After the Crash

Login or register to post comments Last Post 619 reads   18 posts
Viewing 8 posts - 11 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Wed, Oct 28, 2009 - 07:40pm

    #11
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

[quote=plato1965]

npwebb: You have too much faith in systems.. laws…

 the Constitution was designed to limit government.. it has failed. Systems do..

 They need a moral and principled populace…

 As Ben Franklin said..

 “A republic ma’am.. IF you can keep it.”

[/quote]

Even the best systems are dependent on the character, morality, and integrity of the people as a whole in them.

This is why core values are so important.  If the core values of a person starts off morally weak, how much faster will that individual sink into moral confusion when faced with the hardships and difficulty of life?

[quote=John Adams]

“We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” [/quote]

  • Fri, Oct 30, 2009 - 12:08am

    #12
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

npwebb,

To put it more clearly, I doubt there will be an open and government or community led suppression of religious expression. Freedom of speech has long been repeated as a value in the US,  so I doubt any type of overt suppression will be enforced. 

However, anti-religious views and feelings will continue to be promoted by the media – and after the crash may lead will likely intesify – as a search for scapegoats begins. The radicalizing religion occurs in two ways. First of all – the liberal propaganda on religion is as one sided, as the public global warming debate. For example – in this article, (http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/?scp=3&sq=catholic%20church&st=cse) Randy Cohen from the NY times says “our most important newspapers did not castigate the Vatican’s invitation to misogyny and homophobia“. He uses extreme language to charicature the Catholic church without explaining it’s position to properly inform the public (ie. showing both sides of the debate). Over time this type of information simply defeans the public to a proper explanation to the contrary.

Secondly, whereas extreme fundamentalist ideas are in reality on the fringe of all major religions in the world, the media is in North America and Europe is increasingly associating any relgious views with fundamentalism – which under an extreme scenario – may set the pretext for religions eventual public abolition and suppression. And though some parts of society seem to be heading in the direction of the scientific dictatorship, alot of people are developing an appetite for truth. And once you start searching for the truth, it’s hard to stop. As we, on this site, search for more clarity in regards to economic matters, I think we will start asking the same questions of other parts of our lives.

So in short – no overt religious suppression, but certainly a continuation and intesification of the whitewash, and isolation of leaders who share religion friendly views.

Certainly, people may become fearful to exercise their rights – but in the end – people will be forced to decide whether to accept this and also accept a much more serious suppression of freedoms down the line, or take a risk and push back. If we are not brave now, we will need to be alot braver down the line. Personally – while I can bear the shame of being ridiculed, I cannot not bear the shame of being too coward to speak up and act in defense of my kids future.

John

PS – Now in regards to, “the most informed being leaders of society”, I would agree. However, that will depend on them reaching their audiences, and their audiences seeing through the current smokescreen.

  • Fri, Oct 30, 2009 - 05:40pm

    #13
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

[quote=johnbryson]

npwebb,

To put it more clearly, I doubt there will be an open and government or community led suppression of religious expression. Freedom of speech has long been repeated as a value in the US,  so I doubt any type of overt suppression will be enforced. 

However, anti-religious views and feelings will continue to be promoted by the media – and after the crash may lead will likely intesify – as a search for scapegoats begins. The radicalizing religion occurs in two ways. First of all – the liberal propaganda on religion is as one sided, as the public global warming debate. For example – in this article, (http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/can-we-talk-about-religion-please/?scp=3&sq=catholic%20church&st=cse) Randy Cohen from the NY times says “our most important newspapers did not castigate the Vatican’s invitation to misogyny and homophobia“. He uses extreme language to charicature the Catholic church without explaining it’s position to properly inform the public (ie. showing both sides of the debate). Over time this type of information simply defeans the public to a proper explanation to the contrary.

Secondly, whereas extreme fundamentalist ideas are in reality on the fringe of all major religions in the world, the media is in North America and Europe is increasingly associating any relgious views with fundamentalism – which under an extreme scenario – may set the pretext for religions eventual public abolition and suppression. And though some parts of society seem to be heading in the direction of the scientific dictatorship, alot of people are developing an appetite for truth. And once you start searching for the truth, it’s hard to stop. As we, on this site, search for more clarity in regards to economic matters, I think we will start asking the same questions of other parts of our lives.

So in short – no overt religious suppression, but certainly a continuation and intesification of the whitewash, and isolation of leaders who share religion friendly views.

Certainly, people may become fearful to exercise their rights – but in the end – people will be forced to decide whether to accept this and also accept a much more serious suppression of freedoms down the line, or take a risk and push back. If we are not brave now, we will need to be alot braver down the line. Personally – while I can bear the shame of being ridiculed, I cannot not bear the shame of being too coward to speak up and act in defense of my kids future.

John

PS – Now in regards to, “the most informed being leaders of society”, I would agree. However, that will depend on them reaching their audiences, and their audiences seeing through the current smokescreen.

[/quote]

John,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I think that is a fair assessment.

Your characterization of religion (all religion) in media is pretty much spot on.  There is a trend in popular and news media to ignore religion and those you chose to observe religious practice.  When religion is covered or highlighted in the media the focus all too often is on the extreme elements of the particular religion being highlighted.

This can have the intended or unintended consequence of leading otherwise good and descent people to come to a hasty conclusion that religion (without distinction) is a problem that requires a solution.

The average non-religious person may not take the time to consider the broader issues and accept what could be considered a “knee jerk” solution of draconian consequences.

As a society (and I include all Westerns cultures), we have enjoyed personal and national liberty for so long that it is easy to take it for granted and not appreciate how hard was to obtain, how difficult it is to preserve, and how beneficial it is to the society at large.

The intent of my question about a worse case scenario crash was to give folks a moment to pause and consider the level of personal support and appreciation of liberty is, its value, and place in society now and in the future.  The big picture questions are best asked, wrestled with, and resolved during times of relative calm.

There are a very small minority of individuals who have given a great deal of time and thought to this matter and have concluded that religion really is an enemy to humanity.  Those folks are welcomed to their opinion and I really don’t see any value in trying to argue them out of it.

There are still others though who may not be particularly religious themselves will see the value of supporting religious liberty as a matter of principal, if they take the time to think through the issues. 

Personally, I don’t see the “worst case scenario” crash happening.  But by couching the question in those terms I think it helps put into perspective how much influence and importance individual opinion can have.

I want to people to honestly ask themselves, “If I were the deciding vote on the free expression of religion, which way would I vote?  Why? What would be the pro’s/con’s of my decisions?  What are the guiding principals I would lean upon to help me make the right choice?”

  • Sun, Nov 01, 2009 - 03:47pm

    #14
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

[quote=plato1965]

npwebb: You have too much faith in systems.. laws…

 the Constitution was designed to limit government.. it has failed. Systems do..

 They need a moral and principled populace…

 As Ben Franklin said..

 “A republic ma’am.. IF you can keep it.”

 

I disagree. The Constitution is not what has failed. Limiting government did not fail, except in the sense that we failed to limit government as much as we should have. There is nothing in the Constitution about the FED, or establishing a fiat currency system. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring that we run up more debt than we can pay.  I see the FED as a government agency, even though technically it is not, since the government gives it protection from scrutiny and is so dependent on it. 

Limiting freedom of speech and freedom of religion are never good things. Nor would they be necessary in any type of post-crash community. Holding a new government accountable for establishing sound monetary policy would be necessary. 


 

[/quote]

  • Thu, Nov 05, 2009 - 08:56pm

    #15
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

Hello,

Good thread, enjoyed everyone’s comments. 

My opinion is that we must be willing to give others their personal freedom if we are ever to hope to enjoy ours.  Our rights are inalienable – they cannot be given or taken away by government or the majority.  As soon as we start rationalizing and compromising the freedom of others, then we are in effect saying that rights are not inalienable by our action.

People should be guided by good manners (I need to improve here Tongue out) instead of political correctness. 

Larry   

  • Mon, Nov 09, 2009 - 10:20pm

    #16
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

Hi Larry,

People should be guided by good manners (I need to improve here Tongue out) instead of political correctness.

I would ammend the first part of your statement to, “People should be guided by TRUTH instead of political correctness”.

Searching for the truth of what it means to be a human being, our role in the world and our relation to God is probably the most important thing we discover for ourselves. This assists us in acting coherently and with a higher purpose in mind. Without only ones personal benefit in mind.

I like to compare the coherence of people like Ron Paul to George W, or Bill Clinton or Obama. It’s like night and day.

John

  • Mon, Nov 09, 2009 - 11:10pm

    #17
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

johnbryson wrote:

I would ammend the first part of your statement to, “People should be guided by TRUTH instead of political correctness”.

Yup, that’s a much better statement!  Thanks…

Larry

  • Tue, Nov 10, 2009 - 12:53am

    #18
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1583

    count placeholder0

    Re: After the Crash

” My opinion is that we must be willing to give others their personal freedom if we are ever to hope to enjoy ours.”

 Yep.. that follows instantly from the golden rule… (+ve version).

 Another fundamental (IMHO) is the sporting ethic…

 “May the best X win” replacing X with ( man/woman/theory/idea/football team/business/ .. whatever)

 ie accepting a fair defeat gracefully.. and being happy to see talent succeed. The opposite of Envy .. can’t think of a single word that describes it.

  In nature this rule is described as the law of natural selection… but it applies almost universally.. in economics – fair competition, free market.

 nb.  “best” may be subtle…  I’d rather it was simple and neat.. but it isn’t…

  best at office politics ? propaganda ?  yeuch..!

but needs to be defended against if no external enforcement… or “all’s fair in love and war” – alas…

eg  Salieri vs Mozart.. = tragic  (at least in Peter Schaeffers drama)..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLFAp9TG9Q

 

Viewing 8 posts - 11 through 18 (of 18 total)

Login or Register to post comments