The American Religion: The God of Slavery

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

In order to enslave a population one must first enslave the would-be slave owner. Caesar did this in Gaul by separating the Gallic military from its spiritual leadership. Once the martial practitioners were indoctrinated into the Roman religion, they became willing enslavers of other people. In order to do this quickly and efficiently, Caesar used the persuasive power of one of the Gallic spiritual leaders. Once Gaul was firmly under the Roman fist, the Gallic spiritual leaders were enslaved to teach only pro-Roman ideas to the children of the martial elite. They were locked up in an ivory tower institution.

A similar process had been accomplished at a different historical period at the other end of the Mediterranean Sea. Greece had been enslaved to serve the martial ambitions of Egypt. The teachers of the children of its martial elite were slaves of Egypt who taught pro-Egyptian ideas. When an ambitious Greek youth wanted to get a better education he sailed to Egypt to study. There he could learn all of the things that were forbidden to the mind of the soldier-slave.

( The Levant had also undergone... )

What do you fear and why do you fear it? If you have no fears, how did you transcend the fears of your youth?

Monthly topic

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Aaaalright, here's what you guys [Poll #1774847]
(Feel free to suggest more).
 

Trends

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

An interesting finding in recent polling on social issues. I'll let this piece give the details:

Americans are now evenly split on same-sex marriage: 47 percent support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and 47 percent oppose them. That stalemate won't last long—critics of gay unions are dying off. According to a new report from the Public Religion Research Institute, only 31 percent of Americans over age 65 support gays getting hitched, compared to 62 percent of Americans under 30.

But strong millennial support for gay marriage has not translated into an uptick in acceptance of other sexual freedoms, like the right to an abortion. The Public Religion Research Institute notes that popular support for keeping abortion legal has dipped a percentage point since 1999, and young Americans are not swelling the ranks of abortion rights supporters. Today, while 57 percent of people under 30 see gay sex as "morally acceptable," only 46 percent of them would say the same thing about having an abortion.

The institute calls this a "decoupling of attitudes." Support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, and that's changing. Though young people today are "more educated, more liberal, and more likely to be religiously unaffiliated" than their parents—all factors traditionally correlated with support of abortion rights—they are not actually more likely to support abortion.

The article goes on to give some reasons as to why this decoupling is occurring, but I believe the issue is much more simple than that - gay marriage, as it is, has been a reality for millennials (folks ages 19-29) for most of their politically/socially aware lives now, and they see quite clearly how the issue really doesn't matter - gay people getting married doesn't impact their straight marriages, or their lives at all, really. There's no harm involved. The difference with abortion is that the harm involved remains self-evident - at the end of the day, we know how many abortions occur, and such "decoupling," as it were, likely reflects that difference. I also speculate that many do not see the abortion issue as one of "rights," but rather one of life. That those who self-identify as pro-life remains competitive ideologically with those who self-identify as pro-choice for the first time in a while may be a sign of that.

Why do you think these issues are separating? Should they truly be falling under the same social umbrella? What am I missing here?

oh yeah?

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

I know this is probably a tired old horse, but I feel like it's time to beat it. I'm not even going to bother with concocting some negating argument. I just want you all to think for yourselves and then tell me precisely why one law uses a very important word the other law doesn't use. Can you spot it? It has a lot to do with the phrase "standing armies".

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Although a Christian:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/09/rise-of-american-nazism-cont.html

My conception of civil rights and the importance of equality under the law for all would lead me to sign up on this list as a matter of conscience. The degree to which self-proclaimed champions of traditional values, religious or otherwise, are willing to resort to authoritarian and brutish means to champion said values indicates to me that those values should be swept into history's dustbin. Were such a list to be created, moral integrity would require me to sign onto it? What would you do if this idiot were to get his idea passed?

How do the community's US atheists feel about this intended protection of US traditional values from people who are in his own words:

Now , many (especially the atheists ) , may ask “Why do this , what’s the purpose ?” Duhhh , Mr. Atheist , for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net – to INFORM the public ! I mean , in the City of Miramar , Florida , where I live , the population is approx. 109,000 . My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists ! Perhaps we may actually know some . In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism . Or perhaps they are radical atheists , whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh’s , in that case , if they are business owners , we would encourage all our Christian friends , as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be “feeding” Satan .

___________

equal to Satanic child molesters? How do the community's Christian members feel about such a list? Is it right that we should imitate the ideas of the totalitarians whose regimes all justly died horrific deaths? Or should we when we claim to represent freedom and democracy actually mean what it is that we refer to?