Indigo Renderer Forum

This letter was written to the American people by a good friend of mine.
please read it with an open attitude.

[quote]Election 2008

by

Robert W. Sweet, Jr

Commonwealth of Virginia

October 27, 2008



Far too many Americans take the position that all “politiciansâ€

democracies rise of fall by the will and the vote of the people

Sorry the good ol' US of A is not by definition a democracy but rather a representative republic. Were it a true democracy the election of officials would not be nearly as important as it is because the people would have a vote on the major issues instead of having to rely on those the elect to make the proper decisions.

Well, that was really unbiased. No matter how open I tried to keep my mind, when I read "Virginia" my brain said "republican" and when I read "God" my brain said "generic bullshit, don't waste any more time". I did read through it though.

I guess it doesn't matter as much for me, as I'm not part of the U.S. but on a related note; how many U.S. citizens actually write/read on this forum?

I'm Virginian, born and raised and I think as madswede's comment evidences, and perhaps the original post warrants, 'Euros' have a distorted opinion about the homogeneity of certain states, maybe as a result of the winner take all election system we have. But it is a never-ending struggle, and to me it feels more than any other recent time, after many close elections, that we are at the point of no return for the republican party. (ducks head and awaits cross-fire)

Not the least of which is the probable appointment of several Supreme Court Justices who can forever change ... the protection of erosion of the Bill of Rights that guarantee us the freedoms

Whaaa?... why would I want that?

democracies rise of fall

we have choice between Obama/Biden who believe very strongly that government is the answer to all or most of our problems, whether health care, or financial, or social, or our national security.

Questionable english grammar. One would hope for more polish when issuing these kind of holier than thou bs statements.

Hi, I'm european but am very interested to see a clever exchange on this topic.

I have my opinions, but I don't think they could be easily understandable, or acceptable by a native americain living in faith, since faith prevents to ask the question of the underlying ideology, wich is (should be !) a separate matter imho.

See my friend, faith is godly, ideology is devil's faith. While the first should make yourself more sensible to the (vast) living world, the later shrinks your perception of reality by design. Oh, yes, an ideology is ALWAYS used by some over the many. Faith is your own.

As for the grammar, I wouldn't do that critic dmn. You know certainly more than I do of english grammar but I have the feeling that this text could be read and told effectively, with a certain emphasis.

I agree to the fullest with dmn, I've got a distorted view and I'm not proud of it. It's the sort of thing that happens when reality follows the stereotypes time and again (in the media admittedly) until they're rooted in your head. Even if you are fully aware of that they're still stereotypes.

In my view, ideology and religion, while different in appearance, have been used for similar purposes throughout history. That is, gather people, control people and maintain a social hierarchy. Now faith can certainly be personal and I think it should be personal. Institutions form around religions and eventually become them, removing most of that which was the faith of the individual.

I'm not opposed to religion. Some people need it. I think anyone should be able to believe anything provided that they: a) don't harm anyone because of their beliefs, b) don't force their beliefs on others and c) don't use their belief as an argument in a political situation.

I'm not saying that some of the christan ideals aren't good but certain elements that are almost always brought up (i.e God, Jesus etc) are completely irrelevant to the issues that are important (poverty, economic balance and so forth). I should say that I'm not as much of an atheist as an agnostic. There may very well be a god, but I haven't seen the slightest evidence of that.

Back to the topic. Ideologies aren't necessarily bad but in the end they are indeed, as CTZn says, always used to control a majority.
For instance, nobody (that's an overstatement I guess) can say that the ideologies of Nazism were/are in any way sane. But they served their purpose as well as forming what I would call a quasi-religion around one individual and one "race".
The principles of Communism on the other hand (in my opinion, please don't kill me) are quite sound, but they simply aren't practicable due to...human nature... basic bioloical behaviour... who knows? I'll just add that no state that are or have ever been named communist, aren't/weren't actually. I think it's a decent ideology but it won't work over any larger areas (or in short, it doesn't work).

So, parts of some religions are integrated into some ideologies. Some ideologies are outright sick without any involvment in religion and other ideologies, while good in theory, doesn't really work. Religion's been used for the same things as ideologies throughout human history and humans have stayed pretty much the same.

Seems I went of on a tangent somewhere in the middle and then jumped to another curve. I hope that something at least slightly interesting can be deducted from this mess though.

Oh, and just to comment about the grammar. Even with our wonderful edcuational system here in sweden (read with as much sarcasm as possible) it seems that we are able to produce quite a few politicians with the mental capacity of a 13-year-old.

faith is godly

I'll have to disagree. But that whole paragraph has a bit of Poe's law hanging over it so I'll wait with any response.

Damn, that was way longer than I intended...

Ah, you ask for more ?

First, I want to point out that we lack an arguer (?) to fulfill with the requesties of a true debate I think we all had a critical reaction to the thread, pretty much the same at a large observation scale.

Given that situation, we are confronted to a schematic: we are generating a common, but virtual identity. At least it can be perceived as such by the supporter's of Mr Robert W. Sweet, Jr's speech, perception wich could invoque defensive attitudes from them.

At this point I want to make clear that I would like one (at least!) of these supporters to speak aloud here, or that would not be a debate, but self-congratulations. How regretable ! He/she would be welcome.

Now when we talk about human nature, we can not dismiss the human hystory. Common beliefs regarding the human nature are terrible nowadays, totally submitted to "recent" (proto-) historical facts. Whenever you wonder WHY the human nature is like that or like so, you should try to understand HOW it turned so. Indeed ! What about our free will !? I quote MadSwede:

Religion's been used for the same things as ideologies throughout human history and humans have stayed pretty much the same.

And now people believe everything is fixed like so, but life hates immobility !!!

Criticism, is a vital process wich allows a system to drop or modify organs rendered inefficient to a living environment (a biotope if you remember). Criticism is impossible if that system doesn't confront itself with the new/changing environment (hence my invitation to a debate, one should not loose anything trying). It will remain negating the outer, trying to multiply without any chance of prosperity in a dying place. And finally die. Denying movement to life means death. Or we would not be in a world that need to be reworked somehow, starting by us I believe.

You should remember that humanity has already passed through a warming-glaciation cycle, or nearly (how anguishing !). That means destruction of food chains (biotopes, literaly "places of life"), then "massive" migrations, conflicts for ressources etc... Just like former europeans flew later from their motherland *cough* but examples of that are legions.

But where resides our memory then ?

In what today we call the "human nature".

So when a book says "you shall work on your nature to come closer to me", it means too (and thats the godly message of the day ) that you should remember what you were at the first day. The gift to humanity is that (now) written memory, wich is only Ariane's thread to the beginning of all. Not your true personal story, but it's skeleton. "Come closer to me and start over, from me to the world, in the same way you came from the world to me" he'd say I'm sure In short: Be stronger than what Nature made you pass through, forgive the suffering and raise in that universe. Even shorter: -that would be to much ideology- (joke).

It may seem that I was far from the topic, true, I'm preparing the ground thats all

faith is godly

I'll have to disagree. But that whole paragraph has a bit of Poe's law hanging over it so I'll wait with any response.

Indeed that was slightly ironical, no euphemism used here. Poe's law

Damn, that was way longer than I intended...

Take that

Before we dive deeper into the rhetorical arguments and evolutionary biology (which, with our grammar, would cause any linguist reading it to commit suicide ) maybe we should set a definite topic.

My point was, even if presented in an obscure fashion, that I don't think that religion has a place in politics. Whenever a politician brings in parts of some dogma I tend to not listen to the rest of their arguments. Of course that's not fair of me, but I'd still see it as pandering to the beliefs of a crowd. I wouldn't blame the crowd for the tactics of the politician, but then again, my impression (based on interviews on BBC, maybe biased, maybe not) of the average christian voter is someone who votes for the politician who brings religion into the campaign. There are certainly exceptions to that of course.

Oh, and Poe's law basically states that any parody of religious fundamentalism, unless clearly marked as a joke, is often undistinguishable from actual fundamentalism.

If I have to be realistic, and at the scale of a crowd (that is, politics), military, justice and religious should not be mixed, neither all nor some. That's a word of the Bible, too. An old, moral obligation I'd say. So I globally share your opinion, MadSwede, but I think I know and understand the religious sensibility too. That's why I'm proposing myself as a mediator between both sensibilities !

[...] the average christian voter is someone who votes for the politician who brings religion into the campaign. There are certainly exceptions to that of course.

I still hope exceptions will join us here soon

Ah, funny law actually. I have not stressed it yet but it's seducting...

ok, evolutionary biology and non-linearity of time, go ahead MadSwede I'm on your back

MadSwede wrote:Well, that was really unbiased. No matter how open I tried to keep my mind, when I read "Virginia" my brain said "republican" and when I read "God" my brain said "generic bullshit, don't waste any more time". I did read through it though.

I guess it doesn't matter as much for me, as I'm not part of the U.S. but on a related note; how many U.S. citizens actually write/read on this forum?

Perhaps you should look more at content then at your preconceived ideas in the future then...

MadSwede wrote:Before we dive deeper into the rhetorical arguments and evolutionary biology (which, with our grammar, would cause any linguist reading it to commit suicide ) maybe we should set a definite topic.

My point was, even if presented in an obscure fashion, that I don't think that religion has a place in politics. Whenever a politician brings in parts of some dogma I tend to not listen to the rest of their arguments. Of course that's not fair of me, but I'd still see it as pandering to the beliefs of a crowd. I wouldn't blame the crowd for the tactics of the politician, but then again, my impression (based on interviews on BBC, maybe biased, maybe not) of the average christian voter is someone who votes for the politician who brings religion into the campaign. There are certainly exceptions to that of course.

Oh, and Poe's law basically states that any parody of religious fundamentalism, unless clearly marked as a joke, is often undistinguishable from actual fundamentalism.

if politic doesn't stay out of religion why would you think that religion would leave politics? I'm talking on a more broader definition of religion, one that may even no include God...

Pixie wrote:Perhaps you should look more at content then at your preconceived ideas in the future then...

I wrote:I did read through it though.

And I didn't see much substance to be honest. It's possible that I'm blind, an idiot or just close-minded but to me this text could be summed up with: Our nation was founded on the moral grounds of christianity. The people should have the power. Obama/Biden will take that away from you. +some religious and historical references to back it up somewhat.

As the topic originally was about america, I thought mainly about Abrahamic religions but there are plenty of interesting examples of religions intertwined with government. Confucianism for one.

Anyway, I'd like to know what you mean by "doesn't stay out of". I don't know what control the U.S. government practises on the religions in the states but over here (in Sweden that is) they are treated like any other non-governmental institution.

All I'm saying is that religion has (not just in western countries) done a good job providing some fundamental rules on how to live. Those rules are now a part of what we today call society. As we've progressed we've realized that certain rules actually didn't make any sense or threatened the freedom of the individual, and so they were dropped (and always with some protest and reluctance). I realize that the transition from religious to secularist states have been quite fast but I still think (or at least hope) that we've matured enough to create or remove rules by reasoning rather than clinging on to old beliefs.

Robert W. Sweet, Jr apparently wrote: We have a God who is watching, who has our best interests at heart, and who said he would “NEVER LEAVE US OR FORSAKE US.â€

And I didn't see much substance to be honest. It's possible that I'm blind, an idiot or just close-minded but to me this text could be summed up with: Our nation was founded on the moral grounds of christianity. The people should have the power. Obama/Biden will take that away from you. +some religious and historical references to back it up somewhat.

I would sum it as praise to the republic system, an innuendo if you want to call it that way. But not only that, despite all the talk about God one thing goes on that usually religious people don't talk, the imperfection of man.

All of these individuals are human. They are imperfect, just as we are, but it is our opportunity, our collective decision as voters to decide which candidates should have such power.

First, only human beings are elected to public office. NONE of them are perfect, NONE. Those who promote the idea that we will have the Kingdom of God on Earth if we only elect the "right President" have been "smoking something.

In bold is a though usually connoted with religion, namely the prophet and he goes clearly against it.

I think I'd prefered evolutionary biology...

So tell me exactly where evolution denies God?

Summing it up I think that you see the word God and you panic, like many atheists who try to use science as a way to deny God (which in the end as as many effect as using faith to build science)

Pixie wrote:I would sum it as praise to the republic system, an innuendo if you want to call it that way. But not only that, despite all the talk about God one thing goes on that usually religious people don't talk, the imperfection of man.

I thought the whole idea of man in Christianity was an imperfect image of God(?). You may be right about that it isn't brought up too often though.

Those who promote the idea that we will have the Kingdom of God on Earth if we only elect the "right President" have been "smoking something.

This was a tricky sentence. Far from being clear, the fuzzy grammar makes it hard (for me) to interpret. I'd say you pretty much have to hear the writer say it, to know which words (if any) he spoke with an ironic tone of voice.

Pixie wrote:So tell me exactly where evolution denies God?

Summing it up I think that you see the word God and you panic, like many atheists who try to use science as a way to deny God (which in the end as as many effect as using faith to build science)

I, in the second post, wrote:I should say that I'm not as much of an atheist as an agnostic. There may very well be a god, but I haven't seen the slightest evidence of that.

Your accusation may be true about atheists but I'd say it's unwarranted in this argument.
I've never seen any direct, nor realiable documented evidence towards or against the existence of a god. Therefore will any argumentation about the subject just fall down to theology, which may be interesting in many ways, but still seldom leads anywhere.

In my third year of the gymnasium (don't know the equivalent word) I held a speech about that popular science often can be compared to religion from the observers point of view. A lot of people accept what science tells them as fact without being critical, or even trying to understand it. Ask any non-religious person about what created the universe and most will probably say "The Big Bang" without being able to go into any detail about the actual theory behind it. The result thusly, even if the basis was science, is for the great mass of people no better than religion. Obviously that's not criticism of science, but of people. Those who know more about a theory, are often less sure about it than those who's only had it explained to them. (Oh, and I've got nothing to back that last sentence up. Sounds good though doesn't it?)

I just think that evolutionary biology is a topic that can be discussed using at least perceived facts to build theories around.

You might say you're agnostic but you sounded as Atheist, to me at least. But having named you atheist it was not as if I was bad naming you