PDA

View Full Version : Why Words Matter...



SnakebyteXX
08-02-2006, 09:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
When Words Matter...

I was killing time waiting in an airport bookstore while waiting for a flight. While browsing, I came across one of those books of `inspirational quotes for managers." Amid all the usual suspects was one that stuck with me;

"A leader without followers is just a guy out taking a walk!"

Sitting on my flight, watching the wide expanse of North America pass under my window, that phrase kept coming back to me. When we think of Presidential leadership, how many images come to mind of our Chief Executives taking a walk? Walking to and from helicopters, walking to and from motorcades and across tarmacs to Air Force One. Walking down Pennsylvania Avenue on inauguration day, and down the White House cross hall to the East Room to meet the press. The images are almost endless.

If President George W. Bush's poll numbers are any indication, our current Chief Executive is doing a lot of walking by himself lately. In all fairness though, this is not entirely true. There is still a sizeable minority of Americans who are willing to follow his leadership without hesitation. Many of these people say the main reason for their continued support for this administration is "the President always means what he says." As a point of contrast, they invariably point to Bill Clinton and his personal and political scandals as having fueled their passion for supporting the "straight talking" George W. Bush.

At the height of Lewinski scandal, Republicans pounded podiums demanding the impeachment of the President of the United States. They were incensed by Bill Clinton's Grand Jury testimony. Clinton's clumsy attempt to parse the meaning of the word "is" was to them, an affront to democracy itself. "Words matter! Words have meaning!" they cried, and the great irony of 2006 is they were right. Words do matter, and words spoken from the platform of presidential authority matter a great deal

I remember one livid caller to a talk radio program during the impeachment trial. The caller claimed that an acquittal would be a death knell to our constitution. The caller went on to say that a trial shouldn't even be needed to convict Bill Clinton, because everything the President says is said under oath, the Presidential oath of office. Hence any statement that was not completely true, be it political or personal should be considered to be perjury.

How times have changed.

Not even ten years later, the same people who were willing to impeach a President over the definition of "is", are curiously silent . Silent on the near Dr. Seuss like phrasing of what are weapons of mass destruction, versus "weapons of mass destruction program activities".

Silent in the face of the deliberate exploitation of a national tragedy. Policy mistakes, failures and outright absurdities are justified by slapping on the "9-11" label. The Vice President of the United States goes on television and deliberately mentions 9-11 in every sentence that includes the word `Iraq', yet at the White House the President turns to Jim Lehrer and says with a straight face, "We have never claimed Iraq was `responsible' for the attacks of September the 11th."

The reaction from the "words have meaning" folks? Silence, deafening silence.

Now we have a President who promotes clear cutting of old growth forests and calls it his "Healthy Forests Initiative". A President who's mismanagement of the American economy has cost more jobs than any time since the Great Depression, who then refers to the outsourcing of American jobs as "economic change". What is clearly an out of control civil war in Iraq is called "an insurgency in its last throes." Increased costs and fewer options for Medicare prescription drug coverage is called "giving our seniors choice".

In comparison with George Bush's "straight talk", the definition of "is" seems harmless the point of being na´ve.

Thousands of American lives lost and damaged in a land where you can't drive from downtown Baghdad to the Airport without an escort of heavy armor, is "freedom on the march". In Afghanistan, nation of warlords fighting over who will control the opium trade is "a beacon of democracy for the Middle East".

Words have meaning, and words spoken under the oath of office of the Presidency even more so. A President can overcome the folly of his words if his actions lead to success, be it at home or overseas. Empty words alone, spoken out of convenience rather than conviction, invariably lead to failure.

What politicians and pundits refer to as 'political capital', is really the level of credibility leaders have with those they are charged to lead. In 2006, less than half of the people in America find George W. Bush to be credible. In terms of political capital, the Bush Administration isn't just poor, it is swimming in debt teetering on verge of bankruptcy.

Unless we as a nation enact a deliberate change at the ballot box this November, American leadership both at home and abroad will remain a damaged and diminished entity. The leader of the free world reduced to just a guy out taking a walk.
<hr /></blockquote>

web page (http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/rnr/189223416.html)

wolfdancer
08-02-2006, 10:11 AM
R, it's a very well written article. The NLP people have long been saying how the use of words, and the misuse of words, can be used to control people's viewpoints. Here, the mislabeling of events obfuscates what is actually occurring.
People read in the good news that they want to hear, from the heading, and pay no attention to the reality of the situation.
Take "Body Counts" for an example....as long as the numbers are highter for the enemy, it seems like it's good news, and we are winning. Clouded over though, is the tragedy of, another group of young American's dead, and their family's forever effected by their deaths.
Body counts only make sense to the now chicken hawks that managed to avoid the Viet-Nam war, and get a head start on creating their personal wealth, while their contemporaries were off fighting and dying for naught.

Gayle in MD
08-02-2006, 10:48 AM
Thanks for this, Snake, it's great. You're going to hear me harp and harp on this...Every one of us should read John Dean's new book...

Conservatives Without Conscience,

and Leon Hedler's new book, Sandstorm: Policy Failure In the Middle East

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
08-03-2006, 08:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Thanks for this, Snake, it's great.Every one of us should read John Dean's new book...

Conservatives Without Conscience, <hr /></blockquote>

Done, and I second that motion.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
and Leon Hedler's new book, Sandstorm: Policy Failure In the Middle East
<hr /></blockquote>

I'll keep this in mind.

Gayle in MD
08-03-2006, 10:43 AM
Hey, I was going to send you a pm in case...., did you read it already?

This book is mind blowing, it's going to be a Block Buster!
So is "Fiasco".... /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

moblsv
08-03-2006, 12:30 PM
Yes, I read Conservatives without Conscience

I just started American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips. After reading American Theocracy I felt the need to read his previous book as well.

I also just started Before the Dawn as my non-political reading. Although, since it is about Human Evolution, I guess in a way it is still politics. It's so sad how even Science is being distorted and lied about for political gain under this Administration.

So many books, so little time.

Gayle in MD
08-03-2006, 12:33 PM
American Theocracy...

That was a great book...

Sid_Vicious
08-03-2006, 01:37 PM
"It's so sad how even Science is being distorted and lied about for political gain under this Administration."

As we know, there are professionally degreed citizens amongst us who follow this leadership, undoubtedly ignoring their formal education for what it really is...reality. Sad is one term I'd certainly use, "to be ashamed" is definitely to be included. What a world...sid

Drop1
08-03-2006, 09:21 PM
Too bad you are preaching to the chior now. Today's followers of Bush,would follow him into hell,they don't care about words,words don't count,when you have faith,and they have faith in Bush,and his fascist advisors. I get angry,but I still dance as though no one is watching. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Fran Crimi
08-04-2006, 07:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Not even ten years later, the same people who were willing to impeach a President over the definition of "is", are curiously silent . </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

I don't know about this article...it seems like it's written by a child-like person trying to act all grown-up---someone who thinks they've suddenly had this amazing revelation about words and meanings.

Oh, and btw, I don't think the impeachment was about the word 'is.' /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Gayle in MD
08-04-2006, 07:44 AM
Hey, if you're sex life isn't private, then what is? That was a case of the repubs and the right wing press, exercising extremely bad taste, and loads of hypocracy, IMO. John Dean tells a story about being back in the political scene after a long absence, doing a spurt of news shows as an Anchor Buddy, and having many off the record conversations with the neocons, who were at the time of the Clinton impeachment, in the throes of launching their new angles and plans, with Newt in the lead, to take the White House, and the Hill, over. Dean says he asked one of them, "Don't you people think You're making a mistake when most of the country thinks Clinton shouldn't even be facing impeachment, and 60% of your own party, (Republicans)is against what you're doing.

The answer..."We're after the religious right" That's who our base is, and that's who we need, to take the Hill. They're the ones who are for it."

Kind of funny when you look at the divorce rate among the religious right. I really don't know how Newt Gingrich holds his head up after the way he went after Clinton...then it all comes out, how lousy he had treated his own wife, and his past mistresses.

Do you think that base ever questions all the false impressions Bush put out there, about the United States not being in the business of Nation Building, and shrinking government, and government spending? He passed himself off as being a moderate, to get in there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-04-2006, 07:51 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> "It's so sad how even Science is being distorted and lied about for political gain under this Administration."

<font color="blue"> Sid,

Science is always distorted by this and other administrations. Words are always changed to reflect the speakers best interest, if not that of the country. You lump us together thinking and saying we blindly follow everything a leader says or does. That is simply not the case. Many of us see the things that the present administration is doing and wish they were better at everything. However, about 30% of us still feel this is better than the alternative we were offered. I know you don't agree and I know you feel every word that is in some context changed is the first by any group or administration to do so. I feel you are wrong but, again, that's why we are all given free chioce. Would I prefer that the biggest thing we have to deal with now is Bill Clinton's BJ, Yes, but if we were here, with a democratic president, we would still have been hit on 9/11 despite what you say your group would have done. Yes, none of our soldiers would have been killed in Iraq, but some of us feel many more American would have been targeted and killed here. We may be wrong, but we don't think so.

I do agree with you that ignoring the 9/11 attacks or "sharing warm feelings with the Muslims" would have made us feel better until struck again and again and would make the middle east safer right now and this Arab/Muslim situation would be able to fester under the surface a little longer. So as the article says, we can elect a new president that can do it the left way next time. For now, we have to do what our president and congress decides to do. Every president has low approval rating deep into a war, without excpetion in a second administration.

See, if we start calling things what they are, "Choice" would not be the politically accepted icon for abortion, a person who beleives a life is sacred at that point would call it baby slicing, or child killing while a more moderate might tag it valuable cell destruction, but Choice is a word that makes everyone feel better about the deal. right? Yes, colateral damage is a word substitute for killing innocent people but you really want us to believe that GWB made these up?</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman

wolfdancer
08-04-2006, 09:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but if we were here, with a democratic president, we would still have been hit on 9/11 despite what you say your group would have done. Yes, none of our soldiers would have been killed in Iraq, but some of us feel many more American would have been targeted and killed here. We may be wrong, but we don't think so. <hr /></blockquote>
As to the first part of your premise....were there warnings, and were they ignored by Bush? While we'll never know if those rumors are true, and if in fact, that was the reason many security people resigned.....we couldn't have done any worse with Kerry to prevent the attack.
And we would have been targeted, and killed by....Iraq?,if we didn't respond to 9/11 by targeting them?
Kind of a leap of faith there.....Kerry might have concentrated instead on OBL, and Afghanistan....Iraq might have been too occupied with Iran....
It doesn't matter though now...for better, or for worse, we have to be committed to somehow resolving this Iraq problem that we have created....or Bush can cancel that big order for the Diebold voting machines, he was sending over there.....the ones, like in Fla and Ohio..."have less security then a slot machine"
Maybe if the real Afghanistan story were known...drugs/arms...?????

Gayle in MD
08-04-2006, 09:16 AM
Deeman,
I think one of the huge mistakes Bush made was when he trumped up the intel. That got him off to a bad start with this mess in Iraq. the problem is this, it doesn't matter who (Presidents) did what in the past. This administration has had an overall, continuous, policy of deciet, IMO, about so many many things, that to me atleast, it is unprecedented. The secrecy, and semantics, for one thing, so much more coreographed and intense then I can ever remember, and prevades everything they do.

When you think of the relatively few number of terrorists it took to pull off 9/11, and how many of them there are, around the world, and how little we have accomplished in implementing those precautions needed here on our shores, I have never been able to see our involvement in Iraq, and obsession with Saddam, as anything but a huge distraction from more pressing actions that should have already been accomplished by now.

When you think of how wide spread the Gorilla Muslim Extremist population is, around the globe, it's hard to believe that our best efforts should be to get involved in an intence sectarian battle, some say Civil War, in Iraq.

I see no connection between what we are doing in Iraq, and the fact that we have not yet been attacked again here. bin Laden's pattern, suggests that we are just now coming into the most dangerous time for another attack here. And, it's no secret that our occupation over there has further infuriated the extremist Muslim's, and helped them to entice many more into their numbers. I have thought, and read, about this, and I still do not understand how our actions have improved what is surely a clash of deep rooted religious differences, nor can I see how fighting and bombing in Iraq, will settle or improve those differences, or make us safer here.

As for "choice" ....that term, to me, is very appropriate. The complete phrase, is, "A woman's Right To choose" whether she wants to complete a full term pregnancy, and bring another life into the world. If a woman isn't the appropriate one to make that decision, then who is? A man? A judge? A country? A preacher? A congregation? A panel of Medical Doctors? A woman's husband? Her boyfriend? Her rapist? No other person experiences the nine months of pregnancy, and no other person, experiences the physical changes and possible risks, the physical results, the medical dangers, the interruption of their normal day to day life and physiology, both physically and mentally, than the woman who is pregnant.

Some women are atheists, and do not believe that every life is a result of God's will. Is it appropriate that Christians, impose their belief system on those women? "Oh, You don't believe, but I do, therefore , I will dictate what you are allowed to do with your body, according to my belief system." Postitively outrageous! An act which forces another human being, to succumb to someone else's value system, regardless of the personal consequences to the only person affected by the decision.

I realize, there are people who think not one of us has a right to end a potential life. But many others of us feel, there is no other person who has the right to dictate to any woman what she must do with her own body. It is a personal decision, between the woman involved, and her doctor, and while all the world may judge her decision, and condemn it, hers is the life which is already here, and hers is the only life which is both mentally and physically affected, which ever way she chooses to proceed. Abortion is common when the child is not normal, should those parents be forced to bring a life abnormal into the world, a child who may suffer for all their life....also? Some women have histories of alcohol, and drug use, and when they learn of a pregnancy, their decision is, and they often know this in their hearts, not to advance into the possibility of some other life, paying for their own personal self abuse. Some women know themselves to be mentally unstable, and do not think they can survive the extreme hormonal swings which could further exacerbate their situation. Some have an illogical fear of pregnancy, and childbirth. Must they also abide by what others think if correct? Some have children already here, and are raising them alone, struggling as they go, dragging out to work everyday, trying to feed children they already know will be stuck in poverty from day one. And the thought of going through the physical intrusion of Pregnancy into their lives, is just more than they can face. Are they to be forced by someone else, to do as that someone else dictates? Are they without compassion to end the pregnancy immediately?

Birth Control methods often involve the disintegration of fertilized eggs, should women be denied those methods of avoiding unwanted births, as well? Some women know in their hearts, that they do not want children, would not make good mothers, and could also not live with knowing they have brought a life into the world, and abandoned that life. Some cannot face living the rest of their life wondering about it, and some cannot face the rest of their life knowing they have ended a potential life, and that is for each woman to decide, but to say that the Government, or the church, or a political movement, or group, or some panel of men, has a right to intrude themselves into such a personal, and private decision, is, in my way of thinking, an outrageous and dictatorial intrusion into someone elses personal life. It is a private, personal issue, into which no other individual has the right to impose.

It is a very complex issue and decision, obviously, complex enough, that it should not be intruded into by others.
Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
08-04-2006, 10:06 AM
Gayle,
How about a reasonable compromise here. If a woman doesn't want a child she has conceived, rather than end the child's life prematurely, wouldn't adoption be the simple solution?
The life of the unborn child is spared, and the woman is not saddled with raising an unwanted child. Seems like the only win-win solution to the problem.
Steve

Gayle in MD
08-04-2006, 10:39 AM
Wouldn't it be great, Steve, if that was the only issue! And how I wish that were so. The problem with that, is that in many cases it is the course of the pregnancy itself, which poses the threat to a woman's life, and peace of mind. No other, can know, but she.

For some issues, there is no completely right, fair and correct rule, no one size fits all solution. This issue of abortion is one of those. If there is a God, we will each have to face him, and we will each pay for the decisions we have made in our lives. But, as I have quoted here many times, the best definition of evil I have ever been able to find, so far, and from a psychological point of view....

"The exercise of one's will, in other words, the exercise of political power, by overt, or covert coersion, in order to avoid spiritual growth." M. Scott Peck, from "People Of The Lie."

In my world, it is wrong to force others to do as we would like them to do. No one has that right.

"Take what you want, and pay for it" said God

Abortion is something that I could never choose for myself, regardless of my circumstances, I think....but how could I know? When I think of it, I think that in a circumstance of an unwanted pregnance, I could more easily live with any alternative, other than abortion. But I cannot know, what it is to be faced with many of the unique circumstances that other woman are in. But, I cannot know or feel as others do. If we each have a right to life, liberty and happiness, we cannot make such monumental decisions for others, and force them to do as we would do, to feel as we would feel, or to choose as we would choose. To endeavor to do so, is wrong, IMO.

Years ago, Doctors would preform an abortions if the Mother's life were threatened. For some women, and in some circumstances, carrying a child to term, is a life threatening decision, in the truest sense of the words.

The best way to prevent abortion, is through birth control. And while I too am affected by the thought of so many interrupted potential lives being prevented from birth and life, I am just as deeply affected when I am in the presence of parents who should never become parents.

When a man fathers an unwanted child, no one need know. His co-workers need not know, his neighbors need not know, his church, his friends and family, damn, you have to get DNA to prove that he had anything to do with it! That is not what women must face. Her job may be threatened, her marriage in some cases, the future of her already born children, her standing in the community, the opportunity to fulfill her own potential, as I say, it is a far too complex, personal, unique, and far reaching circumstance in which to find ones self, to be forced to include the wishes and values of others.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-04-2006, 10:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>


As for "choice" ....that term, to me, is very appropriate. The complete phrase, is, "A woman's Right To choose" whether she wants to complete a full term pregnancy, and bring another life into the world. If a woman isn't the appropriate one to make that decision, then who is? A man? A judge? A country? A preacher? A congregation? A panel of Medical Doctors? A woman's husband? Her boyfriend? Her rapist? No other person experiences the nine months of pregnancy, and no other person, experiences the physical changes and possible risks, the physical results, the medical dangers, the interruption of their normal day to day life and physiology, both physically and mentally, than the woman who is pregnant.

<font color="blue">Strangely, as I've told you before, I agree, that if anyone is going to make a decision on a woman's abortion, it should be only that woman. Now, that does not mean I am for abortion but would like to see it as a woman's decision before a couort or anyone else. The same way i feel about most court's decisions. I think my point was more of how the choice word itself is, while very descriptive, the softer version of abortion or baby killing of whatever else you might attach to it. I don't even object to "choice" just pointing out it is a newspeak type word. </font color>

Some women are atheists, and do not believe that every life is a result of God's will. Is it appropriate that Christians, impose their belief system on those women? "Oh, You don't believe, but I do, therefore , I will dictate what you are allowed to do with your body, according to my belief system." <font color="blue"> NO, that is exactly why I don't support anti abortion. As much as I dilike it, and even if I want to attach life to the term fetus, I do think a woman's right have or not have a baby is hers foremost and trumps MY personal belief. </font color> Postitively outrageous! An act which forces another human being, to succumb to someone else's value system, regardless of the personal consequences to the only person affected by the decision. <font color="blue"> Now, while I agree with not making abortion illegal, I reserve the right to feel we are destroying a life. However, as well, this is not a valid argument you make about the woman's beleif system. If I beleive it is perfectly o.k. to kill a person, to rape someone, the fact that society has ruled, based on religeous principals, that these are wrong and unacceptable trumps my belief that they are acceptable. Now, you may argue that this is different, that everyone "knows" murder and rape are wrong. Sorry, that is not true, only through moral values based on religous doctrin brought these rules/laws about. In some populations, these are not wrong. Luckliy, those populations have been overruled by the secular laws broought about by the religous codes and rules.

<font color="black"> I realize, there are people who think not one of us has a right to end a potential life. But many others of us feel, there is no other person who has the right to dictate to any woman what she must do with her own body. It is a personal decision, between the woman involved, and her doctor, and while all the world may judge her decision, and condemn it, hers is the life which is already here, and hers is the only life which is both mentally and physically affected, <font color="blue">Here is where many thoughtful and not evil people believe the baby is a baby not a collection of cells and has soe rights. </font color> those parents be forced to bring a life abnormal into the world, a child who may suffer for all their life....also? Some women have histories of alcohol, and drug use, and when they learn of a pregnancy, their decision is, and they often know this in their hearts, not to advance into the possibility of some other life, paying for their own personal self abuse. Some women know themselves to be mentally unstable, and do not think they can survive the extreme hormonal swings which could further exacerbate their situation. Some have an illogical fear of pregnancy, and childbirth. Must they also abide by what others think if correct? Some have children already here, and are raising them alone, struggling as they go, dragging out to work everyday, trying to feed children they already know will be stuck in poverty from day one. And the thought of going through the physical intrusion of Pregnancy into their lives, is just more than they can face. Are they to be forced by someone else, to do as that someone else dictates? Are they without compassion to end the pregnancy immediately? </font color> <font color="blue"> Again, Gayle, this is why i have always said, "We can't end abortion just because Dee does not like it. I understand there is a difference in belief systems and a person's right to determine some things that are not easy to do. My preference is that we all try to convince people to value life, not get pregnant, only have the abortion if it is appropriate (again, their decision) and hope it become less of a morning after reaction and more of a last thing to do option. I think giving my party absolute power to stop abortion is as bad as giving the other side a mandate abort all the babies they can. </font color>

<font color="black"> It is a very complex issue and decision, obviously, complex enough, that it should not be intruded into by others. </font color> into which no other individual has the right to impose. Again, Gayle, i believe you have taken my attempt to define a usage of words and thought I was attacking abortion. My attack on abortion is, "Please don't do this. If you do, I want you to have all the options known and a good doctor to do the abortion. In other words, please don't but if you have to, it your decision."

<font color="blue"> Again, if they have heard my view, I am satisfied. i don't believe in bombing clinics or even in marching in front of clinics. these young women probably have enough on their plate. </font color>
Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
08-05-2006, 06:30 AM
I see that our opinions are much the same. I don't think, abortion, is murder, however. Also, I don't think that religion was original precursor to laws about murder and rape. I think that long before we had laws, we, as human beings, had empathy, which is the underlying root of laws, rules, acceptable societal behavior. I believe that those human expectations of our fellow human beings, began in caves, not in church, originally as a means of survival of the group, and as time went on, these rules became further fine tuned through the empathetic observation of the society in question. Our human ability to empathize with what is happening in front of our eyes, came long before any religious organizations developed, in a social way of speaking, as did our explanations for the unexpected, and unexplainable, results of nature, from which originated much of the mythology which laid the groundwork for organized religion.

We find in history the tribal beliefs that can only be described as the infancy of man's tenuous attempts at defining his world, and assuaging the God's, if you will, through his barbaric regulations, imposed by his Kings of his times, the sacrifice and suffing of his fellow humans, in some geographic areas, while in others, societies which were during the same period, humanitarian, empathetic, and loving of their group. Very interesting, complex, and unexplainable.

When a life exists, it is visable to all around. It is therefore, the possible recipient of empathy from surrounding beings. We can witness a rape, a murder, torture, theft, and we can identify with the one who is being attacked, or unfairly treated, hence, our societies render laws in the best interests of the whole, and/or for the protection of the innocent. Abortion, on the other hand, is unsolvable in that one must ask oneself if the unborn, trumps the rights and best interests of an existing human being. This is what leads to a required definition of what determines life, and in the case of our supreme law, that is a question of viability, hence, a fetus, according to the law of our land, is not a baby. Regardless of that, I am of the opinion that unless a woman wants to perform her own abortion, of which there is thousands of years of historic evidence, a woman should be held to some standards regarding abortion, how it is performed, and time limits during which it is legal.


That's probably about the best we can come up with as a society, at this time. I do think that we now approach a time when, if uninterriupted by religious movements, all abortions will be rendered obsolete. From a medical standpoint, we are approaching opportunities for a woman to avoid the involvment of any other human being, without endangering her health, to prevent the division of cells from advancing to any form other than a microscopic entity, which birth control pills have accomplished for decades now, but will require less intrusion of a womans natural hormonal health. I hope, that the religious organizations around the world, stay clear of endeavoring to prevent those least offensive options, which a just in recent years offered as an alternative. At that point, the decision will be in all respects, between a woman, and her own conscience, and/or her own God, or as she so believes. It is interesting to note, that as that occurs, we are back to the times when women simply waded just beyond the breakers, blade in hand, and made their personal decisions, and paid their personal price.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-05-2006, 07:47 AM
So we can both agree that abortion should not be banned. I have always felt that way. However, I still do feel that spiritual beliefs were what drove law and compassionate rule of law rather than a human's natural tendency to goodness.

I see the Quest for Fire version and you may see the Barney, Fred and Wilma version /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif.. I do believe we were survival of the fittest and rules almost exclusively by strengh of force until man decided there might be punishment or reward higher then their ability to rule. Now, we both know there has been oppression both under and outside of the control of religeon but that Godless Dictatorships have always been oppressive while even their residual laws were once based on Scriptural and/or spiritual code.

There simply is no "right or wrong" moral code established completely outside the spiritual beliefs. How would anyone have developed right and wrong while physically "knowing" it was o.k. to drag your next mate into a cave and mate with her? Your belief that someone said, "Wait, we are humna beings. This can't be right by humamistic code." Never happened, our code is what the best of our spiritual codes say it is. In a world where all but one person in the world left is Muslim, with a code of kill all non-Muslims, it would not be wrong to kill the last Christian (Unless you are that Christian). Laws were made to allow us to function but they were clearly based on Religeous doctrine, some Christian, some much older.

Deeman

Gayle in MD
08-08-2006, 03:44 AM
Deeman,
On your statements that religious influence was the beginning of moral code, we'll have to agree to disagree. Societies existed since the beginning of time, which held their tribes to a moral code. This occured long before any organized religion made a showing.

Also, I have seen a great deal of killing, oppression, and wrong doing by all kinds of social governments, including those which fall under the Christian banner.

I never said that anyone said, "Wait, we are human beings"..... only that our humanity was the basis of our ability to experience empathy, and that empathy, was the human emotion which was the source of ancient tribal societal laws, not organized religion. Much of religious doctrine grew out of man's efforts to try to make sense of things he could not understand...nature, death, illness, accidents, for example.

The Power Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, btw, is an excellent resource for the study of the early stirrings of Religious philosophy.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-08-2006, 05:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Deeman,
On your statements that religious influence was the beginning of moral code, we'll have to agree to disagree. Societies existed since the beginning of time, which held their tribes to a moral code. This occured long before any organized religion made a showing.

Also, I have seen a great deal of killing, oppression, and wrong doing by all kinds of social governments, including those which fall under the Christian banner. <font color="blue"> </font color> I agree but almost all governments have been oppressive. Religeon just gave some a side to oppress from in some cases.

I never said that anyone said, "Wait, we are human beings"..... only that our humanity was the basis of our ability to experience empathy, and that empathy, was the human emotion which was the source of ancient tribal societal laws, not organized religion. <font color="blue"> Much of what you call ancient tribal societal laws abandoned the old and sick at every opportunity, allowed one leader to monopolize the sexual activity in a group and basicall rule entirely by force of power until a yonger and stonger male took over. This was not enlightened humanism. </font color> Much of religious doctrine grew out of man's efforts to try to make sense of things he could not understand...nature, death, illness, accidents, for example. <font color="blue"> Certainly, but in many cases it did define an order of right and wrong which was mearly determined before by might is right. Secular humanism has never, by all evidence I have read and seen, ever postulated a moral code on it's own merit before modern social interaction which is impossible to separate from it's religeous influences. The societal controls on human behaviour and agression will hold as long as organized police and military are in power to contol activities. However, the moment they are gone, those humanistic controls will be gone and you will be at the mercy of the strongest. However, in a religeous environment you may be afforded the behaviorial incentives provided by the faith of the followers (unless the followers are Muslim). </font color>

Deeman

The Power Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, btw, is an excellent resource for the study of the early stirrings of Religious philosophy. <font color="blue"> Yes, but this history of philosophy does not deal with evidence of values treatment outside the religeon, just the causal development of belief systems and early religeous groups, not development of humanistic laws. </font color>

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

moblsv
08-08-2006, 06:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>Much of what you call ancient tribal societal laws abandoned the old and sick at every opportunity, allowed one leader to monopolize the sexual activity in a group and basicall rule entirely by force of power until a yonger and stonger male took over. This was not enlightened humanism.<hr /></blockquote>

Ancient tribal 'laws' were about what was necessary for the tribe to survive. Evolution and Civilization created the more caring moral traditions, not religion.

I'm sure the religious think it is 'evil' for a tribe to have traditions like the !kung, who consider the beginning of life to be the point that the mother brings the newborn back to the village. In these mobile tribes a mother is estimated to have to walk some 1500 miles a year, while carrying all her possession including her child. Tribe size in excess of 150 people starts to become unstable and internally combative. For these reasons a mother will have to space children by thier walking age and will kill a newborn that is defective and will have to choose between twins. Religions, like Christianity, would be devestation to these people.

Based on tracing of Genetic material and other evidence this model is considered to be a probable approximation of the early humans cultures for tens of thousands of years.

IMO, Religion doesn't create moral standards that are good for the tribe, the planet, or god. Religious moral standards are about the arrogance of the human race. True moral standards are about maintaining a balance where all species can live in a healthy, prosperous environment. IMO, Religion has already done the same damage globally that it would have done on a small scale to the ancient tribes. It has caused over population, pillaging, war, widespread destruction of the ecosystem and is reducing the health of the entire planet.

DickLeonard
08-08-2006, 07:04 AM
Gayle lying to get elected President {IS}is not a sin. Stealing an Election is not a Sin it is a mandate from God. Stealing Taxpayer money is not a sin, it is perfectly legal to reward campaign contributetors with no bid contracts.

The more I see of God fearing people the more I see God as just a Big Joke played on us by the Roman Catholic Church. Jesus was their idea pilfered by crazy Republicans.
####

DickLeonard
08-08-2006, 07:06 AM
Dick you meant DEVIOUS not crazy.####

Deeman3
08-08-2006, 07:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>Much of what you call ancient tribal societal laws abandoned the old and sick at every opportunity, allowed one leader to monopolize the sexual activity in a group and basicall rule entirely by force of power until a yonger and stonger male took over. This was not enlightened humanism.<hr /></blockquote>

Ancient tribal 'laws' were about what was necessary for the tribe to survive. Evolution and Civilization created the more caring moral traditions, not religion. <font color="blue"> No, evolution created opposable thumbs and civilization created a society that pretty much did whatever the powerful wanted. Morals had no value to a society that did not value or see any reason for modification of behaviour. Religeon gave people a sense of somethng greater than themselves. </font color>

I'm sure the religious think it is 'evil' for a tribe to have traditions like the !kung, who consider the beginning of life to be the point that the mother brings the newborn back to the village. <font color="blue"> You seem to be defining religeon as a narror Christian philosophy when even tribal beliefs were a form of religeon, not just what you may consider a modern sect. </font color> In these mobile tribes a mother is estimated to have to walk some 1500 miles a year, while carrying all her possession including her child. Tribe size in excess of 150 people starts to become unstable and internally combative. For these reasons a mother will have to space children by thier walking age and will kill a newborn that is defective and will have to choose between twins. Religions, like Christianity, would be devestation to these people. <font color="blue">Again, your narrow focus on Christianity while that was not to be a belief system for another 500,000 years. Nomadic people, while having some burden of travel, held together in a family unit then extended into the tribe was well supported but here our base beliefs differ in that you think these people just "decided" to be organized and kind to each other. They had a strategic advantage to cooperation but that did not often benefit the individual but the collective. Belief systems that saw postponed rewards (Heaven, weather true or not, remember Opate of the Masses) was what drove benevolent treatment of the individual, not organizational or survival needs. </font color>

Based on tracing of Genetic material and other evidence this model is considered to be a probable approximation of the early humans cultures for tens of thousands of years. <font color="blue">You have got to tell me how genetic evidence supports the secular development of belief and treatment systems, I just gotta hear this.... </font color>

IMO, Religion doesn't create moral standards that are good for the tribe, the planet, or god. Religious moral standards are about the arrogance of the human race. True moral standards are about maintaining a balance where all species can live in a healthy, prosperous environment. <font color="blue"> Meaning you don't eat fish, kill animals for your food or use leather shoes?</font color> IMO, Religion has already done the same damage globally that it would have done on a small scale to the ancient tribes. It has caused over population, pillaging, war, widespread destruction of the ecosystem and is reducing the health of the entire planet. <font color="blue"> Muslims are certainly reducing the population of the planet. If you blame organized religeon for most of the world's ails, i can't argue with you as you have your mind made up. I do understand that religeon has caused many problems. Like politics and prejudice, it can be twisted and will be as long as people allow it. However, it has and continues to do much good with religeous groups feeding much of the world's poor and nursing their sick while many secular humanists just complain that the world is getting worse.It may be inconvienent to remember that charitable giving is much higher in the religeous community than the secular but it is still true. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>


Deeman

Gayle in MD
08-08-2006, 11:17 AM
Deeman,
I don't think you have read Mr. Campbells book, The Power Of Myth as it addresses the connections between Mythology and Religion.

Also, as I stated previously, while in some parts of the world, tribal practices produced some horrific results, while in other geographic areas, at the same general time, there were societies composed of thoughtful caring behavior among all, and this, before religiousity made its debut.

However, studies have proven that ones belief system, as regards their religious philosophy, whether or not there is a God, or an afterlife, or punishment for their sins, does not necessarily affect ones behavior for the better. There is no connection between ones capacity for empathy, and ones religious beliefs. Hence, great sins against mankind have always been committed in the name of ones God.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-08-2006, 11:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Deeman,
I don't think you have read Mr. Campbells book, The Power Of Myth as it addresses the connections between Mythology and Religion. <font color="blue"> Many works aside from Mr. Campbells address this same issue. While i have not read his, there are many subject matter experts in this field. There is not consensus of opinion on this.</font color>

Also, as I stated previously, while in some parts of the world, tribal practices produced some horrific results, while in other geographic areas, at the same general time, there were societies composed of thoughtful caring behavior among all, and this, before religiousity made its debut. <font color="blue">I do question how you can say, "before religiousity made its debut" as there were no extended periods before belief systems (precursor to religeon)were in place. </font color>

However, studies have proven that ones belief system, as regards their religious philosophy, whether or not there is a God, or an afterlife, or punishment for their sins, does not necessarily affect ones behavior for the better. There is no connection between ones capacity for empathy, and ones religious beliefs. Hence, great sins against mankind have always been committed in the name of ones God. <font color="blue">Please quote these studies!!!! I am of the completely opposite opinion. Person's behaviour is impacted, maybe from your judgement, not for the better. People of faith are more likely to make self sacrifice, live longer and more self-described fullfilled lives as well as make greater monetary and personal contributions to their community. Please referrence the studies you cite (and please not a Huffington personal opinion). </font color>

Deeman

. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
08-08-2006, 11:49 AM
Deeman,
Your original statement was that religious influence was the beginning of moral code. That is simply not true. But, I know that no matter which books I might quote to prove that to be a false statement, you would surely shoot them down, therefore, I highly recommend Mr.Campbells book, along with the works of Margret Mead, David Seabury, and Eric Fromm. Also, the series, The Ascent Of Man, gives one many many examples of human empathy, and its connections to societal rules, which had absolutely nothing to do with organized religion, or God.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
08-08-2006, 12:17 PM
Mr. Dee....I ordered Joe's DVDs last week to replace the tapes i loaned out, and never got back (to a pool player, no less)
They're on back order from PBS, but I'd be more then willing to lend them to you, after I view them.
while they are apolitical, you might be shocked at the number of virgins giving birth to prophets in them days

Gayle in MD
08-08-2006, 11:58 PM
Watching Bush use the 9/11 tragedy to scare Americans into being submissive over his illegal actions, has not been pleasant.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-09-2006, 10:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Deeman,
Your original statement was that religious influence was the beginning of moral code. That is simply not true. But, I know that no matter which books I might quote to prove that to be a false statement, you would surely shoot them down, therefore, I highly recommend Mr.Campbells book, along with the works of Margret Mead, David Seabury, and Eric Fromm. Also, the series, The Ascent Of Man, gives one many many examples of human empathy, and its connections to societal rules, which had absolutely nothing to do with organized religion, or God.

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Gayle,

While I have not read Mr. Campbell's book, I have seen the Assent of Man as well as read several works by Margret Mead and one by Eric Fromm. Social Anthropology is not an exact science and while there is evidence for much of the superstitions and early beliefs, the works you indicate offer a purely secular humanistic view of early man. That's not to say much of it is not true but most of these scientists go beyond what the evidence shows them and forecast their own personal beliefs into their theory much as Christian Archeologists tend to want to find and verify their religeous faith. I reject both and find it mosre appropriate to leave the details no one can gleen from archeological evidence to my judgement or those who have similarly said, "The behaviours of early man can only be guessed at from what they left, petro-depictions are only that, early drawings with no Rosetta Stone implying their meaning." To attach intent, timing and purpose to any of these theories is irresponsible science. Any representation is only a guess at the most probably series of events, not a map of their beliefs.

I can show you books by very reputable authors that say a number of things that are downright silly. Please use you arguments, not lean on biased accounts you may have read.

If you say, "man would have had the ssame moral values without a God or belief in God." That is your position. I can't say it is wrong but won't grab a book by Pat Robertson to argue my points with you. Especially when I know, he has a prejudice toward my own argument with little evidence. </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in MD
08-09-2006, 12:52 PM
Deeman,
I'm curious, which of Fromm's books did you read?

To me, education brings an overall understanding of many points of view. What I love about study, is that one may read the theories of many scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and one may begin to patch together a concensus from those works which are most renouned and respected,

I don't think that because one refers to expert opinion, or uses widely accepted expert opinion, to further ones theory in a discussion, that it would follow that one is referring to biased accounts. I certainly do not agree that to do so is leaning on biased accounts, ... college professors, refer to experts in a given field, rather than just state their own personal opinion. I base my opinions and theories on the studies of others, who have gained the respect of the peers, and who have invested the time to become expert in a given field. Opinions, are another thing again, and are only as valuable as the study which lead to them.

JMO,....Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
08-09-2006, 01:08 PM
Gayle,
I would have to disagree with part of that. I think many college professors overload students with their own personal opinions rather than a balanced view of various topics.
Steve

Gayle in MD
08-09-2006, 01:28 PM
Dick,
Seems Bush &amp; Co. are having much more trouble than Clinton did over what is, ... is. lol... Here we've heard nothing but rosey interpretations on Iraq from Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice and Cheney for six years, then the generals get up there last week and start, and I do mean start, to let the cat out of the bag. Then Rice gets on Meet The Press sunday, and tries to dilute what we all heard them say! One hundred people dying everyday, and people still don't want to admit this is a civil war!

I think it is absolutely common for this administration to leave our people in the middle of a civil war in Iraq! Also, I think the Iraqi parliament, and the top people in their elected government, have given us plenty of reason to say, F-U, we're outta here! Fight your own damn civil war!

Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists, because those people over there lay out the red carpet for them. Just look at Lebanon. Good example of why you can't spread democracy to people at the end of a gun. They've got to want it bad enough to fight for it themselves. We go through all this, and then they vote thugs into office, just like Lebanon did! This is a total joke!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
08-09-2006, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Deeman,
I'm curious, which of Fromm's books did you read? <font color="blue"> I lived in Frankfurt Germany near his birthplace. I was given a copy of "Escape from Freedom" in German, which I still have by Wolfgang Bierach, a good friend, although politically opposite from me. I read an abreivated version of "The Sane Society" in Der Spiegel as part of my German language training in the early 1990's and started "to have or to be" as the only English translation of his I have but have never finished it. I found it interesting but I think you get his views right out of the box, unless I missed something great in the second half of the book.</font color>

To me, education brings an overall understanding of many points of view. What I love about study, is that one may read the theories of many scientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and one may begin to patch together a concensus from those works which are most renouned and respected, <font color="blue">I enjoy reading different opinions as well. You would be surprised at some of the things I have read, despite my basic disagreement over. I don't have as much time to devote to reading as I would like. However, I don't read much more right wing drivel than I do left wing drivel.... </font color>

I don't think that because one refers to expert opinion, or uses widely accepted expert opinion, to further ones theory in a discussion, that it would follow that one is referring to biased accounts. I certainly do not agree that to do so is leaning on biased accounts, ... college professors, refer to experts in a given field, rather than just state their own personal opinion. I base my opinions and theories on the studies of others, who have gained the respect of the peers, and who have invested the time to become expert in a given field. Opinions, are another thing again, and are only as valuable as the study which lead to them. <font color="blue"> I disagree, of course. I think most writing is biased as a nature of the agendas we all carry with us. Purely scientific logic is rare and even rarer is the mind which can separate it all and see clarity. I don't claim any special lack of bias myslef as you know what many of my views are. I do, however, recognise both the slanted views both me and people who disagree with me may have and how each of us weaves our belief systems around the "facts" we observe and even read about. Paragonically speaking, most of us would be hard pressed to provide data to support our views. You feel the upper hand in having the weight of many volumes of text to support your world view. I just say, we are all biased and should mistrust all non quanitifiable data ESPECIALLY from those sources we admire or trust. I find it much more stimulating to form my basic opinions from my own thought process and then explore other's ideas. Reading Karl Jung, do you understand the humman mind? No, not if you read Freud. If you have read both but embraced niether, you then have a basis for forming your own opinion. Is it less valid then the experts. Yes, especially when their ideas may be 100 years old, prejudiucial to their circumstances and time, as are ours.

I do respect great thinkers, left or right, scientifically or theologically. I just don't buy completely either side of their stories. </font color>

Deeman

JMO,....Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>