sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers

[AtomicAnt]

Buzzkill,
I find it interesting that we come from opposite ends of a subject and we both feel that there is a movement to discriminate against those of our respective groups.
 
 You state that:
 

  I think with the media, what has changed is a willingness to depict Christianity and Christians as ignorant, mindless buffoons, whose POV is not worth considering. They are marginalized and dismissed in a way un-heard of a few decades ago.

I feel that since the election of Bush in 2000, that Liberals have been marginalized to the point where the word liberal itself has become an indictment or at least an insult.

I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists are being discriminated against when, it seems to me, they have more political power than ever. Could it be that this recent rise to political power and influence has made the fundamentalist outlook a lightning rod for criticism? It's likely.

I have never seen this country so divided between so-called conservatives and so-called liberals. I think the media has fed this feud by airing inflammatory programs (on both sides) that instead of engaging in rational debate or editorializing, they engage in bashing the other side and often outright lie to do it.

I don't think there is a conspiracy of the sort that Linda Kimbell is out to demonstrate.

That does not mean there is nothing to be alarmed about. It is not a conspirancy, but it is systemic. There are tactics being used by groups that promote agendas that are far more effective than easily spotted propaganda. The potential to sway the larger populace's opinion to one view is certainly there. If that is the point you are extracting from the article, then, yes, I can see that.
 
I can see the danger of mind-control techniques being used on a massive scale to sway entire populations because it is done every day. Obviously, Communist tactics in the Soviet Union and China show this. So does the Nazi's 'big lie' campaign. What is worse, however, is when it is hidden and insidious. Our government does this constantly, I believe. So do the schools.
 
As a teen, I questioned my father on this. He was a high school math teacher and adminstrator for 40 years. He actually agreed with me that the role of the schools is not so much to teach children as it is to assimilate them into the larger society. The schools serve the purpose of developing a similar world view among all members of the society; a sort of 'homogeneity factory', if you will. I find this alarming. He thinks it is useful for society.

Any of us who fall outside the 'accepted norm' will be marginalized.

Also, one of the best tactics used by the establishment is to portray the enemy as 'crazy' or as you said, 'buffoons.' It is not just Christians. Look at the philosphy of anarchy. There were serious communist and anarchist political movements in the USA at the turn of the century that the establishment has successfully portrayed in history as being nothing more than violent, mindless thugs, temporarily making noise on the peripheral of society. They ignore the very valid philosophical advances and political ideas that evolved from these groups.

As an alternative to the media, acadamia, liberal, conspiracy I suggest you read Jaque Ellul's book, The Technological Society. It is a difficult read, but worth the effort.
 
In a nutshell, Ellul puts forth the the idea that humankind has adopted a pattern of seeking out the best technique to do any given thing; build a bridge, educate children, advertise, fix a troubled teen, perform surgery, everything. He further states that this seeking out of better and better techniques has taken on an autonomy that no one individual or group can control or stop. It has a life of its own. The pursuit of technique leaves behind moral values and traditions. It squashes religion. The only judgement concerns the effectiveness of the technique. If it works, it will be used. The technique has become more important than the end it is supposed to achieve. Where it will lead humanity is anyone's guess. Whether it is good, evil, or indifferent depends on how the individual sees it.

Where you see a purposeful, planned and controlled, conspiracy, I see an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are not aware they doing it.
[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-01-10 20:25 ]

[AtomicAnt]

I have been thinking this whole thing through and let me try this:
 
1. As an atheist, I view human beings as animals. I disavow Cartesian duality and believe that our thoughts, feelings, etc are manifestations of chemical/electrical processes in our brains.
 
2. I believe some aspects of our personality are hard wired and some are obtained from the environment and through experience. We gather facts (observations) and gain experience from our interaction with the environment.

3. The human mind works by seeing patterns and remembering them. We see things in terms of cause and effect. This is not because the world exists this way, although it might. It is because, biologically, we must see it this way. My Dad asks, "Was math discovered or invented?" I respond, "Invented." To me, math is a filter that we use to order our world. In fact, science depends on the assumption that the world exists in a state of order and that humans can understand at least part of this order. But is the order 'out there' in the world or only in our minds?

4. People develop a world view, a filter, a cosmology, if you will. This is done as the individual accumulates data and experience. All the data and experience must fit the individual's cosmology. If it does not, then it must either be rejected or the cosmology must be re-aligned. For example, in my cosmology, there is no room for UFOs, Santa Claus, spirits, ghosts, souls, or Gods. They don't fit in my hard boiled scientific and logical view of the world. I reject them. All of the pieces must fit the puzzle, so to speak.

5. Those aspects of each individual's cosmology that the majority of a population holds in common are what we call 'common sense.' For example that the earth is a sphere and orbits the sun.

6. Free will is important to me, but does not necessarily exist. As we grow and live our lives our cosmology naturally grows and matures with us. We don't really choose this cosmology, but the processes are complex enough to make it appear that we do. I think it is a basic human right to 'own' our own cosmology and guide it as we will (free choice). If there are those who can persuades to see things differently without coercion, then well, okay. Persuade me with rational argument. Forced change (coercive persuasion) is harmful to this process.

7. When a person is faced with an experience that presents data that does not fit their cosmology, but cannot be dismissed (like if I were to actually see a ghost). The resulting process of realigning their entire cosmology to fit this new data is destabilizing. It is traumatic.

8. This is what the unfreezing/freezing process of coercive persuasion attempts to do, except that CP has a stated cosmology as its end. It is not a perfected science. It is good at destabilizing and forcing a subject to accept the stated cosmology only so long as the subject is isolated from data and experience that don't fit the cosmology (these cannot even be discussed). CP fails when the subject departs the milieu, is confronted with, and forced to integrate this opposing data/experience with the CP cosmology. Some subjects can do this. Fornits posters call them brainwashed programmees. Others are once again destabilized as the their cosmology must adjust. These people have been harmed. Symptoms of the destabilized cosmology can last a long time.

9. There is no one right cosmology. This is called multi-culturalism. This concept must be rejected by religious people who feel their cosmology is the one true cosmology.

10. A religious person's cosmology has at its core, the principles of the religion. My own core values are based on science, which is really another form of faith, but in my opinion science works better. It is better simply because it covers all the data in an organized way and is flexible enough to be able to change with new experience and data. Religion has a problem when it encounters data and patterns that don't fit the religion's absolute foundations. Thus the conflict between evolution and creationism. As one with a scientific outlook, I am quick to adopt evolution because it explains, not only the origin of life, but is the basis for all modern microbiology and medicine. These sciences seem to work well for me.

11. Of course Science can only explain how, never why, something works.

12. A religious cosmology is better at explaining the why than the how. The how is often delivered in the form of allegory; God said, "Let there be light." and there was light. Those who take the Bible literally, have problems accepting new data/experience. They refuse to alter or adjust their cosmology. I think this is what Buzzkill means when saying Religious people are harder to brainwash. They would rather become martyrs than change.

13. Now for the article. The Kimbell article rejects Hegel because his methods do not allow for absolute values. Religion depends on absolute values (Thou shall not kill). Something is either always right or always wrong. A Hegelian is more willing to accept moral relativity because they feel truth can only be arrived at through rational process, not by faith or authority. An example of moral relativity:

You borrow your neighbor's axe. He comes to your door and asks for it back. He says he needs it to kill his wife. What do you do? Do you withhold the axe and become a thief? Do you return it and become an accessory to murder? Maybe you lie to the guy and say you don't have it (thief and liar).

 
The point is that you must make an exception to the absolute moral principle. This is in defiance of what fundamentalist religion teaches. If something is wrong (like abortion) it is always wrong (Thou shalt not kill.). To take a stand of moral relativity is to abandon Christian principles in the cosmology of Kimbell.

To me consensus building is not necessarily forcing everyone to believe the same thing. It is a process by which one gains buy-in and cooperation on a policy or course of action. You don't have to agree with the policy or course of action but you agree to abide by it and further it for the sake of the team. This may mean that you must compromise your absolute position. Thus, Kimbell points out this is antithetical to Christian principles. An atheist like me says there is no conspiracy here, it is just called, 'getting along well with others.'

I am very aware that this consensus building is very close to the 'peer pressure' in a program. Kimbell points this out by saying, "All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group..." The difference between peer pressure in this larger sense and peer pressure in a program is the group consequences part of the program. Programs don't just rely on the individual's fear of alienation, they take it a step further and punish the whole group, so the group will place more pressure on the individual. In true consensus building, the individual's participation is supposed be entirely voluntary. A person can elect to be different or to join a different group. Where I think Kimbell is wrong is that I believe Christians have no problem choosing the different group because they are a different group. They may feel alienated, but they also feel righteous.

Does any of this make any sense? It is in the small hours of the morning and I suspect I am babbling incoherently.

[BuzzKill]

//Does any of this make any sense? It is in the small hours of the morning and I suspect I am babbling incoherently. //

You made perfect sense. Its an excellent post.

//Where you see a purposeful, planned and controlled, conspiracy, I see an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are not aware they doing it. //

I would say I see more of an effective (perhaps insidious), systemic application of technique by people who are well aware they doing it. This doesn't make it a conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy, it is at levels much higher than the universities or the New York Times. In fact, if there is a conspiracy - I would argue "our" president is in on it, and "we" would not approve of the agenda.

///I can see the danger of mind-control techniques being used on a massive scale to sway entire populations because it is done every day. Obviously, Communist tactics in the Soviet Union and China show this. So does the Nazi's 'big lie' campaign. What is worse, however, is when it is hidden and insidious. Our government does this constantly, I believe. So do the schools.///

I agree.

//I find it difficult to accept that fundamentalists are being discriminated against when, it seems to me, they have more political power than ever. Could it be that this recent rise to political power and influence has made the fundamentalist outlook a lightning rod for criticism? It's likely. //

Yeah, I am sure your right. Still, its worth noteing that not so long ago there was nothing at all controversial about Christian ideas being a deciding factor in elections. They were the norm.

If they have political power, it is just barely enough to nudge a fellow over the edge. If the issue of Abortion is ever somehow settled, it will completely remove that edge. Kerry would be president today if he hadn't defended Partial Birth Abortion. Lots of people who generaly think of themselves as Liberal couldn't stomach that.

Seems most people do still believe there is such a thing as wrong.

Your right in that the argument, the struggle for the mind of the masses, is in the differing views of absolute right and wrong; as opposed to situational ethics. This was one of my constantly harped on points when I was still on the BBS.

About the axe - you keep the axe and call the police. The life of the wife is of primary concern. Tell the guy you can have your axe back when you return to sanity - I suggest you calm down. I recently had a similar situation with my cousin and her husband. He got a rest in Our Lady of Peace and is better now.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-11 08:40 ]

[Anonymous]

The axe thing was an example my professor used in a philosophy class in college. The intention was to show that when confronted with absolute morality, there is a need to make exceptions. In other words, don't steal, unless you are taking a weapon from someone. The problem is that the exceptions become too numerous to be a part of a valid doctrine.

The same class covered the concept of justice in an interesting way. Traditionally justice is suppsed to be this:

1. A subject chooses to commit a wrong.
1. A subject is caught doing wrong.
2. The subject is punished with a punishment that is suited to the crime committed.
3. After 'paying their debt to society', the subject regains their place in society.

In the 1960s and 1970s, mainstream psychology developed the idea that environment counted for more than biology (the old nature vs. nurture debate). They decided that criminals weren't born, society made them. This takes the blame off the perpetrator and places it on his upbringing and environment. The criminal needs help, not punishment and should be rehabilitated. In other words, any criminal is by definition mentally ill in some way.

The problem, of course, is that this stand denies the perpetrator of free will and undermines the traditional concept of justice.

At the same time, it allows the rehabilitors to take the moral high ground and use whatever methods to reform and rehabilitate that they see fit. The state controls the doctrine. Dangerous stuff there. The stuff of programs is born. Coercive Persuasion becomes a 'legitimate' tool used by the State to reform people into right thinking.

Attacking moral relativity is easy. If everthing is relative then you lose the 'common sense'  I mentioned in an earlier post. You end up with everything being arbitrary. There can be no concept of justice here. Good and evil are only ideas and which is which only depends on which side of the fence you are standing. The rule of law is undermined. You have, in essence, anarchy.

[AtomicAnt]

I forgot to sign in. Sorry.
 
To clarify, when you begin to make judgements and exceptions, like in the story of the axe, you enter the world of moral relativity. It is a paradox of sorts.

[BuzzKill]

Well 'bout the axe - I would argue retaining the axe isn't stealing. It is extending the loan, until such time as the owner is in a better frame of mind.

I would argue that there are absolutes. Stealing is always wrong. Even wanting to steal is wrong. Removing a weapon from a man bent on murder is not stealing.

If you want a shifty argument for moral relativity - lying is a better example. It is wrong to Lie. But is it Always wrong to Lie? Any one with any since knows it is occasionally a far the better thing to do than tell the truth.

My personal thoughts on this are that it is a grave sin to lie in a malicious manner about another. It is also wrong to lie to achieve personal gain over others or to avoid ones personal responsibility for a wrong done.

Providing an opinion that is not actually true to spare another's feeling is not wrong - it is considerate. Lying about another person's whereabouts at their request is a little more shady - but I don't view it as a sin b/c it isn't hurting anyone.

I do feel most lies are best avoided. It is so easy to fall into the habit of lying about things for which the truth is as good or better an explanation. For example, my mom has a habit of making up these excuses for why she can't go here, or do this, with her friends, when the truth would be better. I have asked her, why don't you just tell her you'd rather take advantage of the weather to work in your yard? What's wrong with that - and its the truth. My daughter once lost a job making up this elaborate and easily seen through excuse for her absence; when the truth was a simple, easy to understand, an acceptable reason.

As for the problem of rehabilitation and excessesive force in its attempt - I'd argue it is always wrong. If rehabilitation can be achieved with education and maybe some therapy, that's great. If it takes clockwork orange type efforts - then it is wrong and will do more harm than good - just as we see in the worst of the programs. Best not to attempt it, in such a case.

[Anonymous]

One arena at a time dear sister...

LGAT skullduggery is just one new iteration of THOUGHT REFORM technique...  The problem is that predatory minded individuals tend to sample all the MLM and "pyramid" scams that they can gain access to and publish their "flavour" of the same in relatively short order...like cockroaches, the programs tend to multiply(?).
And they tend to infest every level of a society that they infiltrate...  

Understand that these people have  far beyond simple child molesting mentalities...what are "whips and chains"[Legal Release Forms and SECRECY AGREEMENTS*] for(?)...to reduce adult men and women to the helpless level of children so they can be -molested- psychologically(Mind Raped, Intellectual debilitation through regressionist techniques), economically(defrauded of large sums of money), socially(forced to sell the cult to recruit others and only want to associate with...

Properly "enlightened" individuals)...
[Deceived, "enlightened", Newspeak, Doublethink?]

We are discussing INFLUENCE here which a byproduct of COMMUNICATION...  Most of these offenders are highly skilled and educated technicians in verbal/emotional assault techniques...

As a woman, you should a wealth of knowledge on the "battered woman syndrome" studies(?)...
There is a direct correlation between how these "reptiles" operate and abusive spouses(I don't single out -men- because anyone can google
"Men in Pain" and see women practicing this same set of techniques on men...even down to the "honeymoon" or "making-up" period in the hiatus phase of the abuse cycle)...  

["You've come a long way baby...to get where you are...Toooddaayyy"...(?). The hidden benefits of
equality?  Hmmmmm...]

Same difference.  Make you uncomfortable, attack your beliefs, belittle you, tell you what your problems really are(aside from being abused by this bozo/bozette and herded into regression to childishness?)...use the "group" of isolated and conformism-oriented individuals against you by masturbating their emotions to accept or reject you as your responses "merit"(?)...groupthink?

"Consensus" "building"...read systemic deception and inculcation(?)...  Shades of that nasty old "Inquisition"(?)...Latinate or otherwise?
How CALIFORNIA(!)...which is where most of this garbage eminates from(?)...  La La Land...just over which rainbow(?)...hmmm, interesting...
It does not seem to really clash as "belief" system with the Kabbalalalala? Bahai? Subud? ad.
nausem(?)...

Hmmmmm, first a splitting up of "babblers" and then over many centuries...a harmonizing of exploitive, subtle, hierarchal, gnostic cults, theosophies, philosophies, corporations,
incorporated cults, cultic corps, "enightened"
government officials(local, state, federal) and entire agencies structured to reward and promote only these individuals who can "lead" others in this fashion...sounds like it has been happening for the last 30-50 years in this country...hmmm?

Positively brilliant(!)...rape peoples minds, insult them to their face, intimidate them, shame them pubilcly...the ones you can't break down or sue into silence...there are tried and true "direct" ways of handling that...  Yes, we can always spot those individuals who are in favor of such things(?)...  Exploitive, oppurtunistic, etc. etc. etc...seems that I remember something I read[2Tim, 2:3-23][2Peter,2 et. all]...

Isn't it funny that some things never change(!)
;->
Right down to the methodology[2Cor,11:20]...

Seems to be Babylonian in orgin[Fake Jews from the 10 tribes of the Northern Kingdom who followed Solomon's example...into exile in Babylon...and returned to infiltrate the Judean priesthood in the interum between the Old Testament and the New...like pawns being positioned(?)...

Jesus refered to such as: "The synagogue of Satan"--Outwardly practicing Mosaic values  but, holding to Babylonian, Caballah, and Greek Philosophies...as subtle and reptillian in manner and aspect as "humanistically" possible?

"How to oppress, subvert, and murder others for fun and profit"(?)...don't read the skrits but, it's probably a fair guess]

Wow(!)...that there bible thingy is extrordinary!
Neatly illustrates that this problem is cyclical and every so often these "cockroaches" have to be "smoked" out...anybody got a "match"(?)...

;->

Beyond all the possibilities that we can create for ourselves and our lives(?)...and it does mean something that you don't think it means anything...anyone worked out the brain-unwashing techniques yet???  Or is it back to Lifespring for all you "consensus" zombies(?)...think about it...if you still can(?)...

BevoBBQforfree

[Anonymous]

On 2006-01-06 12:00:00, BuzzKill


I think it is more about how Christianity is a barrier to the efforts of the facilitators in LGAT. The reason for this is b/c Christians are so "dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental". Being so, makes it hard to convince them that their is no right or wrong, and that they should set aside their beliefs to becomes part of the greater group - those who are none of these awful things, and who are "growing" emotionally.

[admin note: it's /quote, not end quote]

------------------------------------------
Any mature, carefully considered belief is a "...barrier..." to exploitation...damned inconvenient to totalists, totalitarians, and consensus zombies...no right, no wrong, no accountabity, no limits, if you can't win a particular "game", rewrite the rules into complete irrelevance(?)...  

It is a more flexible position to have no fixed beliefs, mores, values, etc...beyond what is convenient and on a sliding-scale of oppurtunism(?)...keep all your "options" wide open...
Charles Manson said something to that effect(?).

It truly sets you up to compete in a very efficient manner...6 million jews processed through what(?)...18 concentration camps...with
high volume crematories and all the amenities?
Outstanding(!)...better to slaughter such in the womb now(?)...you can grind up the "evidence", declare it sub(un?)human and flush it into the sewer systems--No messy "showers", ashes or explainations needed...who cares if figures for women dying in "coat-hanger" procedures were inflated from tens to thousands of such...that the Centers for Disease Control were intimidated out of tracking deaths from malpractice in abortion procedures...ahh how conveneint can you
get...billions of dollars on the line and just little bits of flesh to dispose of...what's the big deal(?)...

But, I do admit this God/Christ/Spirit -guy- is very inconvenient, specific, and knows what he wants...a real stickler for details about loving your enemies, the duties of civil government and the true seperation of powers...  Yes, I prefer him and his way to the ecclectic, convoluted, contrarian, conveniences that I have sampled in the many uber-humanistic philosophies, ideals, ideologies, ontologies, cosmologies that I have been exposed to over the decades...

Oh yeah and make that Christians are hard to EXPLOIT...not convince...If you can understand and adhere to biblical values...it's a snap to convince Christians to go along with you...if you can't or are too close-minded, dogmatic, secular to even attempt it...how intelligent are you anyway?  It's just 66 books in all...took me
all of a few weeks to go through the first time.
If you are so superior to the material...should
be a couple of days maybe(?)...it that long?
Hegel, Marx, Lenin...Ayn Rand, Bhodi Dharma,
Hasan Sabah...  Now those are very deep and challenging reading(Mostly due to their contempt for readers but, one can muddle through if one is determined?)...

Why is it Atheists that are so dogmatic and inflexible(?)...not to mention close-minded to anything contrary to their convenient interpertation of the world.  I much prefer the old Agostics because they at least affirmed that THEY KNEW NOTHING...all these SECRET KNOWLEDGEs that you have to swear to cut your tounge out for and throw on the desert sand and such...ever to conceal, never to reveal...and all that jazz?
So much wasted time for so little gain. The Red Cross of Constantine not whithstanding...

FYI, those LGAT facilitators get paid on a basis of HOW MANY PEOPLE attend the seminar--not on any basis of even assesing if they HELP anyone at all...it is forbidden to even ask them the question, much less take any statistics...and especially not to get them evaluated by a talented psychiatric professional...who might make an uncomplimentry diagnosis(?)...

The people need only continue in the program and he/she/it...has accomplished his/her/its objective and is paid on a commission basis...how do I know this(?)...

I am studying to lead LGAT sessions...go figure?

Oh, and your dogma is pretty entrenched as well You do tend to repeat it as slavishly as any Catholic, Mormon, or Jehovah's Witness I have ever listened to...very well developed and reasonable...nice formulation!  You should put in Seminar form(!)...

Keep thinking those convenient thoughts...it could score you a job in that 1 world religo-political thingy(?)...but, remember this...after
all the "inconvenient" people are "gone"...it will be your turn as "meat" but, I think you are aware of that as a distinct possibility...and you don't have what it takes(IMHO) to handle being tortured/crucified, etc...  

As that seems to be the price of playing "god" but, not to worry...it has already been taken care of by someone who Loved even you...
[And he got it right the first time.]

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle.

[And that you were not aborted with those other 40 million individuals over the last 30 years]

[Abortion is a more efficient method of eliminating human beings than convential and nuclear war since antiquity!]

No,I don't see you as a random accident in this universe...even if your world view/cosmology tells you that you are...and just an animal...
Would you really want me to swallow that stuff that you don't mean anything, are nothing, and
are completely optional to the universe...in the LGAT terms I am familiar with(?)...

I prefer to think that you are a product of LOVE and were created out of such...given a universe to exist in and a planet to live on...against all odds...allows me to value you more than you value me or yourself...again, go figure? Why does God want you to spend eternity with Him(?).
Or me for that matter(?)...

God Loves The Poor Bloody Atheists...more than they love themselves...

[A Truly Supernatural Accomplishment].

Live well and be free...and may you learn the blessings of becoming inconvenient...forever.

IJNIP.
Amen.

BEVOBBQforfree

P.S. God Bless you.[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-04 19:01 ]

[Antigen]

Prescott S. Bush as Treasurer of Planned Parenthood First National Fundrasing Drive?1947

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/th ... uments.php

Wake the rest of the way up or go back to sleep, please!

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
Why I Live at the PO[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-04 19:26 ]

[Antigen]

On 2006-02-04 14:24:00, Anonymous wrote:

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle

For beliefs? You think Jesus suffered and died for beliefs? No, I don't think so. I think 'he', as in the character in the Christian Bible, died for speaking the truth in a political era when that was intolerable act; would have (and did) disrupt the orderly system that kept the decision makers fat and happy.

But he wasn't the only one. Legend from many contemporary cultures has it that there were a good many ppl in that day delivering essentially the same message. If you compare the gospels to other writings of the time, they even mix details from different legends into the Jesus story. Actually, I think there are always an adequate number or such people balking at the status quo. Just so happens that, in that day and age, the time was ripe for people to adopt that message and the Holy Roman Catholic Church won the war that ensued and so they got to write the history.

In these similar days? May just as easily be Osama or the Dahli Lhamma or someone we don't even know to watch. Just depends on who wins the war and who gets to write the history.

Athiest means non theistic. As an athiest, I don't believe in an invisible friend who's willing and able to annull the laws of the universe in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy. (Bierce, paraphrased)

I believe in the laws of the universe. If there were a god, it was he who made those laws and who gave us all a sense of reason. Presumably, he meant for us to use it.

Wicked men obey from fear, good men from love.
--Aristotle

[Anonymous]

Why is it Atheists that are so dogmatic and inflexible(?)...not to mention close-minded to anything contrary to their convenient interpertation of the world.

Of course, atheists say the same thing about christians. I guess it depends on which side of the fence one sits.

I don't think faith is really a matter of choice. We either believe or we don't. At an early age, I came to the realization that all religions were just 'made up.' I have never been able to convince myself (or have someone else convince me) otherwise. I did not choose my interpretation of the world because it was 'convenient.' It was actually rather traumatic. It is a simple matter of faith. You either have it or you don't.

I would not make the generalization that atheists are any more or less inflexible than any other group. I, for one, don't give a rat's ass what other people believe as long as they are not trying to force me to believe the same thing or live by their arbitrary set of restrictions.

[Anonymous]

From what I can see, we all were born in the same way, we all die in the same way. So maybe -- just maybe -- we are all the same thing; start in the same 'place' and end in the same 'place'. Since I believe this, religion to me is irrelevant. I am agnostic, if I have to choose a label, and I do hope that after I die, I will still remain 'me', but honestly, I hold no reservations about that nor expect it. It's life's greatest surprise! Wouldn't it be boring otherwise?

I think a lot of religious activies, is more about order, organization and power (money) as much as a byproduct of civilization. I think every person on earth, has their own sense of spirituality, or whatever term one chooses to use to describe this. I don't condemn religion as a whole, or praise it, I don't paint with such a wide brush. I do notice faith and hope seem to really help the human psyche deal with the negatives in life. In my opinion, religion is more of a good force, than a negative one on this planet, at this time.

I figure, when I die, either I'll be ecstaticly happy about still remaining 'me' or not know any difference anyways... I have no memories of before I was born, so I figure death will be the same. Or will it... ?  ::burger::

[Deborah]

?Fuck Yes? Philosophy- Fuck yeh, I?ll give you your axe back, but only after I call your wife and give her a 30 minute head start. By the way, you don?t seem to be thinking very clearly. What?s eattin ya? What has your wife done that would cause you to risk your freedom and liberty by committing murder? How will killing her make your life better/easier? Can you arrive at any other possible solutions, like the very obvious, leave?

This kind of rational engagement doesn?t happen often because we?re all so divided and separated, no real vested interest in the distressed neighbor- or even family member. Because we haven?t been treated this way, we don?t know how to extend the same thoughtful courtesy to others. Current solution? Call the police or psychiatrists or escort service. Put the ?problem? out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Let the ?expert professionals? deal with it. The public has been brainwashed/conditioned to believe that they are incapable of ?helping? in any meaningful way- basically stripped of their inherent abilities- and to defer to the authorities.

Gotta stick up for consensus, which is a great way to reach agreement in a group.  If anyone is coerced, then you DO NOT HAVE consensus. It?s possible that someone who lacks critical thinking skills may feel coerced, but that is their problem. My experience in groups with a common project or decision to make, has been very positive. Goes like this.

Facilitator (neutral) states the issue/project: No anonymous posts at Fornits.
For some period of time everyone in the group presents their best arguments for and against, which the scribe notes on a pad or chalkboard.
Facilitator sums up the points made in discussion and asks for consensus.
If consensus isn?t reached- more discussion. Those who are still opposed (blocking), particularly, have the opportunity to express their concerns again- it sometimes happens that the one person blocking is actually the clearest thinker in the group.
Most groups have agreements about what will happen if consensus isn?t reached. Depending on the size of the group, it could be Consensus minus one, two, three, etc- some percentage of the total number of participants.
But, the ultimate goal is that there is enough discussion/debate that everyone can eventually get on the same page, without being coerced. Very similar to what happens less formally in SOME family decision making. As some parents have learned, there is less resentment about a group decision if all have participated in the decision making process. Can it be abused. Yeh, as anything can. A parent could actually control the decision while presenting the illusion that consensus is being employed. I think this process is alien and scarey to most Christians because they are accustomed to someone else making the decisions, rules, and laws. All they have to do for a free pass to heaven, is abide by them. As parents, they then rise to authoritarian dictator over thier children.

Back to the process. The one (or several), still ?blocking? is asked if they are willing to step aside and let the group move forward with what the overwhelming majority have consensed on. This can be difficult if the one blocking is set on the group adopting their thinking. It sometimes happens that the group must take a certain course, even if it is not the best, most efficient course, and learn from their mistakes.  The rational blocker realizes that just as an individual needs to learn from mistakes, so do groups of people, and will step aside allowing the group to move forward with the agenda.  

Consensus is more egalitarian than voting- which doesn?t allow for everyone in the group to be heard. It eliminates the possibility of one person or group making decisions for the majority. It?s roots are in Native and Quaker cultures, which I can imagine might be frightening to the control freaks of Christianity- although I originally learned consensus from a christian, a lovely woman. Time consuming, yes, but worth it. Also, no one is forced to participate or to adopt another?s view. If the issue before the group is not of interest one way or another, then you choose not to participate and in so doing are agreeing to support the decision that comes out of the consensus process. It?s as you were saying AA, convince me through respectful debate that your thinking is better, but don?t force/coerce me. There are no ?consequences? or punishments associated with consensus. Psychological bullying, character assassination, labeling, spreading lies are not part of genuine consensus.

I really resent that the industry co-opts and bastardizes, sometimes really useful techniques and processes. I have heard of no examples of genuine consensus in programs. The program my son attended went so far as to refer to their rules as ?agreements?. No one there participated in the creation of the ?agreements? or agreed to abide by  them. Mindfuck #1. They are rules, so call them what they are. They aren?t negotiable- so don?t imply they are. Participants aren?t allowed to question the rules and are punished for doing so or violating the ?agreements?. They aren?t given the rationale (if it exists) for the rules- because to do so would expose their agenda.  There is no Consensus in programs- it is the antithesis of their objective to suppress and subdue their subjects. The use of terms like ?agreements? and ?consensus? softens the rigidity and absolute control of the program/ seminar- on the surface. Works the very same way in our 'judeo-christian' culture. I can't decide to have an abortion, euthenize myself, or smoke pot- amongst other insane laws. Where is my right to self-determination? This is not freedom.

The author states:
 ?There are four key elements necessary for a successful 'consensus process' operation. They are:
(1)multicultural and/or diverse groups fueled by resentment and envy (necessary for causing social conflict)
(2)a social issue around which conflict can be created (example: Christmas, which is labeled 'exclusionary, insensitive, and hurtful' to diverse groups)
(3)the dialoguing to consensus process (psychological manipulation leading to abandonment of principles and positions)
(4) a predetermined outcome (example: Christmas parades successfully recast as 'Festival of Lights" or "Winter Holiday" parades that are inclusive of gay pride celebrants)?

That is so not true Consensus, but clearly describes the status quo, which could use some ?unfreezing?. Precisely the way the Bush administration uses it. They have no idea what true consensus and/or their goal is not to achieve consensus. True consensus is a threat to authoritarian/facist power and control, so what do they do? Co-opt the term, misuse/ misrepresent it to confuse the public, just as the author does, and just as programs do. Oldest trick in the book.  I think this piece also serves to distract from the Bush et al, ?One World Order? plan.

And if we take this hot button issue of Xmas?. Consensus would never be arrived at, clearly. The compromise might be- practice your religion in your home, don?t force it on the public. Putting up lights and nativity scenes (Ten Commandments, draping nude statues, etc) is a form of advertising your religion/belifs and shouldn?t be done in public places. The majority (not consensus) in this country seems to be holding this view. I can imagine it?s a scarey time for Christians. Oh well, what goes around, comes around, as they say. Let the thawing commence.

And good lord, what could possibly be wrong with ?sensitivity training?? Remember the blue/brown eye class experiment to demonstrate the hurtful effects of prejudice? Totally useful!! Many would love to put program people through a similar ?training?.

And what could possibly be wrong with two ?opposites? being reconciled, the antithesis being resolved in a higher synthesis? Nothing, unless of course, your agenda is to maintain ultimate authority and control.

As to this: I think it is more about how Christianity is a barrier to the efforts of the facilitators in LGAT.
I think of church as an LGAT. Who knows for certain, but it?s my understanding that the jesus person, if he existed, did not want all the formal structure of religion. No infrastructure, no dogma. The message was simple and universal and to be taught one-on-one, modeled. He led a radical grassroots movement that met in nature with an agenda of teaching peace, love, and forgiveness. It didn?t go over well then and it doesn?t go over well now. And guess what, his ?movement? got co-opted, bastardized, misused, and misrepresented. Seems to be a recurring pattern, when things start to thaw.



[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-02-05 12:08 ]

[Deborah]

***ADHD is nothing more than society narrowing what it considers acceptable behavior of what are really normal boys (84% of ADHD diagnosis are boys), and reflect an anti-boy bias in elementary schools. Young boys are not wired to sit still at desks for hours on end.


AA, You might enjoy this article
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... it/?page=1

Schoolboy's bias suit
Argues system is favoring girls
By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff  |  January 26, 2006

[BuzzKill]

Hi Deb.
 
Your comment about "church" & LGAT - I would agree that in many cases you are right. I've attended a few that seemed to have a lot in common with LGAT. They are not all like that tho. Anyway, I would argue 'the church' is actually made of those believers who do believe in Christian doctrine and who try to live accordingly. They may or may not be part of a particular group, that meets in a particular building.
 
As for Christianity being a barrier to LGAT - I base that largely on my own experience. With out ever having attended, I can tell you I created a good deal of friction, arguing against much that was being parroted by those who did attend. It is the belief in absolutes, and an inflexibility on some points, that make it hard to accept the traing that takes place in the seminars.
 
Not saying that Christians don't very often abandon their beliefs to embrace the lessons they are exposed to in LGAT. Many do. Often, IMO, because they lack an understanding of why they believe what they do in the first place - and b/c they lack an understanding of what is happening to them in the seminars.
 
But, It seems to me, the eastern religions and their relatives, are far more flexible, and able to incorporate the philosophies entrenched in LGAT. If one is of a more eastern mind set to begin with - they will have less to abandon, and so less to resist - making them more susceptible to the training.
 
Thats my theory anyway.
 
I'd need to re-read the article, but as I recall she seems to be saying that Christians are more resistant to the re-training taking place in society at large - making them targets for societal retaliation.
 
I've mostly been arguing that a shift in societal thinking has taken place, and is resulting in very negative feelings toward Christians; and that this is something new in western society.

The masses are being re-taught what to think about Christians and Christian thought. It is having an effect. Much the same effect as LGAT.
 
Personally, I am not frightened about it - or even upset over it. I am just interested in the hows and whys and feel it is worth exploring.

Also - it *might* serve to wake a few sleeping Christians up to what is happening to them in the damdable seminars.
 
Ginger:
 
 On 2006-02-04 14:24:00, Anonymous wrote:

Just once I would like to meet an Atheist who would allow him/herself to be tortured to death for the sake of their "beliefs"...no takers to date but, I take your presence here as a miracle

you write:
For beliefs? You think Jesus suffered and died for beliefs? No, I don't think so. I think 'he', as in the character in the Christian Bible, died for speaking the truth in a political era when that was intolerable act; would have (and did) disrupt the orderly system that kept the decision makers fat and happy. ///
 
Maybe they are talking about the martyrs - and not Christ Himself?
 
Anyway - from a Christian's perspective - Jesus didn't die for what He believed - He died to pay the price of sin for all man kind.
 
Those who took part in the trial, condemnation and crucifixion, may have done so b/c of what He taught and believed - but He died for the sake of man kind.

Caiaphas (the presiding High Prist) explained it (tho he didn't realize what he was saying) when he said - better one man to die, than the whole nation perish.
 
But many martyrs have died, b/c of believing this, and not being willing to say otherwise.
That inflexibility the Christian is so noted for.