Is religion and politics needed only to control those people who's minds do not grasp reality to controll them

Question

You would think as your knowledge and experiences increased that you would adopt a set of values that promoted lasting friendships and strong family ties . That you would work in a field that provided something of value to all people and not work building weapons and arresting and keeping people behind bars for smoking pot . Or trying to teach a history that is not true just because it sounds better then the truth .
50 years ago you may have been able to isolate your community enough to keep the truth out . Trying to scare your kids so much that they never left that small town for the big city . Or chasing those poor teenage girls who enjoyed sex out of town and the bad boys who seemed to wild to settle down and start a family . This is no longer 1950 it is 2007 and we know what happened to the Indians and the slaves and how capitalists hired gunmen to kill workers who tried to organize the workers and ask for more money .
The ugly truth is out and we need to fix the rules .

Answer 1

Fear is what is presently being used to control the American people.

Answer 2

What a bunch of socialist baloney. You are either a socialist yourself or one of their useful idiots spouting a bunch of clap-trap.

So you think there is something wrong with building weapons?
Our weapons and our military personnel are what gurantees that you will still be here tomorrow to pursue your pot smoking friendships.

Socialists love to degrade and destroy the great history of the United States. You know that America is the most up front and honest country in the world when it comes to relaying facts about our history both good and bad. Socialists also know that if young people really knew how great the founders of this nation were and how great our history is especially compared to socialist nations they would stand no chance of indoctrinating more useful idiots.

That whole rap about keeping kids from leaving small towns so they would not know the truth 50 years ago is another fiction. Parents then as today try to protect their children from the predators in big cities. That is parental love not withholding the truth. The truth, for most kids who run away to big cities was just what their parents warned them about or worse.

We see how wonderful is it for young girls and boys to be having sex. The rise in single parenthood and abortions attest to that just as strongly as AIDS the other "blessing" such behavior has brought us.

Again with the Indians and slaves. What American History text fails to mention them? A smarter person would realize that you must view history in the context of the time. Slavery was the great compromise that the founders hated to make but had no choice and as they predicted, it nearly tore America apart. Did you just discover this? As far as the treatment of Indians went, just take a look at how other indigious people have been treated by other countries of the world.

Just ask the Myans or Aztecs about how the Spaniards treated them. You can't because they killed all of them. The last time I checked the local indian tribe was doing quite well with their new casino.

Finally, during the early days of union organization there was enough lawlessness and violence on both sides. Union organizers cannot take the high road either.

This is the greatest country with the greatest most unique system of governing and the finest form of capitalism in the world. That is why in just over 250 years we have become the greatest superpower in the world, why America feeds the world and why Nazism and the Soviet Union have been tossed on the scrap heap of history where all socialist systems belong.

To answer the first part of your question, religion is needed to protect people from socialism. It is the moral absoultism of religion that thwarts the moral relativism of socialism. Here in religous America, every life is precious. Every man endowed with rights that supercede any government. Socialism is about the collective, individuals do not matter. Socialism is evil and flawed and must be opposed.

.

.

Answer 3

A foreign visitor to any nation would get a good indication of what values the society cherishes by looking at the dominant media. The press, radio and television, with their messages and incessant outreach to the people, is a good gauge of what the country's priorities are. The dominant media, whether corporate or state controlled, project the acceptable paradigms and the expected behavior patterns of the populace. Out of allegiance to the system in power, and its own self interest, the media control the messages that they project. Governments control the media directly, and through corporate proxies masquerading as agents of free media. When corporations become the government, or vice versa, the free media becomes the state-controlled media. It matters not whether it's Pravda, The New York Times, Granma, or FOX, the modus operandi is the same, i.e., to protect, defend, and advance the status quo and the dominant economic and political paradigm. The message and the media become one and the same, the message being the preservation of the minority ruling class' power over the majority masses. Being a good member of society means going along with these messages. The masses believe what the ruling elite of the society want them to believe.

It is not surprising that after the tragic events of 911, mayor Rudy Giuliani, in a speech to the Republican National Convention (2004), invoked “September 11” no less than twelves times. The Bush administration, the media, and its talking heads repeated “911” and “Saddam Hussein” together so often, that the public, as intended, conflated the two. So successful was this incessant repetition that a September, 2006, CNN poll showed that 43% of those polled still believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911. This being the case, even after George W. Bush stated that there was no connection. Bush's turnabout was not repeated often. It did serve, however, as plausible deniability. The disconnect was, after all, not the intended message that the regime wanted the people to internalize.

Answer 4

I wrote a paper about this... here is my excerpt:

Restricting the free practice of religion and protest or simply protecting society?

Since the establishment of the justice system, people have attempted to use the insanity defense with the expectation of being committed to a hospital and possibly avoiding jail time. The main problem with this type of defense is the legal system has a completely different definition from the psychiatric term insanity. To be insane is the eqivalent of madness or having a non-permanent mental disorder. The majority of psychiatrists are beginning to pull away from using the term and referring to "mental illness" instead. When you are insane, there is absolutely no comprehension of the consequences of your reactions.

The term criminally insane is used when the individual believes they should not be held liable. In a case where self-defense is not available (i.e. battered-woman syndrome, child abuse, etc.), it is referred to as a "crime of passion" because the insanity lasted momentarily and is at such a high level of dissociation. All of the past events that have haunted them are now being unleashed in one moment. In the line of insanity, they may use provocation because the person lost control temporarily which could result in a reduced sentence; only if the decision is made by the accused with the agreement of counsel.

When establishing the difference between insane and criminally insane, the "normal" standard is often applied. The most controversial topic in psychology is trying to figure out what is "abnormal." In order to determine the level of sanity in criminal trials, the behavior must be deemed close to or beyond the "abnormal" standard. The quandry over "abnormality" is finding a "normal" control for comparison. While it is an understood fact that murder and cruelty to animals are indeed heinous acts, for some cultures or organizations, killing or sacrificing for the sake of another entity is considered "normal." While keeping that notion in mind, by placing punishments for certain acts committed in society, are we restricting the free practice of religion and protest or simply protecting society?

Try to understand the lives of Manson and Andrea Yates before they committed their heinous acts. When these people were initially placed in prison, it was for the public good. However, when will they be released and reintroduced into society? They have a right to rehabilitation and the ability to prove they are able to function within society one more time. The reason for the so-called insanity defense is because the person that committed the act becomes well aware their view on the situation is not what anyone else would do.

With Manson and Yates, their religious beliefs were the catalyst for their behavior. They both came to a point in their lives where they were depressed so much, they turned to the Bible for answers. While most people will dispute the accuracy of their interpretations, the majority of the higher religious authorities are not accurate as well. Although the government may have the authority to interfere once they feel the public may be placed in danger, they do not have the authority to interfere with a person's individual beliefs. At least if the government has the power to control our death, we should be able to control what we do with our life.

Answer 5

Comrad! You are so right. Relax. I mean so left. Well, anyhow. Lighten up. You are on the correct path. We absolutely must change the present system which allows for a few people to live OK and most people to live a life of terrible struggle. In 1938, I heard Hitler's speech live where he looked forward to a wonderful world to last for a thousand years. He tolerated religion. Stalin was worse than Hitler, he tolerated nobody. He killed some of the best communist minds. Today, we are living in a world torn apart by religious thinkers who reject even the good tenets of their relgion. What can you and I do. Stay our course. Speak out.

Answer 6

The rules can only be revised when internally the individual is ready to evolve. One evolution begets another and as the community grows and progresses into a majority prior paradigms and dogmas release their perspectives allowing fresh ideas to pervade humanity. Unfortunately we don't think in relative terms whereby this process seems slow by comparison to our phenomenal existence. In actuality we are rapidly approaching a renaissance of thought and action that will propel humanity into a realization of errors that will strategically reconstruct attitudes and values.

Answer 7

You aren't really asking a question are you?

Remember that religion was created to control the masses. If it appeals to a group of people then it will appeal to larger group of people. As a politician you utilize religion as a tool and twist the people the way you want them to.

BTW although in my opinion that religion was originally created to control people, not everyone feels the same way. The people who do believe in it usually believe in it because they need something to look forward to or an easy explanation for what they do not understand. Science is able to explain what most people ponder but people are too lazy to study science.

Answer 8

Arguing about politics and religion online is like the Special Olympics: Even if you win, your still a retard.

Answer 9

I'm sorry....was there an actual question here?

Because this reads like a rant to me.........

not a single question mark in sight.


Here's a thought: GET A BLOG

Answer 10

Only a shallow fool sits back and is ignorant of politics and God.

You may have given up on God and morality, but many of us havent.

Answer 11

And your question to YA is ...?

People want to be told that they're not responsible for their own imperfections and problems. Religion and politics offer two ways these people can point at larger causes against which they're helpless and therefore blameless. They consent to give religion and politics their power because it excuses them from personal responsibility.