sensitivity training /LGAT/ attention Program shoppers

[BuzzKill]

Quote:

Hegelian Dialect is a perfect example of what J. Budziszewski (What We Can't Not Know, pp. 187) termed the "black magic spells of imposture and unraveling." Hegel's form of dialectics is itself an impostor. It effectively unravels truth and norms and then replaces them with a 'new truth' which is yet another impostor.

Hegel's 'black magic' Dialectics is the unholy diesel that fires the engine of the weapon of mass destruction being wielded by traitorous Americans and their New Age internationalist cohorts against America's traditional worldview and cultural infrastructure. This weapon is called "group dynamics" or the "consensus process." It's a psycho political behavior and belief modification technique that was used by Vietnamese communists against American POWs and by Chinese communists against dissidents. All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group, and by psychologically manipulating this fear skillful change-agents (facilitators) can manipulate or herd the victim towards a preplanned conclusion which induces the victim to compromise his own position. This is the consensus process, and when we hear Liberals screaming for 'consensus," they're really demanding that they be allowed to 'facilitate' the abandonment of Conservative principles.


Full Artical:


Psychopolitics: Erasing Christianity through the 'Consensus Process"
TownHall.com ^ | Dec. 13, 2005 | Linda Kimball

Posted on 12/13/2005 1:22:47 PM PST by Lindykim

"Not too many years ago, Americans had never heard of sensitivity training, and if a facilitator of it had tried to convince them that they needed to be conditioned by it, he would have been told, very quickly and in no uncertain terms, to take a hike.  However, step by careful step, sensitivity training began to be stealthily inserted into our society.  Today, Americans simply submit to it without much thought, let alone any protest."  ("Psychopolitics: Joe Six-Pack and the Crocodile" Linda Kimball)  

Sensitivity training, hate-crime laws, political correctness, multiculturalism, and the group dynamics and/or 'facilitated consensus process'---all of these alien constructs are psycho political manifestations of evolutionary humanism, the malevolent system of warped morals and anti-human philosophy that is making war upon America's founding Christian-Judeo worldview.  

The definition of psycho politics is as follows:  "Psychopolitics is the art and science of asserting and maintaining physical and mental dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and the masses, thereby conquering enemy nations through "mental healing."  (Russian Manual on Psychopolitics, by Laventi Pavlovich Beria, head of the Soviet Secret Service Police and right hand man of Joseph Stalin)  

In 1947, Julian Huxley, head of UNESCO at that time, wrote a book titled, "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy."  His book was a blueprint for a New World Order that called for one religion, one language, and one way of thinking.  He believed a global order could be brought about through the universal, albeit secretive, implementation of Hegel's Dialectic process.  

Huxley observed, "The task before UNESCO?is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose."  Huxley spoke of two opposing worldviews confronting each other from the West and the East.  In describing them he said, "You may categorize the two philosophies as?individualism versus collectivism or as the American versus the Russian?or as capitalism versus communism, or as Christianity versus Marxism.  Can these opposites be reconciled, this antithesis be resolved in a higher synthesis?  I believe?this can happen?through the inexorable dialectic of evolution."  

The concept of dialectics has been around for a long time.  Noah Webster (1828 edition) defined dialectics as: "That branch of logic which teaches the rules and modes of reasoning."  Simply stated, dialectics refers to 'position' versus 'opposition' or 'thesis' versus 'antithesis.'  By the traditional rules of conduct, if thesis is correct then it follows logically that antithesis is incorrect.  Georg Hegel, an Enlightenment shock trooper of evil, discarded the rules and turned the concept upside-down by equalizing thesis and antithesis, which resulted in moral relativity.   'New truth' is now found in something called 'synthesis.'  

Hegelian Dialect is a perfect example of what J. Budziszewski (What We Can't Not Know, pp. 187) termed the "black magic spells of imposture and unraveling."  Hegel's form of dialectics is itself an impostor. It effectively unravels truth and norms and then replaces them with a 'new truth' which is yet another impostor.  

Hegel's 'black magic' Dialectics is the unholy diesel that fires the engine of the weapon of mass destruction being wielded by traitorous Americans and their New Age internationalist cohorts against America's traditional worldview and cultural infrastructure.  This weapon is called "group dynamics" or the "consensus process."  It's a psycho political behavior and belief modification technique that was used by Vietnamese communists against American POWs and by Chinese communists against dissidents.  All individuals have an inherent fear of being alienated from the group, and by psychologically manipulating this fear skillful change-agents (facilitators) can manipulate or herd the victim towards a preplanned conclusion which induces the victim to compromise his own position.  This is the consensus process, and when we hear Liberals screaming for 'consensus," they're really demanding that they be allowed to 'facilitate' the abandonment of Conservative principles.  

There are three steps to the consensus process.  They are called, "Unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level and, freezing group life on the new level."  In order to speed up the unfreezing phase, communists resorted to physical torture.  In America, emotional pain precipitated through vicious psychological bullying (character assassination, labeling, spreading lies, etc) is the preferred method.  

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)  

The consensus process is yet another example of Budziszewski's "black magic spells of imposture and unraveling."  It's been so successful that Christianity has been banned from government on all levels, from schools, and increasingly from public areas.  Christians have lost their jobs, been jailed, and their children harassed and even suspended for daring to express their Christian beliefs in any way.  Anti-Christian bias has become so bad that John Gibson (Fox News anchor) observed, "It's no longer permissible to wish anyone Merry Christmas.  That's too exclusive, too insensitive.  What if they're not Christian?  What if they're an atheist?  A school in Maryland is now questioning Thanksgiving because, after all, to whom are we giving thanks if not to God, and we all know we can't have that in public?Yes, Virginia, there is a war on Christmas."  (Introduction, "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.)  

And now a word from New World Order facilitators:  

"We have battled in America since the century's turn to bring to nothing?all Christian influences and we are succeeding.  You must work until officials of city, county, and state will not think twice before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies. (there must) be a?foaming hatred of religion?a belief that Christian practice is vicious, bad, insanity causing, publicly hated and intolerable."  (Russian Manual on Psychopolitics)  

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology.  Its importance has been?increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda.  Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class.  The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated."  Bertrand Russell  

John Gibson asked a Eugene, Oregon city manager why he had banned Christmas trees.  His properly mind-conformed response, "Well, because they're Christian" (pp. 87). This manager and countless scores of other Americans testify to the enormous success thus far achieved by psycho political operatives.  Having been "unfrozen" from the level whereon America's traditional worldview resides and successfully 'moved' to the desired level and then 'frozen' there, they now serve their new masters desires by mindlessly destroying the source of both their liberties and their human worth---Christianity.  

"Oh but, Christianity has nothing to do with either the founding of our nation or with our rights and freedoms!" exclaim mind-conditioned scoffers and skeptics.  The truth has been 'hiding' in full view, but because their minds have been darkened by black magic spells and their eyes made sightless by black magic dust, the mind-conditioned can neither see nor hear the truth.  Right there in Huxley's words is the truth, for in speaking of his blueprint he inadvertently 'confessed' to it when he said of the two opposing philosophies, "You may categorize the two philosophies as?Christianity versus Marxism."  

Cain "Dialogues to Consensus" with Abel  

His blackened soul seething with diabolical envy, silver-tongued Cain manipulates Abel into trusting him.  "Come, my dearly beloved brother.  Let us take a nice long walk and speak of our need for equality, fairness, inclusion, and democracy.  We will 'dialogue to consensus.'  See this nice strong cudgel?  I'll carry it so as to ensure that no harm befalls us.  Trust me, Abel---I'm your loving brother!"  

Copyright Linda Kimball 2005

Sources:

"Legalizing Mind Control" by Berit Kjos

"A Chronological History: The New World Order" by DL Cuddy, PhD

"Reinventing the World" by Berit Kjos

"The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics" Laventi Pavlovich Beria

About the writer: Linda is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-06 10:00 ]

[Troll Control]

This is a surprisingly idiotic article.  Right-wing Conservatism IS the American conformity factory.

It is a well-established fact that Liberals tend to be "intellectuals" and Christian Conservatives tend to be "dogmatists."  

Using your own critical thought process, which one of these groups would be more likely to extirpate free will?

Pretty lame article from a suspected crack-pot.

[Troll Control]

From Linda Kimball's website:

"STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: To inform readers on the expanding socialism, globalism, and multi-culturalism, along with the consequences of false teachings of progressivism, the deference to special interests, exposing the Left and its communist roots, and the erosion of moral values and the impact on America's culture and freedoms."

I retract my earlier statement.  She is a confirmed crack-pot.

[BuzzKill]

I don't take the premise of the article to be that Christianity (or any faith) is the answer to the problem of these programs*.

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.

The larger picture is about the problem the Christian presents to those who want this New World Order established. Being as dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental as they often are - they are a problem to the formation of one world government and religion.

The Christian has become the hated "them" and all others (except the Jew) the beloved "us" in the politics of the New World Order thinking that is overtaking Europe and much of academic America.
More and more the thinking goes that they must be gotten rid of. This is to be attempted with "education". For education, read thought reform.

Now, the reason I feel the premise is correct is my own experience with the program seminar junkies. It was my dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant and judgmental self I was determined to defend. It did indeed serve to insulate me from the thought change process on the BBS, and was the only reason I was opposed to what I was learning the seminars to be.

It also served to make me a bit of a problem in school - I tended to argue with my teachers. Some liked this and encouraged it and others hated my guts for it.

On the BBS, this tendency to question and debate these issues was not welcomed at all. This went a long way to prove to me what it was I was involved with, and to getting my son pulled.

All of it a result of my Christianity.

Now - before anyone jumps in to crucify me - I am well aware many of the most horrible programs are "faith based".  I have often explained how upsetting this is to me personally; and rest assured I have done what I can to protest this with more influential Christians.

*I do believe it could be - but this isn't saying I think it will be.

PS
Yeah this author is coming from a hard right perspective that is bound to grate against any leftist leanings. Still, try and get past this to what she is saying about thought reform and I think you may see she has a point. Or not. Worth thinking about and debating anyway.

*[ This Message was edited by: BuzzKill on 2006-01-06 12:06 ]

[BuzzKill]

About Pat R and his comment - Please believe me when I tell you much of Christendom is groaning and rolling their eyes, once again, over the man's comment. Most wish he would think more before he speaks. Most are beginning to wish he'd retire.
Sharron's poor health is a consequence of being a human being, aging - no more and no less. It is the Christian's duty to pray for the Peace of Jerusalem - not to gloat over the poor health of her prime minister.

I'm glad you found the article thought provoking. That's all I hoped for when I posted it.

[BuzzKill]

I was going to also say - about the mega Churches -
Personally, I like a large church. The reason? I can attend when I want to, and not have to answer to a lot of others about where I was the week before. I can dress casually and not be embarrassed about it - as in these very large churches there are masses of folks also dressed casually. I have found the theology sound in the "mega" church I attend - and that is important to me. If they depart from sound teaching, I can cease attending and no one will miss me. This suites me. I like it that way.

Others prefer the closeness of a small congregation - but I find the church politics to depressing in these small churches. In a large church, these things are far less obvious to the average attendee. No doubt it still occurs - but not among men and women I have come to think of as friends - who turn vicious with one another over trivial issues. When and if it occurs in the large church - I don't have to know about it.

Also - I like the diversity. In the mega church there are All kinds of people. There are a lot more young people, and a lot more people of color. There is obvious wealth - but lots of folk wearing "blue collars". This is more like what the body of Christ is supposed to be, IMO, as opposed to the limited diversity found in the average small congregation. I feel these large churches are more like what Heaven will be  -  very diverse.

Also - I like the music. Yes, it does seem more commercialistic - but it is good music that gives honor to God - and I enjoy it.

Lots of folk are appalled by "rock" music in church - but I enjoy the energy as well as the message.

My experience with smaller congregations have not been positive. So far, I have very much enjoyed attending the local Mega church.


BTW - that hypocrisy you speak of - that is not what Christ would have in His church if men and women would live according to His teaching.
In other words - it is not the Savior's fault, that the saved are so in need of saving.

[AtomicAnt]

The author of the article clearly knows nothing about Hegel, history, humanism, or politics. What a hack job! A complete mess that is so incoherent and twisted there is not a single logical construct in it worth refuting. The author is a quack. Either that, or the whole thing is satire. Your call.

Why is it that Conservative Christians like to point to 'liberals' and cry "anti-christian conspiracy." That is so ridiculous it is pathetic.

As a liberal, I assure you that I am not involved in any conspiracies and as for consensus building, that is nothing more than a three dollar term for 'coming to an agreement.' Is the author seriously saying the Christians and Conservatives are not consensus building within their own ranks?

When I get into political debates, I like to point out that my father is a conservative and I am a liberal for the same reasons.

 My father is conservative because he believes in smaller, less intrusive government and decentralized solutions. He believes that local people are closer to and have a better understanding of local issues. He thinks the governement should mind it's own business and stay out of our families and busnesses as much as possible. In other words, My father believes in individual freedom and choice. My father is not a religious man.
 
I am a liberal because I find conservatives do exactly the opposite of what they say. I find that conservatives want to force everyone to adhere to their narrow vision and morality. As a liberal, I believe people should be allowed to live pretty much as they please (even alternative lifestyles) without outside interference.

So, you see, my Father and I are both individualists. We believe that any government should favor individual freedom and choice.

I have problems with both liberal and conservative platforms. I see conservatives as being hypocrits. The espouse 'free market' when what they really mean is pro-big business and corporate welfare. They espouse traditional values when what they really mean is forced adherance to a narrow set of values. They claim they are for smaller government but the last three Republican presidents increased the size of government and only the last Deomocratic President (Clinton) actually reduced the size of government. They claim 'family values' and undermine the family economically at every turn.

On the other hand, Liberals grate on my nerves because of their nanny-state approach. Nothing is more grating to me than the very programs the author talked about, sensitivity training, hate crimes, etc. I am also against seat belt and helmet and gun laws because I value individual freedom over regulation. I also like my violent video games, foul language in lyrics, and sex scenes in movies. So I despise the nanny-state which seeks to protect me from myself.

The reason I am liberal is because I must allow for alternative lifestyles (freedom) and because I believe we are our brother's keeper. There are people in our society that are too young, too old, too ill, mentially ill, or just too stupid to care for themselves. I believe it is our (society's) responsibility to care of these people and the best way to do that is through government programs. I also believe we need the government to protect us from the way-too-powerful and amoral coroporations that control so much of our lives and steal our public resources.

My nine-year-old son asked his Mom what the difference was between a conservative and a liberal. I liked her answer. She said, "Conservatives care more about money than people, and Liberals care more about people than money."

My response was, "Conservatives steal my money and give it to people that are richer than I am. Liberals steal my money and give it to people who are poorer than I am." I stole that from somewhere and can't remember the source.

Since we are on Fornits, I would also like to point out that it is the conservative Republican Party that supports programs and the tough-love approach. Forcing people to adhere to their value system is morally okay in their outlook.

Finally, I choose the Democratic Party because they don't have one vision of what the world should look like. The Party is fragmented on many issues. Because of this, there is a willingness to throw away policies that fail and try something else. Republicans call this flip-flopping. I call it reassessing one's position based on new and current information.

Republicans, on the other hand, adhere to an idealist position and refuse to change even when science, history, logic, reason, and experience, demonstrate they are wrong. But at least you always know where they stand.

[Antigen]

AA, I think you're right about ppl who call themselves Conservatives. But that doesn't mean the Dempublicans are any better. Never mind what they say, watch what they do.

When Clinton was in office, he was just about the perfect Conservative. He got the economy headed in a better direction, which was painful as hell what with all the outsourcing resulting from all those well intended mandates for worker and consumer benefits and such. (sorry, nothing's purely good)

But on the social liberty side? We got "don't ask, don't tell" which is Jaberwokee for absolutely not a goddamned thing. On drug policy we got the first ever military General instead of a medical professional or schollar as head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We got 100k more cops on the beat, making it more like impossible than difficult for the old guard to stave off the cultural invasion of the `80's era elite counterdrug taskforce mentality (and funding, don't forget all the buckets of hard cash plus expanded civil property forfeiture powers)

Then there was the clean indoor air act. Now there's freedom for ya! In Florida, you can neither allow smoking in the back room of the bar which you own nor choose a bar that allows smoking. It is verboten.

No, I think the only way out is a real distribution of power. Not to the individual states and commonwealths, but to the individual. And how to do that? I think Peter McWilliams had some pretty sound thinking on that point.

Here's his whole book online.
Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do:
The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes
in Our Free Country
http://mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/

There are others, frankly I don't care for them. The only other one I was just dying to read was "What do do if your guru sues you", about how he wrote all those others while he was in a cult and how the shit hit the fan when he and his royalties escaped.

Interesting dude, interesting life, all too damned short, though. I really think he had the potential to become the next Mark Twain (or at least remind the world that American authors can be lovable and brilliant assholes)

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived, and dishonest-but the myth-persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
--John F. Kennedy, U.S. President

[Antigen]

On the premis of the article (Karen's).

I hear what you're saying and see what you're seeing, but I still think you're misatributing the source.

I learned some pretty solid ethics and values from the people who schooled me. My dad said he was an athiest, but what he taught me and what the decons and pastor and christian school teachers taught me meshed perfectly wherever they weren't quite identical. These folks had a lot going for them. They were adventurous young couples who left Holland, Michigan to start a church in Florida. No one knows why, but they did, maybe cause the pastor had made that big an impression on them and he was up for it. His kids were in grade school or maybe the oldest in highschool then.

They also happened to be Christians. But I haven't met many like them. Really, more of the Muslims and Budists I've met seem to have similar values and manners than Christians. And when I went back to that school a few years later to stop and say hi, things were a little less ... happy? Friendly? Comfortable? It was tense. The next time, maybe 6 years ago I went there for some old records, it was downright creepy! Same building, same dogma, same practices and rites, same name on the sign outside, even some of the same people (just one or two, who looked war weary, the rest were strangers)

To me, it looks like the Christian factor is a whole lot of coincidence. It just happens to be the predominant dogma in this place and time And by "this place", I don't mean the world or America, but Apalachia. I do love it here and for good reasons. Christians here don't take out hits on elected foreign presidents nor wish prime ministers dead. Instead, they vote out of office lunatics who want to teach religion as science and science as religion.

All good things come from Pittsburgh. Hell, Hippy's practically from Pittsburgh.  ::rainbow::

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
--Philosopher, Blaise Pascal

[BuzzKill]

I realize most will want to argue that there is no conspiracy against Christianity - but I was hoping what the author is saying about mass thought reform might strike a cord with some others.

Naturally the politics irritate - but I don't agree this makes the author a hack. She seems pretty well informed to me - even if she would disagree with the majority opinion.

As for the "conspiracy" against Christians - this isn't really want I was hoping to debate - but I find this plausible, and I have been seeing sings of this for decades now. I first noticed it in High School and have been watching the trend every since. This last presidentinal election went a long way to convincing me that there has been a great deal of success in portraying Christians as mindless, selfish, intolerant and hateful - a group of people that need to be Stopped. I feel this widely held belief that they need to be stopped, will gradually, in future days, evolve to: they must be gotten rid of. They are a plague and a hindrance to the progress and betterment of mankind. That, I think, is where we are headed.

I mentioned the past election. My personal experience with the result was to receive several emails, from long time friends (as well as a couple phone calls) expressing great anxit & extreme despair, that they found themselves living in a fascist country. A place were Christians were able to shang high the public will. A country headed down a path of selfish, hate mongering, woman hating, racist policies - and all this was due to  "Christian" influence.

Now, I of corse would argue they are wrong on all counts - but it would fall on deaf ears. They are convinced, with the deepest of faith, that this view of Christianity in America is correct on all counts. And so I simply tried to console them that if "we" could survive a decade of Bill, "they" can manage to get through a decade of Dubya.  The Nation will some how get threw this, and I feel confident they will soon enough find things turning their way again. I do in fact feel very sure they will triumph over the Christian.

Question: Why do so many think this way, and feel so strongly about it, when a few decades ago, very few had such thoughts and feeling about Christians? What has changed?

So, as to the premise of the article - Is there an effort taking place in the universities, and the major media groups, and among liberal churchmen, to denigrate and undermine Christianity? Are these groups hostile to the Christian faith? Is there an effort to capture the minds of the children before their parents can instill this Christian yoke of oppression?

I think so. I think it is very clearly so.
And so, the question then is, how and why?
The article deals with How.

I felt it worth while to post it here, b/c it also happens to be how the Programs are able to so quickly get the parents to surrender their personal beliefs and individuality, and embrace the group - the program - as their new self. Truly, many of them they are  Program Parents before they are anything else. Many of them abandon major tenants of their faith to become better program-parents. My hope in posting the article was to maybe reach a few of them; and maybe awaken them to their true condition. Maybe warn others what to watch for. I really didn't want another faith debate - but I realize the overall content makes it unavoidable.

[GregFL]

how about people are interested in the truth, and the christian myths do not comport with reality?

And as far as a conspiracy against christmas...


what a crock!


Christians have been force feeding their myths to other people under the threat of death, since around 30 BC or so.  Not so much has changed.  But when we don't want our government to favor your religion over our collective beliefs (or lack thereof) you guys cry foul and claim this is a "christian nation". It is not.

Further, The christmas holiday is not even founded in christianity but in the winter solstice.  You guys stole it from the pagans in order to assimilate them, and now 2000 years later you want to whine that everyone doesn't exclusively recognize this time of the year as yours.  Just how ridiculous can we get?  


Christmas is the season we take a break and celebrate however we want, and when retail stores want to include everyone you guys want to whine that you are being discriminated against.

[AtomicAnt]

Question: Why do so many think this way, and feel so strongly about it, when a few decades ago, very few had such thoughts and feeling about Christians? What has changed?

So, as to the premise of the article - Is there an effort taking place in the universities, and the major media groups, and among liberal churchmen, to denigrate and undermine Christianity? Are these groups hostile to the Christian faith? Is there an effort to capture the minds of the children before their parents can instill this Christian yoke of oppression?

I think so. I think it is very clearly so.
And so, the question then is, how and why?
The article deals with How.

I don't think so. I don't think it was different a few decades ago. In the 1960s and 1970s the country was far more liberal than it is now and as Antigen pointed out, Clinton was not really a liberal. I've made the statement to friends that Clinton was where the Republicans were in the 1970s and that the whole country has shifted profoundly right. The Reagan years were the Conservative backlash to the sexual revolution, or so I thought and hoped at the time. We never recovered and much of the gains in tolerance and freedom of the 1960s and 1970s has been lost.
 
I don't think Universities, media, and liberals are attempting to undermine Christianity at all, unless you are referring specifically to fundamentalist Christianity. This is a small group of people that believe the Bible literally. They are organized and have money and currently wield far more power than their numbers should in a democracy. People like me are worried not about the New World Order that will ban Christianity, but the theocracy that seems to be gaining strength in this country. These fundamentalists are intolerant. The reason Universities are against them is simple, the fundamentalists are opposed to any rational or scientific ideas that contradict their Biblical world view. Sorry, but the world is 4 billion years old, not 5000.

I once told my UU Minister that when I mentioned to my friends I was a UU they would say, "Oh yeah, the Church where you can believe anything you want." He countered, "No, it is the fundamentalists that believe anything they want, despite logic, reason, history, and science. As Unitarians, we have to justify what we believe in." Please visit http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html. Note the goal of world community. It seems I am the enemy.

I was raised in the 'Appalachia' that Antigen speaks of. Actually, I grew up about halfway between Pittsburgh and Erie. Christianity is big there in rural Western PA. I was an atheist beginning at age nine. The way I was treated probably explains why I am so against the mind control programs Fornits survivors speak out against. I know what oppression of expression feels like, trust me. You can imagine how well I was received as an atheist/anarchist teenager who refused to pray or pledge the flag. Yes, I was punished for these things - physically and harshly. So I don't buy the oppressed Christian stuff very easily.

The anti-Christian media is a myth. The media is not liberal. This is a myth. The media is quantitatively conservative. This has been measured and demonstrated time and again. I suggest you visit http://www.fair.org. Conservative political views receive far more air time and words spoken than so-called liberals do.

Now for the article. I think the author a hack because she proposes that consensus building and Hegelian Dialect are designed to undermine Christianity. My contention is that consensus building and Hegelian Dialect are nothing more than tools to reach rational, logical conclusions about any given topic, and that fundamentalist Christianity which is based on myth simply cannot stand up to that test. A literal interpretation of the Bible is intellectually indefensible.
 
You will note that among Christian countries, only the USA has a debate between evolution and creationism. Other Christian Countries and indeed mainstream Christians in the USA believe the Bible to be allegory and there is no conflict or debate here. In Europe, there is no big public battle between evolution and creationism.

As an atheist/anarchist, I rejected the concepts of 'Legitimate Authority' and even Cartesian Duality long ago. Like Exit Plan, I state that no person or group of people have a 'legitimate right' to tell another person or group what to do - period. That said, I am a human animal and humans are social animals. It also seems that human societies tend to be hierarchical. So, I live in the real world and pick my battles carefully. But my will is my own and I (like you) think because of my world view, I would be a very difficult subject for a program to brainwash for any length of time. I hold my truths to be as absolute as you hold yours. I doubt anyone could change them.

I think my views are why I despise these teen programs. I cringe at parents who want their kids to 'respect rules and authority.' To me, a teen with ODD is a saint. 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.

[Antigen]

On 2006-01-08 10:14:00, BuzzKill wrote:

Question: Why do so many think this way, and feel so strongly about it, when a few decades ago, very few had such thoughts and feeling about Christians? What has changed?

Well, compare Dubya to Jimmuh. There's your aswer.

All of these comforting and reasonable things were taught by the ministers in their pulpits -- by teachers in Sunday schools and by parents at home. The children were victims. They were assaulted in the cradle -- in their mother's arms. Then, the schoolmaster carried on the war against their natural sense, and all the books they read were filled with the same impossible truths. The poor children were helpless. The atmosphere they breathed was filled with lies -- lies that mingled with their blood.
--Robert G. Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer

[Antigen]

On 2006-01-08 10:14:00, BuzzKill wrote:



I felt it worth while to post it here, b/c it also happens to be how the Programs are able to so quickly get the parents to surrender their personal beliefs and individuality, and embrace the group - the program - as their new self. Truly, many of them they are  Program Parents before they are anything else. Many of them abandon major tenants of their faith to become better program-parents. My hope in posting the article was to maybe reach a few of them; and maybe awaken them to their true condition. Maybe warn others what to watch for. I really didn't want another faith debate - but I realize the overall content makes it unavoidable."

Karen, did you skip my post or did I not explain it well enough. What saved me from the brainwashing was a combination of what I learned from that old tough neck athiest who raised me and the very devout Christians who taught me.

Seriously, the one without the other would not have done it for me. Dad told me about the old tyme Bible thumpers who used to come through, leaving a trail of pregnant teenagers behind them. He usally was refering to Art Barker, Seed founder, president and ultimate cult leader. But he also gave four square, sincere support and praise to those among those very devout Christian teachers and ministers who won his respect.

It's not the Chrstianity. Ghandi was a great spiritual and political leader. Christians in this day and place would do well to take good council from him, even though he wasn't a Christian. He took council from our very own American son, Thoreau. He said "My profession is to be always on the alert to find God in nature, to know his lurking-places, to attend all the oratorios, the operas, in nature ... The love of Nature and the fullest perception of the revelation which she is to man is not compatible with the belief in the peculiar revelation of the Bible."

If there's a conspiracy to destroy Christianity, it's coming from within Christianity. They're your dogs, you call em off.

for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence.

--Thomas Jefferson

_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82

[BuzzKill]

Hi Ginger - I think I understood what you were saying.
I was just trying to explain my thinking when posting the article. I suspect it is I not explaining myself very well.

As for calling off the dogs - I don't think the dogs are interested in obedience to any master but their own ambition.
And not just "our" dogs - but the whole dam pack.


///Well, compare Dubya to Jimmuh. There's your aswer.///

I don't think that's it. I think it is considerably more complicated than the difference in the two men. I honestly do believe it is the result of decades of thought reform in academia, and the media, that has made the "fundamentalist" or "Evangelical" something to be despised.

Perhaps I see it differently simply because I have been on the receiving end of numerous rants from those who feel they are doing me a favor; attempting to free me from this evil influence. I was amazed at the reaction of people after that last election; and I can't help but think there is a lot more behind it than just the man who won. The anxiety and outrage didn't seem to be so much that Bush won, as that the horrid "Fundies" had.

I base my POV on more than this - but this is what I personally experienced.

I think you are correct Atomic Ant, that it is quite alright to be "Christian", as long as you aren't a Christian who believes the Bible.

I read an account not long ago, of a professor who wrote an email to a college about his discriminating against students who professed any "Fundi" leanings. He explained how he didn't think such a one as that deserved to have a degree. He wanted to make sure they were never in a position to teach. And he felt perfectly comfortable explaining this. It wasn't some secrete personal bias. It was unwritten policy of his department. These students were not to be allowed to succeed.
The feeling against the "Fundies" in the universities is blatant and extreme.

I am arguing that this is something new. This was not always the case. The change has occurred in my own life time. I think there is a reason why, and I think the article touches on How. I also feel it is How the Programs change the thinking of the parents - how they get them to so readily abandon their personal beliefs and accept the programming. Thats why I posted the artical.

With regard to Hegelian Dialect - frankly, I know next to nothing about it, so I can't very well argue with your POV. I suspect there are those who would tho.

With regard to media bias - of corse there is media bias - and it swings both ways.

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 agree with you about the schooling tho. I tend to agree with Ginger's POV on Public schooling.

As for defiance - yes it can be a very valuable trait when one is faced with an injustice - but to defy authority 'just because' - that is just mindless destruction of one own prosperity.