Pat Robertson predicts God will shape Supreme Court

[Toto]

Pat's predictions for 2005 (http://mediamatters.org/items/200501040010)

On the January 3 edition of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, Reverend Pat Robertson, host and Christian Coalition of America founder, made predictions for the New Year based on what he said God told him during a recent prayer retreat. Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith." Robertson also said that he "heard it from the Lord" that President Bush will have Social Security and tax reform passed and that Muslims will turn to Jesus Christ.

[newtype_alpha]

I guess "wishful thinking" really is a synonym for "prophecy" :D

[Mr. Neutron]

Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith."

Yep, that sounds just like God.

[travc]

What a profound prophecy!

At least a couple of the now really old Supreme Court justices will die eventually. And the replacements will actually not codone attacking people because of their religious beliefes. Wow, I couldn't have imagined.... :rolleyes:

As for the second part... well at least there is a bit of hope that Bush's gutting of Social Security and insane parody of a fiscal/tax policy will prove this prediction wrong. Of course, since the GOP controls the entire federal government, it isn't much of a risk to make the prediction.

Finally, "Muslims turning to Jesus"... well, there will be at least 2 converts in the next few decades, so that is a safe one too.

[Aravnah Ornan]

I was going to ask the Almighty what to do about my mutual funds until I read this:And I think the American stock market is going to surge upward, if I heard from the Lord. Again, ladies and gentlemen, don't go and buy stock on my recommendation, but that's what I feel in my heart. The Lord was saying it's going to be a super good year.Well, gee, Pat, if you have so little faith in your magic sky daddy, why should the rest of us put any more faith in him?

[woodheart]

What is Pat smoking, I don't want any of that shit. :Cheeky:

[Eldarion Lathria]

Does that mean Profit Pat's blood diamonds and Liberian gold stock is going to soar in value?

Eldarion Lathria

[wonkothesane]

Yep, that sounds just like God.

God is such a bastard that way.

[whichphilosophy]

Pat's comment. Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith."

Yep, that sounds just like God.

I think we're missing something. The constitution and in fact the majority of judges do not saction attacks on religious faith, so I don't see the purpose of removing the judges and replacing them with judges who will effectively have to do the same as their predecessors.

Beliefs are not a crime. Actions that break the law are.

[Abacus]

What channel is Pat's show on anyways? I assumed it had to be on Comedy Central but I can't seem to find it there.

[Colorado Infidel]

Don't Xians consider divination and fortune-telling a form of witchcraft?

Pat's predictions are not much different than the tabloid psychics.

"Whatta maroon. Whatta nincompoop!" - Bugs Bunny

[Shven]

Don't Xians consider divination and fortune-telling a form of witchcraft?

Pat's predictions are not much different than the tabloid psychics.

"Whatta maroon. Whatta nincompoop!" - Bugs Bunny
Its only divination and fortune telling if you're not Christian - otherwise its prophecy!

Apparently... :rolleyes:

Shven

[Mageth]

Its only divination and fortune telling if you're not Christian - otherwise its prophecy!

That's exactly it.

And, IIRC, according to the OT, if any of Pat's prophecies don't come true, he's a false prophet, and must be stoned!

What do you bet the Christians overlook that bit?

I actually caught a bit of his TV show the other night, when he was prophesying about the great revival in the Islamic world coming this year that God told him about. :rolleyes: Yeah, I bet.

Islam has been growing faster than Christianity for several years (which, I believe, has been on a general decline, percentagewise, for quite a while). I don't see that trend changing any time soon, though don't take this as a prophecy!

He also prophesied that there would be a reduction in terrorism worldwide this year. I hope he's right, but time will tell. Again, with the disruption of Al Quada we've caused, and with the changes forthcoming in Israel/Palestine after Arafat's death, there's a pretty good reason to hope that there will be at least some reduction in terrorism for the near future. But that makes his "prophecy" a bit lame. He'll no doubt claim credit for it if it comes to pass, and forget all about it if it doesn't.

[Shven]

That's exactly it.

And, IIRC, according to the OT, if any of Pat's prophecies don't come true, he's a false prophet, and must be stoned!

What do you bet the Christians overlook that bit?
they have to - otherwise the Bible should be stoned.

[Toto]

What channel is Pat's show on anyways? I assumed it had to be on Comedy Central but I can't seem to find it there.

TBN (http://www.tbn.org/)

(warning: website features Jan Crouch's big hair. And why does it have a coat of arms?)

[Buffman]

I think we're missing something. The constitution and in fact the majority of judges do not saction attacks on religious faith, so I don't see the purpose of removing the judges and replacing them with judges who will effectively have to do the same as their predecessors.

Beliefs are not a crime. Actions that break the law are.

Our Constitution forbids religious tests to hold office. However, exactly what is a "Religious Test" if not a test of one's beliefs...whether based on the natural, the supernatural, or both? When judges base their interpretive decisions on the influence of supernatural (religious) beliefs, are they not "attacking" the beliefs of the secular (non-religious) world? Why do you think that judges are classified as conservative and liberal? It goes well beyond their conservative or liberal interpretations of original constitutional intent. They must weigh their views of social morality (the greater "good") against the previously written laws whether they admit it or not. And from whence do the laws that humans have created to govern social morality arise? (The Politburo, the Bible, the Qur'an, historical experience, mutually beneficial vested self-interests, the fear of democratic tyranny and chaos resulting in mob rule and injustice, etc.? All of them and more?)

What constitutes an "Activist" judge? Is he/she one that does not agree with someone else's, whether conservative or liberal, definition of social morality?

How are judges appointed where you currently reside? How are the laws created there? What would happen to the judge that ruled that the law, or its application, was in error?

So in selecting individuals for appointment to the federal judiciary, anyone who thinks that an individual's faith beliefs (specific religious/supernatural beliefs) have not already been tested by those advancing the appointment, has not been paying adequate attention. The reason that the majority of judges don't sanction attacks on religion, whatever that means, is because the majority of judges are conditioned faith believers in the supernatural. Have you ever heard a judge seeking appointment claim to be an a non-believer? (I sincerely doubt that one would make the "short" list of potential nominees...in this country. However, I suspect that the reverse is the case where you reside.)

[Mageth]

TBN (http://www.tbn.org/)

(warning: website features Jan Crouch's big hair. And why does it have a coat of arms?)

In Austin, on Time-Warner, it comes on the "ABC Family" channel (channel 37), at 10 pm weekdays.

[whichphilosophy]

Our Constitution forbids religious tests to hold office. However, exactly what is a "Religious Test" if not a test of one's beliefs...whether based on the natural, the supernatural, or both? When judges base their interpretive decisions on the influence of supernatural (religious) beliefs, are they not "attacking" the beliefs of the secular (non-religious) world? Why do you think that judges are classified as conservative and liberal? It goes well beyond their conservative or liberal interpretations of original constitutional intent. They must weigh their views of social morality (the greater "good") against the previously written laws whether they admit it or not. And from whence do the laws that humans have created to govern social morality arise? (The Politburo, the Bible, the Qur'an, historical experience, mutually beneficial vested self-interests, the fear of democratic tyranny and chaos resulting in mob rule and injustice, etc.? All of them and more?)

What constitutes an "Activist" judge? Is he/she one that does not agree with someone else's, whether conservative or liberal, definition of social morality?

How are judges appointed where you currently reside? How are the laws created there? What would happen to the judge that ruled that the law, or its application, was in error?

So in selecting individuals for appointment to the federal judiciary, anyone who thinks that an individual's faith beliefs (specific religious/supernatural beliefs) have not already been tested by those advancing the appointment, has not been paying adequate attention. The reason that the majority of judges don't sanction attacks on religion, whatever that means, is because the majority of judges are conditioned faith believers in the supernatural. Have you ever heard a judge seeking appointment claim to be an a non-believer? (I sincerely doubt that one would make the "short" list of potential nominees...in this country. However, I suspect that the reverse is the case where you reside.)

Interesting points. However really an attack on any belief or non-belief religious or otherwise is against the constitution. I have no doubt there are sometimes abuses or where a judge oversteps the mark. If one has a mere US$50 million dollars to spare they can take this to the high court(s).

I am sure some judges and juries may have been biased despite the evidence (hence the appeals systems) and there are conflicts over the interpretation of the laws.

Whether there is bias against non-Christians taking office may be a point. In the UK taking up another issue, there were certainly charges of racial predjudice in that many black lawyers after graduation found it difficult to be accepted by law firms and attain membership of the bar. As a result some Nigerian lawyers formed their own association. And now some of the most skilful barristers are Nigerians. They even speak English better than most English people (accent and everything).

However since I am pretty ignorant about the US legal system, but do know that in the past and it still happens, abuses occur (which is expensive to appeal) then certainly more investigations over instances of bias are a first step in this matter.

Judge's interpretations should only be on the basis of the letter and essence of the laws and of the actual evidence in cases of disputes. Sounds glib, but I suppose there may be a point in that this can be swayed by an individual judge's beliefs. Conflict of interest is one route (though difficult and costly) to take in any case involving alleged bias.

If you stated there are covert cliques of religious people who are involved in law, ie Judges, lawyers etc you may be right, and possibly they may have some influence. There are expensive recourses which of course the ordinary citizen could not affored if affected by such a decision.

In China, it's an interesting scenario. While it is an Atheist government, it allows several religions the right of worship. In Beijing there is a thriving Muslim community and visitors from the middle east have several choices of Halal restaurants.

It claims that before communism there were 500,000 Christians. Now under the Communist controlled churches there are 5 million. The Chinese version of the Catholic Church does not accept the Pope however.

Al Qaeda's Terrorism was wiped out in one state (Xinjiang). Here the word muslim was never used in the press. (Why give them terrorists free advertising). Only terrorist was used. (Any person found guilty of terrorism or incitement of was shot and the next of kin charged approx US$2.50 for each bullet). At the same time it developed the economic infrastructure of the region. Even American tourists vist there with no problems.

Even the atheist state of China also realises that allowing certain beliefs is essential in any modern society. Of course I do joke about asking my Chinese colleagues if they went to church last Sunday etc..)

[Buffman]

Very informative and insigfhtful. Thanks.

Interesting points. However really an attack on any belief or non-belief religious or otherwise is against the constitution.
I guess I'm just having some difficulty with your use and definition of the word "attack."

[whichphilosophy]

Very informative and insigfhtful. Thanks.


I guess I'm just having some difficulty with your use and definition of the word "attack."
[QUOTE=Buffman]Very informative and insigfhtful. Thanks.


An attack can be covert. It can be a judgement stemming from predjudice (which I believe ultimately stems from irrational ignorance).

In other words we can have a dispute between a neighbour who practices hymns late at night and keeps his/her atheist neighbour awake. As an appeal we could (if the judge was a somewhat religious person) suggest that the judgement was with predjudice.

If Atheists wish to form a group and promote atheism and are banned from renting a premises owned by a church in a small community and it is found some extreme religious fundamentalist group is allowed to rent the premises on a regular basis, that could be argued as discrimination. A narrow point gut valid. After all not many people who are predjudice will say so.

Or in general any judgement or permitted court conduct that is an attack on the rights to believe or not to believe. In fact one can argue we have a right even to hate or not. However the law would sometimes prevent us to some degree from spreading that hate, though normally through very expensive law suits.

[wonkothesane]

That's exactly it.

And, IIRC, according to the OT, if any of Pat's prophecies don't come true, he's a false prophet, and must be stoned!


I think he must be stoned.

He's smoking *something*...

[Buffman]

Robertson said that God told him: "I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith."

An attack can be covert. It can be a judgement stemming from prejudice (which I believe ultimately stems from irrational ignorance).

What is prejudice? What is bigotry? What is cognitive dissonance? What is conditioned discrimination? Can't one, or all, of these be covert or overt? Exactly what is "irrational ignorance?"

What Robertson seems to be saying is that his make-believe God told him that He would remove rational, knowledgeable, judges and replace them with irrational, ignorant, ones in order to prevent any judgments (sanctioniong of attacks) that night diminish the insidious, malignant, advancement of blind faith, supernatural, religious beliefs in America.

After all not many people who are prejudice will say so.

Worse yet! Far too many folks are not even aware that they are prejudiced. Many of their rationalizations are, "intentionally," fed by a constant barrage of propaganda and outright lies from seemingly authoritative, knowledgeable, honest and respected spokespersons. (Self-anointed Patriots all...although far too many of them card-carrying members of the "Chicken Hawk" Brigade.)

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

In fact one can argue we have a right even to hate or not.

We are conditioned to hate. Manipulation of natural fears is the key technique.

http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/alsedact.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa2.html

http://www.grossmont.k12.ca.us/mcdowell/guide/enemy/creating_an_enemy.htm

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

However the law would sometimes prevent us to some degree from spreading that hate, though normally through very expensive law suits.

Au contraire! All too often the laws have been crafted to create/advance hatred. (See the URLs above.)

[fromtheright]

Robertson is a kook and and an embarrassment.

[whichphilosophy]

What is prejudice? What is bigotry? What is cognitive dissonance? What is conditioned discrimination? Can't one, or all, of these be covert or overt? Exactly what is "irrational ignorance?"

What Robertson seems to be saying is that his make-believe God told him that He would remove rational, knowledgeable, judges and replace them with irrational, ignorant, ones in order to prevent any judgments (sanctioniong of attacks) that night diminish the insidious, malignant, advancement of blind faith, supernatural, religious beliefs in America.



Worse yet! Far too many folks are not even aware that they are prejudiced. Many of their rationalizations are, "intentionally," fed by a constant barrage of propaganda and outright lies from seemingly authoritative, knowledgeable, honest and respected spokespersons. (Self-anointed Patriots all...although far too many of them card-carrying members of the "Chicken Hawk" Brigade.)

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks



We are conditioned to hate. Manipulation of natural fears is the key technique.

http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/alsedact.htm

http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/appa2.html

http://www.grossmont.k12.ca.us/mcdowell/guide/enemy/creating_an_enemy.htm

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html



Au contraire! All too often the laws have been crafted to create/advance hatred. (See the URLs above.)

I remember once we had an eccentric Economics Teacher during my later school days (I think around 15 or 16). He said that a truly free person under the law must have a few million pounds behind them to be anything like free in society.

I'm having problems opening the webisites which I will read later on. My company one is not opening websites properly and my one at my apartment is not connecting at all.

Irrational Ignornace is really the irrationally thinking persons who through this are ignorent. (May explain how an intelligent person can act speak like an imbecile, which I suppose I have been accused of now and again).

But your point on the crafting of laws. I've always held that many of the laws contained ambiguities for that purpose.

In a simpler manner the anti-tax evasion laws are evasable by using legal offshore corporations. One can even set up and operate as a licenced bank from Djibouti for US$85,000.00. However we also look at the essence of the law and the courts make precidents which both clarify and perhaps confuse at the same time.

As for the points on Pat Robertson, we could say that if God changed the judges that would be the ultimate of combination of Church and State. However God is not a Church, and is also open to interpretation who he/she/it is. However the legislation preventing per say any judgments (sanctioniong of attacks) that night diminish the insidious, malignant, advancement of blind faith, supernatural, religious beliefs in America may have already been achieved by the lawyers favourite (as they make a lot of money for and against it) ~Scientology in gaining its religious status as part of a deal on dropping suits against the FBI, CIA, FDA etc.

I think we all have a degree of blind faith in things, and sometimes are quite surprised (but learn something) when we are wrong. I think it is very hard to define these sort of things in a legal text. Someone going to a fortune teller may suffer from blind faith in believing everything they are told. Or if someone likes to bet on the horses. The best laws I think is to allow us to be idiots or just different as long as we don't enforce this upon others.

I must admit I should really read up on the US constitution time, permitting.

If however judgements are based on the judges supersitions or beliefs etc, then we are going back by 400 years.

If he includes biased judges then he would predjudice the legal system. I think that even the appointing of judges by by the governing party could also be construed as prejudicial.

We can say we have a relative democracy. In the conspiracy theory book (None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen) the concept was that public opinion was okay as long as people didn't try and do something about their objections. That is to say an apathetic society where we are free to bitch and moan but do nothing.

I'll have to try and open these websites in the next day or so. Meanwhile recent concerns about anti-terrorist legislation may get some people thinking is a method of usurping individual freedoms with new laws on surveillance, and imprisonment without trial.

In fact given the amount of those of the Muslim faith who have been arrested, the only serious crimes apart from overstaying were things like credit card fraud. Likewise in the McCarthy witchhunts not a single communist spy was caught, yet tens of thousands lost their jobs as they were suspect.

[ELECTROGOD]

Jesus! How can Pat hate America and what it stands for so much when it has made him so rich?
Get some "Christian Taliban" types in charge of the government to turn off the "evil" money temptation and I'll be that Pat would be screaming for Satan to return.

[Buffman]

whichphilosophy

Though I am personally enjoying our discussion, I fear it strays from the issue of the OP. I will respond to some of your thoughts but with the caveat that we attempt to stay on issue thereafter.

I think fromtheright nailed it with his comment about Pat R. America has a bunch of 'fruit-loop' televangelists vying for popular and financial ascendency. These false Prophets of Profit have become the norm, rather than the exception, with the assistance of these elected, falsely labeled, conservative (Republican) legislators and appointed administrators. However, the Democrats holding office are, IMHO, merely peas in the same pod when it comes to not upholding and defending our secular constitutional laws and liberties.


I remember once we had an eccentric Economics Teacher during my later school days (I think around 15 or 16). He said that a truly free person under the law must have a few million pounds behind them to be anything like free in society.
Unfortunately, in today's world, money, not principle, seems to determine who will or won't live in freedom or die.

Irrational Ignornace is really the irrationally thinking persons who through this are ignorent. (May explain how an intelligent person can act speak like an imbecile, which I suppose I have been accused of now and again).
What verifiable evidence do you offer that humans are intrinsically rational creatures? We are constantly slaughtering each other over some pretty, absurd, and often trumped-up issues...and don't seem to learn from many of our mistakes.

But your point on the crafting of laws. I've always held that many of the laws contained ambiguities for that purpose.
That certainly seems to be the case.

In a simpler manner the anti-tax evasion laws are evasable by using legal offshore corporations. One can even set up and operate as a licenced bank from Djibouti for US$85,000.00. However we also look at the essence of the law and the courts make precidents which both clarify and perhaps confuse at the same time.
Whose vested interest are best served? (Follow the money trail.)

As for the points on Pat Robertson, we could say that if God changed the judges that would be the ultimate of combination of Church and State. However God is not a Church, and is also open to interpretation who he/she/it is. However the legislation preventing per say any judgments (sanctioniong of attacks) that night diminish the insidious, malignant, advancement of blind faith, supernatural, religious beliefs in America may have already been achieved by the lawyers favourite (as they make a lot of money for and against it) ~Scientology in gaining its religious status as part of a deal on dropping suits against the FBI, CIA, FDA etc.

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm?FACTNet

(Personally, I suspect that L. Ron Hubbard was just an atheist trying to make a point...and he succeeded.) He took his cue from the likes of the founders of these various faith belief organizations. (How did each of them start a new faith belief system? How many were begun in just the last 200 years? How many adherents does each have today? How many in 1800 more years? How many religious faith systems have already been relegated to the ash heap if history?)

http://religion-cults.com/Cults/Christian/C-CULTS2.htm

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/ancient_religions.htm

I think we all have a degree of blind faith in things, and sometimes are quite surprised (but learn something) when we are wrong. I think it is very hard to define these sort of things in a legal text. Someone going to a fortune teller may suffer from blind faith in believing everything they are told. Or if someone likes to bet on the horses. The best laws I think is to allow us to be idiots or just different as long as we don't enforce this upon others.
...or through our faith beliefs bring harm to others.

If however judgements are based on the judges supersitions or beliefs etc, then we are going back by 400 years.
If he includes biased judges then he would predjudice the legal system. I think that even the appointing of judges by by the governing party could also be construed as prejudicial.

http://ramsey.dca.net/bush_agenda.htm

(Extract)
What really interests me about this new Bush conservatism is that they are always talking about fairness and bipartisanship and tone and restoring some supposed lost balance to the federal government. So when Bush removes the evil and overly liberal American Bar Association from the process of evaluating potential federal judges, he is just eliminating liberal bias. Then I wonder if he can explain to me why 99% of his nominees are steadfastly conservative, bastions of the Federalist Society and otherwise completely ideological in the conservative direction. Sure, I understand why a conservative president wants to appoint conservative judges, So why cloak it in all the rhetoric about fairness and balance??
(End extract)

We can say we have a relative democracy. In the conspiracy theory book (None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen) the concept was that public opinion was okay as long as people didn't try and do something about their objections. That is to say an apathetic society where we are free to bitch and moan but do nothing.
Each of these thoughts is deserving of deeper analysis....elsewhere.

I'll have to try and open these websites in the next day or so. Meanwhile recent concerns about anti-terrorist legislation may get some people thinking is a method of usurping individual freedoms with new laws on surveillance, and imprisonment without trial.
The U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 is included in the above URLs.

In fact given the amount of those of the Muslim faith who have been arrested, the only serious crimes apart from overstaying were things like credit card fraud. Likewise in the McCarthy witchhunts not a single communist spy was caught, yet tens of thousands lost their jobs as they were suspect.
Any time humans are frightened they seem to suddenly become pre-occupied with re-inventing the wheel as a means of quickly getting away from what has scared them rather than examining and understanding the nature and fundamentals of the cause. The Master Manipulators are well aware of this reaction and use it to their advantage. They even encourage and create programs which will condition humans to react in that manner. (See, whenever you are able, the URLs in the previous post.)

[whichphilosophy]

Though I am personally enjoying our discussion, I fear it strays from the issue of the OP. I will respond to some of your thoughts but with the caveat that we attempt to stay on issue thereafter.

I think fromtheright nailed it with his comment about Pat R. America has a bunch of 'fruit-loop' televangelists vying for popular and financial ascendency. These false Prophets of Profit have become the norm, rather than the exception, with the assistance of these elected, falsely labeled, conservative (Republican) legislators and appointed administrators. However, the Democrats holding office are, IMHO, merely peas in the same pod when it comes to not upholding and defending our secular constitutional laws and liberties.

I do tend to meander off the point at times. Sounds like the concept of the American political system being run by one party with two names.

I remember once we had an eccentric Economics Teacher during my later school days (I think around 15 or 16). He said that a truly free person under the law must have a few million pounds behind them to be anything like free in society.
Unfortunately, in today's world, money, not principle, seems to determine who will or won't live in freedom or die.
Mind you those with lots of money are not necessarily free. I’ve always said that true freedom is freedom from oneself. So if Germany was a society in the 1930s with a majority of “free people� Hitler would not have become famous because no one would have taken him seriously.
So the best we can do is be free from the herd instincts of others and try to think and act rationally as possible. That is to say be more aware of what we are doing. Sounds simple but we are not always aware when we act irrationally and certainly when we misconceive something.
Quote:
Irrational Ignornace is really the irrationally thinking persons who through this are ignorent. (May explain how an intelligent person can act speak like an imbecile, which I suppose I have been accused of now and again).

What verifiable evidence do you offer that humans are intrinsically rational creatures? We are constantly slaughtering each other over some pretty, absurd, and often trumped-up issues...and don't seem to learn from many of our mistakes.
I think it makes sense to think we are rational but affected by irrationality. Could be a long thread and I may be accused of pushing some of Hubbard’s philosophies on to you which I read when I was young enough to have a parting on my head. Nonetheless I would say that in the past 50,000 years we developed technologically but our own individual rationality etc did not advance. I think any anthropologists may agree that man has not changed much in 50,000 years apart from skin colouring and different bone structures according to regions and diets.
We have a dual ability to reshape our environments, but at the same time if we are not careful we’ll wreck it. A good example is Nuclear power.
Quote:

That certainly seems to be the case.
Confusion keeps the lawyers happy and the masses distracted. We then get interpretations as to letter of the law and what the law is intended to mean.

Whose vested interest are best served? (Follow the money trail.)
[Perhaps it can be argued that those who make the laws may perceive the loopholes. My own theory. One can always use the weasel-wording of specialist paralegals and lawyers in some cases to assist with draft legislation. This is ideal though from a PR point of view.
The financial institutions have a powerful lobby presence in both US houses together with their influences in local politics and the community. They will have an influence on legislation. This however is the democratic way. I am sure Pat Robinson uses this.
Quote:


http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/scirelg.htm?FACTNet

(Personally, I suspect that L. Ron Hubbard was just an atheist trying to make a point...and he succeeded.) He took his cue from the likes of the founders of these various faith belief organizations. (How did each of them start a new faith belief system? How many were begun in just the last 200 years? How many adherents does each have today? How many in 1800 more years? How many religious faith systems have already been relegated to the ash heap if history?)

http://religion-cults.com/Cults/Christian/C-CULTS2.htm

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_...t_religions.htm

Interesting question, I tend to think that Hubbard was a theist who thought in a purely non-religious concept of things. His research is based on earlier knowledge, science and religion, but put into a sequential manner for study and application.
A lot of small religions die out when the founders die, but not all. It has never been easy to set up a method of statistics. The Jehovah’s witnesses in Germany are supposed to number about 500,000. The Muslims are the worlds fastest main religion and the polls of Scientology members varies from 50,000 to 5 million. If one calculates membership based on going to a Church service or equivalent of then the figures are very low. Any estimate I think would be approximate. Anyway many die out. The Shakers for instance didn’t believe in giving birth, so naturally as its followers ceased to reproduce there were less and less future generations. I think there was a handful who decided to revive this.
The definition of cults is so broad this could now include the Republican and Democratic Parties, the KKK, the Boy Scouts, Virgin records and Microsoft.
Looking at the websites the reader would be somewhat confused at the different things they see.
Quote:
I think we all have a degree of blind faith in things, and sometimes are quite surprised (but learn something) when we are wrong. I think it is very hard to define these sort of things in a legal text. Someone going to a fortune teller may suffer from blind faith in believing everything they are told. Or if someone likes to bet on the horses. The best laws I think is to allow us to be idiots or just different as long as we don't enforce this upon others.

...or through our faith beliefs bring harm to others.
This is of course a grey area. Following politics, religion or whatever out of blindness is okay providing they don’t set fire to non-believers houses or something equally as drastic. We see such violence. The KKK see themselves as good Christians. (Pot Pot thought of himself as a good pure atheist). But if someone spends all their money on the horses or a fortune teller whose to blame really?
If however a group of people exercise their right to congregate and don’t harm anyone who does not belong then that’s okay. They should only use legal means if they feel their rights are infringed.
Quote:


http://ramsey.dca.net/bush_agenda.htm

... (Extract)
What really interests me about this new Bush conservatism is that they are always talking about fairness and bipartisanship and tone and restoring some supposed lost balance to the federal government. So when Bush removes the evil and overly liberal American Bar Association from the process of evaluating potential federal judges, he is just eliminating liberal bias. Then I wonder if he can explain to me why 99% of his nominees are steadfastly conservative, bastions of the Federalist Society and otherwise completely ideological in the conservative direction. Sure, I understand why a conservative president wants to appoint conservative judges, So why cloak it in all the rhetoric about fairness and balance??
(End extract)

Certainly something to look at. We should only look at burden of proof, which is also not that easy, hence the appeal system.
If judges can be chosen upon their merits and not on their affiliations we may be closer to a more fair system of judging that will at least save the cost of appeals. Unfortunately closed groups ie bar association etc can be prejudiced. In fact in many jobs people are chosen for promotions for their capacity for liquor or they play an excellent game of squash, or in some cases a dumb boss may promote an imbecile to work for them as it makes them look good
The UK still faces charges of racism in selecting lawyers. This has been stated by black solicitors in the past. I think I mentioned this before. I saw a brief documentary on this. Nigerian barristers and solicitors formed their own group, and in fact now in the UK there are many black, mainly Nigerians with briefs in the high courts.

...The U.S. Patriot Act of 2001 is included in the above URLs.
I need to read this as I am behind on this. I suspect in an attempt to preserve freedom, some civil liberties have been eroded. Some years ago I did see some copies of the CIA activities where they were wire tapping spreading unsubstantiated information around, etc. The US Freedom of Information Act made the revelation of such documents more accessible. In theory we can just ask for these, but in practice we would need a few thousand dollars to invest in court orders. Then the CIA, FBI may try to re-classify the information as something under National Security.
...Any time humans are frightened they seem to suddenly become pre-occupied with re-inventing the wheel as a means of quickly getting away from what has scared them rather than examining and understanding the nature and fundamentals of the cause. The Master Manipulators are well aware of this reaction and use it to their advantage. They even encourage and create programs which will condition humans to react in that manner. (See, whenever you are able, the URLs in the previous post.) .)


True and then they hit end up hitting everything except the target.
Someone has a problem with depression, the answer can be to fire 400 volts through the patients head, and in some cases they will end up not depressed or aware about anything.

Actually on a side issue our press by naming and publicising terrorists in facts provides free advertising so they can recruit from the small percentage of lunatics in various countries

[ten to the eleventh]

they have to - otherwise the Bible should be stoned.

EVERYBODY must get stoned!

especially me...