This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
3-Year-Old London Child Deemed "Extremist"; Placed In Government Reeducation Program
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
The United Kingdom has gone batshit crazy. There’s simply no other way to put it. I warned about Britain’s “war on toddler terrorists” earlier this year in the post: The War on Toddler Terrorists – Britain Wants to Force Nursery School Teachers to Identify “Extremist” Children. Here’s an excerpt:
Nursery school staff and registered childminders must report toddlers at risk of becoming terrorists, under counter-terrorism measures proposed by the Government.
The directive is contained in a 39-page consultation document issued by the Home Office in a bid to bolster its Prevent anti-terrorism plan.
The document accompanies the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, currently before parliament. It identifies nurseries and early years childcare providers, along with schools and universities, as having a duty “to prevent people being drawn into terrorism”.
Never fear good citizens of Great Britain. While your government actively does everything in its power to protect criminal financial oligarchs and powerful pedophiles, her majesty draws the line at toddler thought crime. We learn from the Independent:
A three-year-old child from London is one of hundreds of young people in the capital who have been tipped as potential future radicals and extremists.
As reported by the Evening Standard, 1,069 people have been put in the government’s anti-extremism ‘Channel’ process, the de-radicalization program at the heart of the Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.
The three-year-old in the program is from the borough of Tower Hamlets, and was a member of a family group that had been showing suspect behavior.
Since September 2014, 400 under 18s, including teenagers and children, have been referred to the scheme.
The fact that this story broke on the same day that chairman of the UK’s Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee, Lord John Sewel, was caught on video snorting cocaine off the breast of a prostitute with a £5 note, is simply priceless. You just can’t make this stuff up.
From the BBC:
Lord Sewel is facing a police inquiry after quitting as House of Lords deputy speaker over a video allegedly showing him taking drugs with prostitutes.
The footage showed him snorting powder from a woman’s breasts with a £5 note.
In the footage, Lord Sewel, who is married, also discusses the Lords’ allowances system.
As chairman of committees, the crossbench peer also chaired the privileges and conduct committee, and was responsible for enforcing standards in the Lords.
Lord Sewel served as a minister in the Scotland office under Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Tony Blair, why am I not surprised:
He has been a member of the Lords since 1996, and is a former senior vice principal of the University of Aberdeen.
Here’s a clip, in the event you’re interested:
The UK government is so far gone that it insists on protecting the public from toddlers, rather than protecting toddlers from powerful sexual predators. In case you need a reminder:
In Great Britain, Powerful Pedophiles are Seemingly Everywhere and Totally Above the Law
In Great Britain, Protecting Pedophile Politicians is a Matter of “National Security”
Former BBC Host “Sir” Jimmy Savile Exposed as Major Player in Massive Pedophile Ring
»
- 199696 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Kids will believe anything, and if you knew more about the demographics of Tower Hamlets you'd see why thats something to worry about.
I dont think anyone would believe in any kind of god if the concept were introduced to them as educated adults.
Water the tree.
Who are his parents and what did they do to piss off the government? The kid is just the leverage. The parents are the ones they're after.
Mustve not been given his full complement of vaccines...
... the real toddler terrorists >>>"• UK police have opened an investigation into claims of a Westminster pedophile ring, saying they have a list of about 40 alleged child abusers, including over 10 current and former British politicians." >>> http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/07/about-40-politicians-on-uk-pedophile-ring-report/
The Obamster is like a three-year old, isn't he?
prevent anti-terrorism plan ?
Is that a double negative or is just me ?
Logic is a terrizz tool - y'all are being out of line thinking all rational-like.
The only surefire way for the State to know that a child won't grow up to be terrizz is to remove the child from the mother immediately after birth and train it with the right medications and gubbamin-approved values.
Of course, when all chilluns are manufactured artificially, we can avoid these kinds of pesky problems.
Targeting 3 year olds for extremism (LOL!!) comes as no surprise for me. English pedophiles are notorious for their 'love' of very young children, needing a constant source of supply to satisfy their filthy desires.
As they say in England: "Eight is too late"
the real kid tear-rists are those incessant crying/screaming babies on planes. I say throw them out the hatch! It will serve mankind well.
Europe is always ahead of the game when it comes to progressive public policy. This is a perfect example of something that horrifies people, but yet it's absolutely necessary and benefits society as a whole. Here's an honest question for the reactionaries on this thread: What good is it locking up a terrorist after he has already committed an act of terrorism? Answer: not much at all. In fact, all we do by sentencing them is turn them into Martyrs. We need to tackle crime before it happens - this is a logical and necessary evolution in our legal system, and as long as American right-wingers fear these changes, we will continue to lag behind other first world countries in our legal sophistication.
click bait story is click bait.
I dont think anyone would believe in any kind of government if the concept was introduced to them as educated adults.
Coming to the USA
The Secret Service is working with schools to assign all students K-12 a threat assessment score.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=k+12+risk+assessment+secret+service
Aren't all three year olds extremists?
Diaperqueda's
Apparently, from the UK government's point of view, if you are old enough to raped; your old enough to be terrorized...
Hmm, the kid must have refused to cut the head off a doll...
He was probably playing 'Hangman' and had to spell "banker." Precocious little fucker.
wait, but it's all okay, don't you see???....because they sound all properly English and such, yeaaaaah Baaaabyaaa,,,yeaaaaahhh!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBHKVAs85Ko
CLOCKWORK ORANGE CAME TRUE!
Sick MF's need to be hung.
What about the rapture?
https://youtu.be/XIV7LNPUPUQ
instead of listing 3 years old kids to be potential terrorists, i suggest to make a list of CERTAIN futur gov & bankster to be hanged publicly on a street light.
any upvote here ?
In terms of immigration destroyng Western societies' cohesion, it's lucky for the US that Mexico is a Catholic country isn't it?
Your brain is in jail
https://youtu.be/llbzUyv1CLU
listening you shit is a pita for ears, you should learn to build speech and keep railed to it instead of trying to be smart with drunken style speaking.
Yet another reason to homeschool.
Democrats always make the very best fascists...look at Wesley Clark, camps are cool dontchyaknow?!
You forgot the sarc tag my friend. Very subtle, even for the trained eyes of a Tyler...
That's exactly what most laws do. They tackle crime before it happens. Using your cell phone while driving is a big penalty but after you've killed 2 people because you are too stupid to drive while using a phone it is too late for the dead people. That's how the police explained it to me. They said they hated going to inform relatives that their loved ones are dead. But if you run 2 people down and you are not on a cell, just a bad driver, that's OK.
Somehow the Police Chief here believes his officers are capable of expertly driving powerful cruisers at high speed while simultaneously monitoring a dizzying array of radar units, radios, computer screens, etc. Yet I can't drive a Camry properly while calling Mrs. Tippy to tell her I'm stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Who gets to decide who is a risk?
What happened to the rule of law? How can someone protest against being incarcerated when they have broken no law? This is not the rule of law.
The short version of what you are advocating is "government knows best", or in one word, socialism.
Good one. I see how you got your bonus.
Are you human...../?
"This is a perfect example of something that horrifies people, but yet it's 'absolutely necessary' and ''benefits society as a whole''.
I'm curious, how does one come to this level of thinking... just curious."
.
Well is he a muslim kid named muhamed hussein akbar?
Hey, fuckit....somebody had to ask. ;-)
Did the kid or his parents commit a crime? If they had then such extraordinary steps would not have been employed.
Wow, downvotes for due process. Just wow.
He looks like a terror-ist ... burn 'm at the stake!
"Well is he a muslim kid named muhamed hussein akbar?"
You dare not ask that question in the United Kingdom.
Authorities in the United Kingdom ignored a child-trafficking ring for over a decade — and the beating, terrorizing, and sexual abuse of children. And it was for a very troubling reason:
The perpetrators were mostly from Britain's Muslim Pakistani community.
The victims were mostly young white girls.
A report by author Alexis Jay documented that over 1,400 children were sexually exploited in the northern England town of Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. The report describes rapes by multiple perpetrators, mainly from Britain's Muslim Pakistani community, and how children were trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. "There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone," Jay said. "Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators."
These crimes continued for 16 years not because authorities were unaware of them, but, rather, because of an apparent “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” attitude in government.
Under UK “hate speech” laws, citizens can be charged with a “racial offense” for criticizing Islam and may suffer punishment. As a result, reports Roger Scruton at Forbes, it doesn’t matter that white girls were specifically targeted by Muslim perpetrators in Rotherham who do not treat them "with the respect that they treat girls from their own community" and who see "English society not as the community to which they belong, but as a sexual hunting ground."
“Let slip the mere hint that Pakistani Muslims are more likely than indigenous Englishmen to commit sexual crimes and you will be branded as a racist and an Islamophobe, to be ostracised in the workplace and put henceforth under observation,” writes Scruton. In fact, when one father went to the police demanding justice for his abused daughter, the writer tells us, he was “arrested for obstruction and charged with wasting police time.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/19023-muslim-pedoph...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/19041-woman-who-rep...
I think they are looking for these little darlings....
http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/thechildre...
Second kid is just wearing a misprint Yankee ski mask upside down.
If my "country" was being fucked up like theirs is, me and my friends would do the same thing. Must be the Mick in me.
pods
this article is all about islam. but it doesnt say it anywhere in there. perhaps they dont even realize it. much of the world seems to not even realize it
Just keep telling yourself that they only want to violate the rights of Muslim families and not yours.
"Connecticut teenager Justina Pelletier spent 16 months and two birthdays in state custody as the central but largely off-stage player in an explosive drama involving parents’ rights and the controversial new field of medical child abuse."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/17/judge-orders-custody-justin...
Missing Florida teens' boating trip renews parenting debatehttp://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jul/27/debate-rages-missin...
What fascist idiot would down vote this post?
>
"Kids will believe anything, and if you knew more about the demographics of Tower Hamlets you'd see why thats something to worry about."
The Tower Hamlets borough of London has one of the smallest indigenous populations (aka white British) of all the boroughs in Britain. Bangladeshi (Muslim) at 32% are the largest ethnic minority in the borough. Somalis (Muslim) represent the second largest minority ethnic group. There are also a number of Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian, Pakistani (Muslim), and Black African/Caribbean residents. The White British proportion was 31.2% in the 2011 census, falling from 42.9% in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Tower_Hamlets#Ethnicity
Get back in the matrix, you radical!!!
You got that right - every 3-year-old is a walking, talking weapon of mass destruction. Just ask their parents.
Just put all kids in concentration camps. There they can live out their lives, never being a threat to the government.
What do you think is going to happen after they take a son away from a Muslim dad? You think he's going to open up a yoga studio?
Good point.
They have no intention of taking a son from a muslim dad, because that would be rayciss and discriminatorial and stuff. This is nothing but more jackboot pressure on the throats of ordinary english folks, and as some have already pointed out....it serves the known pedow-file rings amongst the elite.
He'll start a vest factory.
If you catch a Scotsman early enough you can retrain them
The next Blackstone candidate.
The thing aboiut kiddie terrorists is that they can climb through smaller holes before detonating...
For Fucks Sake.
10 cm.
His nick in pre-school was 'The Pram Terrorist.'
He was incarcerated for life for making a 'foul and disgusting smell' in his own pants...
Clearly a danger to society.
Holy moly... bioterrizz - the worst kind! Lock 'em up. Lock 'em all up, for "safety"'s sake!
*Roger... we have a class three bioweapon in the little combatant's pants. Prepare the SWAT team.*
I don't know about a SWAT team but I could certainly have made good use of a biohazard suit when my kids were young...
and rubber gloves...
and a maid.
Underwear "bomber"!
I guess the kid shouldn't have been running around the street wearing his toy suicide vest his parents bought him for his birthday
They blow themselves up on public transport, or fight for the states enemies abroad, in protest at our Zionist foreign policy, in support of a regime inconsistent with the values of their home nation, or because a dated and likely fictional book says its good for their "soul" to do so.
The parents are the ones they're after.
I don't know, the kid looks shifty...could be a rendition program in his near future.
The hooker, the photographer, or the link therein is the most likely parent of said child... as you said, that is the true person they want.
If you want to control every adult in the country, threaten the children. Game, Set, Match.
I can't remember anything from when I was 3. But I'm sure my radical ideals were fully formed by then............
Why bother? The Illuminati control everything, right, Billy?
Only because people let them, most all people are just willing slaves.
my point, exactly
Why bother? The Illuminati control everything, right, Billy?
I don't recall saying that.
Besides, there is no such thing as absolute control. Luckily for them, overwhelming influence will suffice.
There is no Caesar. Britannia doesn't rule the waves.
If not, audits, lawsuits, defamations, and so on will bring them in line almost immediately.
The Left, Right paradigm, it's hopeless, useless, blah blah - I find that point of view defeatest, not enlightening
I never said that the pursuit of liberty is hopeless. You're imagining things.
The realization that the left right paradigm is useless is not defeatest and is enlightening. As more people come to see this truth their is reason for hope, that's why people are here.
The Left Right Paradigm is not a secret to anyone on this board
No one said it was a secret. You're imagining things again.
Ms No and I said that awareness of the false dichotomy of left v. right is a good and liberating thing. You said that such awareness is "defeating." Care to support your position?
"Whoa to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." - Isaiah 5:20
And to the people who call fat men Tiny!
pods
The proper word is 'woe', but in a sense saying 'whoa' does work, if you intend to tell those who call evil good, etc., to cease and desist with their lies.
http://www.realdevil.info/1-1-1.htm
OK smarty pasnt, where did all existence come from? I'm not refering to religion but reasoned thought.
1) Why would it possibly matter?
2) If something preceded "existence" where did that come from?
You would need "something" that always existed. We can observe that the universe could not be infinite (heat death). Which is where I think the multi-universe theory comes in. This stuff makes my head hurt.
Big bang theory
/s
'Where did all existence come from'.....hmmm, a magical superbeing I guess? Sounds good enough for the villagers, plus throw in a lake of fire if they dare misbehave LOL.
There is no proof of anything. No intelectual argument can be made.
Those who believe and those who want to believe, should be let to believe.
It is a wonder that is beyond human comprehesion.
Is the fish in the fishbowl right to think that man is god? Because after all who brings me food every morning
Our daughter told us, when she was 17, that she believes because she wants to hedge her bets.
We on the other hand used to be agnostics but now we are not sure.
If there was god, it will not allow banksters to suck us dry. The son of god was eliminate unceremoniously by them when he complained.
On a serious note, this subject should be left in the inner thoughts of each one of us.
"If there was god, it will not allow banksters to suck us dry."
Then there would be no lesson learned.
"On a serious note, this subject should be left in the inner thoughts of each one of us."
Unfortunately, that has never been the case. People act on their beliefs, thus affecting the people around them, thus causing them to act on their own beliefs, and so on ad infinitum.
Your daughter should read Descartes' Proof of God and the various refutations before deciding what she believes. As far as Christianity is concerned (if that's her starting point) as reasonable as it may seem, she's taken a wrong turn. To understand this, she should read up on Pascal's Wager and its logical and theological refutations.
The basic problem we all face is that in our childhood we're presented with a set of beliefs, via our culture, long before we encounter the concepts of reason and logic, if these are even taught. Therefore, we're left with the problem of separating given knowledge from that which our mind is capable of discerning via the application of reason. Not everyone is up to the task, and for many, the comfort of what they know is preferable to the discomfort of not knowing, which includes the possibility of never knowing, regardless of how intent we are on finding out.
In the meantime, people will act on their beliefs and that affects us, which forces us to respond. So the question becomes, on what do we base our response? From that standpoint, it's not enough to simply believe in God, we also have to discern what God wants us to do in the various situations presented to us.
This is a lot to take in when you're 17, and it doesn't get any easier as time goes by and you're faced with adult choices in an adult world. I started down this path when I was 12, and I'm still on it. I don't expect to reach the end - I'm not even sure there is one - but I do know that I've grown. I'm not the same person as when I started, and most of those changes are a result of my own thoughts and reflections, not something imposed on me from outside.
We are all on a Path which leads somewhere, whether we realize it or not. Whether this path is chosen for us, or by us, is the discerning feature of how we live our lives as (potentially) conscious beings.
For me, the central point of the doctrine in which I was raised is that God gave us the ability to choose: to tell right from wrong, good from evil. In other words, the gift of conscience. How we use that gift to me is more important than where it came from, so resolving the issue of God's existence is less important to me than how I live my life. I don't think and act as a rational, moral creature because I expect some reward. I do so because it is its own reward.
1 Corinthians 13
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13
She is in law school, so we have lost her.
Damn, I wish you'd mentioned that before. Could have saved myself the trouble, LOL.
Suffering and evil are human initiatives. You don't need God to blame for those. If we have free will, why would you presume God wouldn't allow suffering? Especially if we are the architects of our own suffering?
I tend to believe that God started things out and he knows how they will end. It's the middle part that's fuzzy, and that's where we are allowed freedom during the ride.
For example, if I kick a ball off a hilltop, I know that eventually it will reach the bottom. I don't necessarily know the details of the trip. It may bounce off a tree. It may get stuck on a rock until the rain frees it. But eventually it will end up at the bottom of the hill.
That is how I imagine God's work. He has put the ball in motion, and it has no choice but to eventually go where he intends. Along the way though, we have free will to manipulate the journey.
I find it much harder to believe that the Universe/MultiVerse/Creation is simply the result of Nothing exploding into something.
Even if you argue that we simply don't yet comprehend what existed before the singularity, you can never escape needing an spark, an initiator of creation.
The answers will elude us for the time being.
Science will continue to strive to explain how the universe works and was created.
Creationists will continue to believe in intelligent design.
The two theories are NOT mutually exclusive. In the end, we could all end up being right......or wrong.
String theory, Relativity, Darwinism, quantum Mechanics...all of these seek to divine the Unified Theory. But the more we explore them the stranger it becomes. Vibrations changing strings into different particles. Time being relative in the observation of the speed of light. Light is a particle AND a wave in its behavior. Matter is affected by thought in quantum observations. The universe is an amazing place and we are barely beginning to grasp the dynamic magnificence of it. It's a great time to be alive if we only stop the daily rush of life and pause to consider our place in it.
Love your the Lord your God with all your heart, and Love your neighbor as yourself. No great secret there. Love one another, and everything else would fall into place.
Its the arrogance of man that insists a time line exists in a place "with out beginning and with out end"
Only small minds will make up a god they can understand.
Searching for an answer to a question that you can not frame is a fools errand.
That is a very profound thought. I am a science guy, and it is a tough thing to swallow that even today, with all the knowledge that we have, we cannot synthesize life from its consituent parts.
Yet, somehow in a goop, thoroughly by chance, life somehow formed, and then evolved into what we have today. Just looking at one system of one part of the body makes me think that is a load of BS.
Even though most life out there is competing against other life forms for survival. So all these pathways somehow diverged into discreet organisms who then go on to compete.
pods
Since we really don't know what 'reality' is, this is all kind of a moot point. We probably don't even know how many dimensions exist in our 'universe'. Some mathematicians use as many as eleven to descrige our universe. Then there are those who claim we live in a holographic universe (there are youtube videos describing this), and others with equally arcane explanations. And as for that whole 'evolution' fantasy, mathematics has shown it to be statistically impossible, so I suppose that encountering aliens from outer space is doubly impossible. Moreover, scientifically speaking, entropy is far more likely, when applied to genetic mutations, to result in devolution than evolution
You mention looking at one system or body part. Can anyone tell me which 'evolved' first, the penis or the vagina? And of what use was the first while waiting for the second?
What's worse, if you cede the point that SOMETHING made us, then what the fuck made them?
Reminds me as a kid looking up at the stars thinking how space is infinite because it is constantly expanding. But then what is it expanding into?
We aren't nearly smart enough to figure out how little we know.
pods
When you stop trying to arrange things as a hierarchy, the problem of origins disappears.
In physics, the process is called renormalization, but whatever you call it, it requires abandoning hierarchal thinking and adopting (and I hesitate to use the word because it's become so misconstrued) holistic thinking.
The language we use to describe things is as much a part of the problem as the problem itself. Read Marshal Mcluhan for some insight on this, then read Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Esher, Bach" for a way around the problem.
Worked for me.
Our reality is a simulation for sure. Who built the simulation is not relevant, just the fact that outside our reality there's another one. What differentiates our simulation from a human made computer universe is that we have free will (otherwise the simulation would be pointless). A simulation requires a creator. Check the Bible for the rest of the story and what to do to get out of this simulation "alive".
We don't fully "exist" from the POV of the creator. We're essentially sentient constructs in a computer simulation.
But is Janet gonna fix the stawks? Come on granny, go!
Your last sentence is what I'm referring to:
BULLshit!
L. Ron Hubbard - Scientology - He convinced people who knew motorized flight, the Titanic, I. world war etc. , of some strange deities........
Could have been qualified better, the mentally ill are vulnerable to anything.
You say that, because you know nothing about mental illness.
No need to bring the "Ready for Hillary" crowd into this discussion.
I dont think anyone would believe in any kind of god if the concept were introduced to them as educated adults...
You'll find no argument from me on this assertion. I would add the education one receives as a youth can prevent one from properly understanding the nature of a self-existent God as well as the origins of moral conduct, including even your obvious judgement that a particular geographic location is somehow to be determined as threatening.
One man’s threat is another man’s success, and if we’re all the product of an incoherent event, then the act of judgement / worry itself is incoherent. Furthermore if the education you propose has “Godlessness” as its basis, it must by definition effectively substitute one set of values for another. It’s still indoctrination, albeit without any substance to ground it in certainty.
I will add I do believe in a self-existent Creator and find the actions of a person charged with upholding a moral code of conduct engaging in activities deemed illegal should be prosecuted. What will probably happen however is the act will no longer be deemed illegal and a further degradation of the mores of society will naturally occur. That's the logical outcome of a "Godless" education.
Jmo.
"Furthermore if the education you propose has “Godlessness” as its basis, it must by definition effectively substitute one set of values for another"
Not necessarily. What we have here in Ontario is a curriculum that teaches that ALL religions are equally valid, including atheism, and the unspoken but promoted value set is what has been called "secular humanism". As many have predicted over the years, SecHum (since it has no moral anchor other than what the majority believes) devolves from liberty to license. Hence, we not only have homosexuality tolerated, but endorsed by some as a "more stable and healthy" home atmosphere than Mom and Dad can provide. We not only have gays, but all the trans/cis/whatever abominations. Marriage has become a meaningless term, and there are already crusaders for polygamy and inter-species (woman/horse, man/sheep) marriage. Drug use continues to climb (although fewer people smoke cigarettes, since the SecHum neo-fascists are quick to ban whatever they don't like). While crime overall is down (more due to demographics than anything else, IMHO), sickening crime, like the teenage girl in Toronto who tried to hire people to kill her parents, the shooting in Chattanooga, etc. seems to be more prevalent. The so-called "Protestant work ethic" that built much of North America is no longer; the FSA dominates at the polls.
All these effects were predicted. All these things have happened before, from post-Periclean Athens to the fall of Rome to Louis XVI to the Roaring 20's . Why anyone expects the outcome to be different this time is beyond my ken.
“If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.”
Why?
Because without a god you cannot define good and bad/evil.
Um, what exactly is it you want to do so badly that the only thing keeping you from doing it is a fear of God? Because it sounds like you are the one with a problem.
Only if one refuses to take responsibility for one's own actions. "The Golden Rule" doesn't require the existence of God to apply. Any human being who is not a psychopath recognizes the validity of that rule, and tries more or less to follow and apply it. That's why a version of that rule appears in every single human culture.
With or without God, some things are not permissible. And we all know what they are. Indeed, many of the impermissible things people do they do claiming God told them to do them. That argument refutes itself readily.
I don't mind or have anything against those who believe in some sort of Deity. I just don't, and it's never been any inconvenience whatsoever. As a matter of fact, it relieves me of certain odd constraints that seem to me to be meaningless in my efforts to be a decent person. I can eat whatever I like, whenever I like. I can wear clothes made of blended fabrics. I can behave well not because I'm being watched all the time, but because it feels good to please others, and that pleases me; and then others feel inclined to treat me well, and before you know it, you've got a full-blown virtuous circle of people being nice to each other because they want to, whether or not anybody is watching.
So enough with the silliness about how there is no morality without God. There's plenty of immorality with Him. In the world as I have experienced it, right and wrong existed long before people made up God to frighten small children and shorten up conversations about how people ought to behave. As a parent I've gone through the long version of the conversation with my children, and they are two of the finest young people around, capable of very discerning moral judgments, without a shred of belief in the supernatural. They are well known for bringing up instances where they have failed to meet their own standards, yet nobody else knew; simply because it bothered them.
I understand that it's hard to be a self-reliant individual. It takes a lifetime to master, and very few of us ever achieve mastery. That's not cause for despair; it's a task worthy of our efforts. It keeps me off the streets, for sure.
There is more than one Golden Rule...
There's the Golden Rule and then there are a hundred Paper Golden Rules.
With or without God, some things are not permissible. And we all know what they are...
I think the argument has to do with the origin of this knowledge you're alluding to. Obviously what's tolerated or even encouraged in one society / family is considered intolerable in another. As these acts or conditions change, it's worth noting as to why the change occurs and then judgements are made as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the change.
So enough with the silliness about how there is no morality without God. There's plenty of immorality with Him...made up God to frighten small children and shorten up conversations about how people ought to behave...
I wouldn't say there's "plenty of immorality with Him" but I would certainly concede the presence of not only immorality but absolute evil in people that would have us believe they are "Godly". Hypocrisy is the tribute evil pays to virtue and the gift God gives is a sufficient way to unwind the guilt we all experience for not doing what our inner voice tells us we should've done and / or for doing those things that went against our "knowledge of good and evil" to begin with.
I don't think of my relationship with the self-existent Creator as a get out of Hell free card, but as an invitiation to experience the freedom humans were designed to enjoy. jmo.
One should keep in mind with these atheist arguments of morality that our morals have developed over a course of millions of years, and the secular world is barely 200 years. That means atheism has had a timeframe of .02% within human history, at the very most, to undo theistic morality.
This is aside from the fact that morals tend to transition rather than break, or mutate rather than evolve of themselves. For instance, many of the laws of capital are derived from Calvinism, and the formalities of democracy are largely Christian spiritual rationalism - Kant, Hegel, and so on were heavily influenced by Christian theology. Even the grandfather of modern atheism, Nietzsche, was a Christian and his transition to atheism can be read as an inversion of Christianity, or perhaps moreso Judaism (he lived his life for religious good, but after he became sick he learned that doing good only ever brought him ruin, so in many ways his philosophy is an inversion of the Book of Job).
The idea can be read in two ways, either that of contingency or particularity. If God does not exist, everything is permissable. If God exists, everything is permissable. The former suggests contingent laws while the latter suggests particular laws. The difficulty with the non-existence of God is that ideology and morality come from a randomised source, essentially the individual determines their own ethics. The paradox here is that one's free choice seizes to become so as everything is permitted. Without God the free choices slowly transition to becoming a God in themselves. There is no radical freedom possible because all choices are permissable by law. This is, in a sense, total God-like power as any action is permissable by society's law. Rebellious activity is ignored, laughed at, or even promoted (this should be clear in all of the political scandals involving the worst transgressions from drugs to sexual perversions). Basically, as counter to going beyond good and evil there is a dualistic God composed of good and evil ensuring the permissability of all acts, and thus their inescape from sanctuary. Everything is permitted but the rise of an ubermensch.
That is, I think, the heart of it. Democracy and capitalism are mutations of monarchy and religion. They use a dualistic approach to extend sanctuary, ensuring total permissability but at the same time isolating the activities as impotent, non-rebellious. This forces an isolation of the individual, a double-bind in which any action further entraps him whether rebellious or capitulating. The Prisoner is a good example. Any escape is made impossible as one is simply returned to the Village. Everything is permitted apart from escape. One can fight back, try traditional methods of fighting back, but such a society can tolerate this rebellion, slowly soften it through the fact that there is no escape. The individual is left with nothing but the battle against himself. The society is capable of isolating a particular form of rebellion as it conditions individuals to the image of rebellious activity.
The difference when God exists is that the laws are particular, meaning that a wide variety of rebellious measures are possible. You are always free to choose, even if the punishment for escape is severe an argument can be made that such a society is more free. At least the possibility of escape exists. This also suggests freedom in the society, as the cultural identity is very particular a deep meaning is ascribed to all work. This is contrary to the meaningless art and labour in modern secular societies. You are allowed to do anything but it all becomes quite banal and purposeless. Just compare the works of art of our time to the great periods of artwork in religious society - from abstract expressionism where a man just throws random trash at a canvas, to a woman pissing in a can on a stage. There is nothing rebellious in such art, and it is almost impossible to create rebellious art because total permission deprives all art of its meaning. Renaissance art, as a counter example, had deep meaning largely because there were clear lines of what was acceptable and what was not. Any rebellious idea had to be subtle, brought forward with great care.
And this is largely why fascism is so ruthlessly attacked as well. Fascism, especially in Germany, sought to restore meaning to society. And even though it had very particlar laws regarding what was permissable it was in many ways more free than democracy - where the contingency of choice is often meaningless and banal. There is no freedom without meaning, and an idea such as God or the ideal state are rebellious ideas in themselves due to the inherent danger in them (this is not an argument for their being right, only that certain elements can increase our power and freedom). Total freedom of choice without meaning only results in domesticated hordes anxiously and blindly searching for a return of meaning. That was Nietzsche's great fear, the untermenschen. And they have come to rule.
I think we need a God or gods to add meaning to existence and our work. And I also believe we require some rebellious potential to ensure that society does not use these ideas of God to stultify us, make us submissive and culturally stunted. Such a balance would be very hard to achieve, but I think it's something worth thinking about and striving towards.
I always wanted pi to be a nice, whole number. '3' would have been easier than 3.14159.....
Maybe SCOTUS can declare it so.
religion is not morality.
sin is not harm.
You probably have all sorts of limited thinking that you project on to everyone else.
those confounded pesky limits!
stuck.
Limitless ;-)
Wasted a lot of capital before given my epiphany.
Artificial constraints vs firey rebels.
Sax addict. ;)
know nothing know it alls, err atheists, presume to be God with none of the answers
"I dont think anyone would believe in any kind of god if the concept were introduced to them as educated adults."
They would, for exactly the same two reasons they "believe in" governments many orders of magnitudes larger than anything remotely defensible in any respect: temptation from promises of unlimited free shit combined with fear from threats of extreme violence, plus the comfort of a large dose of us-vs-them tribalism.
L. Ron Hubbard didn't have to convince children, he conned adults who knew motorized flight, chemical warfare etc.
People are people, and most are stupid.
I was raised in an atheist household and found god when I was 27. Just saying.
I enjoy pointing out to atheists that they're merely promoting another belief system that insists that God doesn't exist.
So, all in all, it's just another religion.
"I enjoy pointing out to atheists that they're merely promoting another belief system that insists that God doesn't exist."
And I enjoy pointing out to both atheists and believers alike that any system of beliefs that fails to question its fundamental assumptions is no system at all.
People like to put labels on things - it's a natural impulse since we can't really share information without giving things names - but the name is not the thing in itself.
Therefore, I reject both labels: atheist and believer.
If you want to know what I believe at this particular moment, I'll tell you. As for what I might believe tomorrow or a year from now, well that depends on what I discover between now and then.
I enjoy pointing out to atheists that they're merely promoting another belief system that insists that God doesn't exist.
So, all in all, it's just another religion.
I believe in neither God nor flying pigs as I have seen no evidence of either God or flying pigs. The request for evidence proving the existence of a thing does not signify a religious belief.
If not believing in things that are not verifiably extant was a religion and therefore atheism was a religion then not believing in flying pigs would also be a religion. It would be a religion likely practiced by everyone reading this. Likewise many of us would be members of religions defined by our recognition of the lack of evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, elves, gnomes, Bigfoot, Nessie, etc.
I found Christ also a few years ago.
If I was an omnipotent parent with a lost child I'd find him right away, wouldn't you?
Seriously, would you let your missing child wander hopelessly for years if you loved that child and had the ability to snap your fingers and bring him home? If the child that you loved never found his way home would you consign him to eternity in a lake of fire?
Why is it a good thing for God the Father to not use his omnipotence to save the children he loves but it is good for him to use that omnipotence to punish his children for eternity? It's disproportionate.
Is there any parent here who would incinerate the children whom they love for any reason whatsoever?
Some answers to your last question:
Louis CK - if murder was legal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUr2RkjykU
I'll presume 'found' is some sort of euphemism unless you include an address.
you must be a lawyer.
No need to get mean.
lol!!!!!
I just had to poke back.
I found god. Then I found I had a mental disorder, and was delusional. Now I find pills to be eaten every day, and there is no god, and no delusion. Thank god for that!
Tower Hamlets should be twinned with Kobane, Syria.
Your arrogance is embarrassing
"I dont think anyone would believe in any kind of god if the concept were introduced to them as educated adults."
How do you explain people who adopt some form of theism at adulthood? I personally know people who have converted to Catholicism, having grown up agnostic/atheist.
You're a moron, right?
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&word=ATHEISM
http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=g&word=GOD.ARGUMENTSFORTHEEXIS...
You seriously wish to have an adult discussion here? Lets start with this:
"The natural, or gen. argument for God's existence rests on the fact that man knows that there is a God* even without the special revelation in the Bible, because God Himself inscribed this knowledge in his heart at creation (Ro 2:14–15). Hence the existence of God need not be proved to anyone of morally sound mind."
Let me guess. You're in college. You have yet to turn 20 and even consume adult beverages legally ..
So Bacon does not convince you. Romanes does not convince you. You rather just go mad along with Nietzsche et al?
Or, lets take the easier way out. With Mill, Schelling, Hegel, Buchanan, Saisset, Caird, et al, etc; lets just resolve all this into -- pantheism ..
You sure you wish to have this adult discussion?
Can you simplify your argument for the lazy folk? Better yet, be explicit when describing your personal belief. Lastly, why refer to it as an adult discussion? This denigrates anyone who can find something in your post, that they don't know or understand completely. Doing this means that nearly everyone is denigrated, as the chance of someone knowing precisely the same as you do about the specific things that you mention is relatively low.
Pink Floyd lyrics are flooding my mind. I don't remember taking acid, then again maybe you don't remember it when you do take it.
"We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control...
Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall..." Pink Floyd
Americans are very insular they have little understanding of what is happening outside their country unless it directly affects them. I see the main religion is Islam in that area, so of course there would be problems. At this time they have guards at the airports trying to stop parents from taking their girls back for female circumcision. .its school holidays. If you want to inform yourselves Americans, read the Independent online, a British newspaper and inform yourselves.
That kid is probably now in the hands of pedophiles. I mean it's Great Britain after all. Probably taken to British politicians and TV stars... fodder for their classless upper class. Police won't investigate. The Law is just for plebs.
Isn't it one of the tenets of the illuminati to cause people to lose faith in God so that they will believe in the men of the illuminati? Illuminati want other men to worship them as gods and to get that they must convince men that they were not created and that there is no creator.
I just left Russia, St. Petersberg. I saw your statue there. Was in Moscow too. Saw your embalmed corpse in Red Square. You are not a god. You did not create anything. Get over yourself and understand you are a speck given life by a force you cannot even fathom (apparently).
Sorry but you were created, hence, you have a creator. Call it nature. Call it the universe. Call it God. It is greater than you and it is a fact of life no matter how hard you wish to deny it.
The ironic thing is that your denial is proof of your existence, hence, your creator.