselves or others by our failures; there are ALWAYS more ways to do things wrong, and fewer ways to do things perfectly right.

Seek that which is effective and beneficial, and mutual in understanding.
by process of elimination, we put aside the negative things we can't solve yet that waste our time and energy, and focus on what will move us forward.

Keep on the right track frigidweirdo
Give up what isn't working, and then like Edison you'll find the
right trick to turning the lights on. With each person, it's different.
Don't give up. It's always going to be the smallest percentage
we agree on, and the areas we disagree are always vastly greater.

 

[Windparadox]

Do you realize there's a big difference between Muslims and Republicans?<snip>.

`
Oh really?
`
`

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem here is that when one old white guy kills 50 people, he's a lone wolf, he's an individual, he has nothing to do with the other white people, other Christians, other men. He's alone.

When a Muslim does it, they're all together. It's a tactic these people deliberately use. They compartmentalize things. This is different to that so they can completely change their logic from one topic to another. Because they're religious they've been brought up to BELIEVE things, to accept, and to reject, not based on fact or logic, but based on just random stuff, so it's not hard for them to do this here.

You might be able to get at some people, but a lot of these Republicans don't want to change. They're being told how to think by people like the Koch brothers with incessant advertising (that doesn't even look like advertising) in magazines, on TV, wherever they look. And if they were to change they'd have to accept that they're stupid and have been taken for a ride their whole life, and all the people around them are the same. It's not happening.

Dear frigidweirdo
1. you need to read IM2's thread on individualism.
I think you are on the same page.

2. some people in the pack think and change their minds on their own,
some follow the leader. The trick, frigidweirdo is to find the ones who
will change on their own, AND the ones who are in a position where OTHERS
will follow their lead! So if the key people in a group change, it creates a chain
reaction where they influence others. Peers will listen to peers first. And if a leader of the group flips, that helps a lot more follow that same process.

You are right that some will wait and follow the pack.
That is why I look for the people like you who think for yourself
and will lead the pack not follow it.

The problem is I have about $25 and the Koch brothers are spending half a billion a year on politics.

The US is for sale.

Not to worry frigidweirdo
Two people with the right idea focused on true solutions,
where everyone succeeds and wins,
is going to influence more people than a million people or
a million dollars wasted creating more problems doomed to failure.

Jesus and Buddha influenced more people across more
continents and centuries because they taught true
laws of wisdom and justice that helped people universally.

They didn't have a dime to their names either!

If you have 25 bucks, consider donating to Pacifica public radio.
The more people support indy media and get people organized
around solutions, we can do a lot more even with smaller numbers.

You have the right idea, you can get it out to people who want to hear it.

You know, I come on here and I use evidence, I use logic, I use facts, and people still reject the things I say when they have nothing. Because they know what they want to believe and they'll make sure they always do.

There's a reason Trump is in the White House, it's because he was willing to say anything to get there. Nationalism is successful because people want to hear what they want to hear. People play the politics game and they're successful because they LIE and MANIPULATE and CHEAT.

That's life. Most people are just stupid.

Dear frigidweirdo
You and I are having a conversation where we are talking and sharing as individuals. I don't see you as a THEY as a talking head "representing a whole group."

Until we can change enough numbers to show up in large groups,
you me Trump everyone else started with just people AROUND US.

We focus on the WE the US, not the THEY we can't reach.

If Edison, if Einstein worried about the majority of people who didn't see or get what they were driving at, then maybe we wouldn't have the lightbulb,
or the knowledge of physics or relativity that changed how people saw things.

Focus on where you can change things and the rest will follow.

frigidweirdo people are not all stupid, but I will say stubborn!
just find the 2% within each person or relationship, that you can agree on or change or do something constructive with. the diamond is the tiniest % of the lump of coal it came from, but it's the most valuable part. priceless!

the one element Edison found that made the lightbulb work was one out of how many materials or attempts that he tried and failed at? thousands!

We can't judge ourselves or others by our failures; there are ALWAYS more ways to do things wrong, and fewer ways to do things perfectly right.

Seek that which is effective and beneficial, and mutual in understanding.
by process of elimination, we put aside the negative things we can't solve yet that waste our time and energy, and focus on what will move us forward.

Keep on the right track frigidweirdo
Give up what isn't working, and then like Edison you'll find the
right trick to turning the lights on. With each person, it's different.
Don't give up. It's always going to be the smallest percentage
we agree on, and the areas we disagree are always vastly greater.

Well you're an optimist.

I see a country where Coca-Cola and Pepsi rule because they can tell people what to think.

I had a manager who could get free Coca-Cola, and he was on food stamps, his wife had left him and he was bringing up the two girls, and he actually bought Pepsi. I asked him why. He said it was because Pepsi was the poor guy's drink. He'd been so convinced that the way Pepsi presented itself was "his way" and Coca-Cola was for other people. It's almost the same sugary crap, and yet he saw it as something the advertisers wanted him to think it was.

I'd say that's stupid.

The intelligent people can get the stupid people to follow them, but not with the truth, they don't like the truth.

In Germany in 1990 they had a choice, Helmut Kohl's vision of Germany where everything was great, all roses and beauty, or the realistic view of the SPD (left wing party) who said the reunification process would be a tough road.

They voted for Kohl's way, and got what the SPD said would happen.

Brexit. The UK is being forced to essentially have the EU tell it what laws it wants, the people voted for Brexit and then voted for a government propped up by the DUP who won't accept that Northern Ireland has a separate system. So, the UK had shot itself in the foot and for what? Basically Rupert Murdoch and others telling them what to think and they bought it, and lost 15% of the value of the pound, and lost jobs and lost everything.

I could go on and on and on and on about the stupidity.

Edison did his thing. He didn't need to look at the people, convince them, any of that. It's not an example I would use in this discussion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you realize there's a big difference between Muslims and Republicans?<snip>.

`
Oh really?
`
`

Well a fish has eyes as well as a Human, that doesn't make them the same.

 

[longknife]

Christmas celebrations were banned in Great Britain for many decades as it had turned into a time for outright bacchanalian celebrations. Bouts of drunkenness and sexual orgies.

Here's a link: The Surprising Truth: Christians Once Banned Christmas

8 countries that banned Christmas | Metro News

 

[frigidweirdo]

Christmas celebrations were banned in Great Britain for many decades as it had turned into a time for outright bacchanalian celebrations. Bouts of drunkenness and sexual orgies.

Has anything changed?

 

[WinterBorn]

A bit of historical FACTS for nitwits and Trumpies at USMB

In the modern Religious Right’s view of America, society would greatly improve if we just went back to the social mores of the era preceding the sexual revolution and the civil rights movement. Some even say that we should look even farther back for a cultural model, returning to the days of the colony at Plymouth, when governing authorities looked to the Bible and resisted secular influences.


Far from being champions of religious freedom, the early Pilgrim and Puritan settlers actually persecuted religious dissidents, particularly Quakers, Catholics and Baptists.


The two groups also loathed Christmas, the holiday which Religious Right leaders today claim is under attack from liberals who fail to say “Merry Christmas” when greeting people and cafes that don’t put the two words on their coffee cups.


The Pilgrims proscribed Christmas celebrations and lambasted the holiday as a blasphemous corruption of Christianity. The Puritans who led the Massachusetts Bay Colony deemed Christmas festivities unbiblical and banned the holiday in 1659. One Massachusetts Bay Colony law stated:

For preventing disorders arising in several places within this jurisdiction, by reason of some still observing such festivals as were superstitiously kept in other countries, to the great dishonor of God and offence of others, it is therefore ordered by this Court and the authority thereof, that whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or any other way, upon such accountants as aforesaid, every person so offending shall pay of every such offence five shillings, as a fine to the county.

​

Christmas is pagan in origin.

They're trying their hardest to get Islam banned too.

The difference being, frigidweirdo,
when Republicans who do this in violation of Constitutional equality
get CALLED out and held to their own Constitutional principles,
they ACCEPT CORRECTION. Herman Cain got confronted and corrected
by Muslims who approached him as fellow Conservatives. Other "threats" to
push laws that discriminate against Muslims have been stopped by
enforcing the Constitution. Because Conservatives respect that;
the very purpose of the law is to check against govt abuses.

However, when liberals and Democrats get called out for violating
their own principles, from "freedom of choice" that was violated
by ACA mandates when it came to health care choices penalized
and regulated by govt and "separation of church and state" when
it comes to mandating LGBT beliefs, from same sex marriage
to transgender bathroom policies, we get DENIAL and RUNAROUND.

Liberals hide behind the "letter of the law" claiming that until the
courts rule otherwise, then political and secular BELIEFS don't
count as religious beliefs and creeds. So they continue to
impose Political Beliefs through govt, although this contradicts
their own party principles. They REFUSE to stand corrected.

The Republicans and Conservatives who commit to Constitutional
principles answer to those standards.

Populists who go by public opinion and partisan agenda,
and don't respect the Constitution first aren't willing to be checked.
Obama was bad about this, Clinton is worse, and Trump can go
either way, depending if he listens to Constitutional advice or not.

That's the difference frigidweirdo
both parties play political games, but the
Christians checked by the Bible and the
Conservatives checked by the Constitution can be held to their own standards.

And Roy Moore accepted correction how? By refusing to obey the orders of a superior court and by gathering followers to prevent the removal of the unconstitutional 10 Commandments monument in the Alabama Supreme Courthouse lobby.