Religious right and Righteous: Self-delusion: Do Extremists Self-correct: Ann Coulter

[Asher Kelman]

Religious right and Righteous: Self-delusion: Do Extremists Self-correct? Ann Coulter

This is about people who try to lead in society, guiding or trying to control the rest of us.

We all admit to guiding principles taken from out cultures, education and experience. Most of us try to figure out what's right and wrong and where justice lies. That's often not easy when there are different wring our right outcomes and consequences.

For others, it's much easier! For dogmatists, they already know "right" and "wrong". Sure, in a rare existentialist circumstance, "Either you are with us or againsts us" commitment is justified. Otherwise most of us want a rational weighing of consequences of alternative approaches.

All this is uneccessary for those in trouch with God or have their own brand of gifted "insight".
Thus, today, from the right, fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish dogmatists and from the other extremes various "progressive" fundamentalist or Marxists march to rigid and often hostile tunes. Their strict programming leaves little room for negotiation. One could posit that in these conditions, people are essentially "infected" by a socially self perpetuating idea, a .

Whatever one wants to call this phenomenon, it is powerful and can lead to cultural exclusion and violence. The members in some cases, such as Mormonism, Chirstianity and fundamental Islam seeks to bringing everyone else under their umbrella, with any means they can get away with. That's the dangerous side of infectious dogmatism.

So what do you think?

• Do such people ever change by the pressure of public opinion?
  
• Does vanity and narcissism strengthen resolve and they are fused to their dogma.
  
• Do they just lack insight or is it supressed by the dogma?
  
• Are they so steadfast that they weather storms without Dogma mutating?
  
• Or does dogma only get mutated in the audience?

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Take Ann Coulter, for example.

Note 3rd row, 3rd image she's photshopped to be long and thin! No other comment needed.

She dresses as if a teenager with long (poorly cut!!) blonde hair and then wades in with a sarcastic tirade full of invective and ridicule. She has two demons: Hiliary Clinton and of course John McCain. She hates the moderation of a Republican with a heart who by some upturn of the planet had assumed the place on the top of the Republican Party's bid for the next U.S. President. To her this is so much against her dogma that she will instead ask people to vote for even that mocked figure, Hiliary Rodham "Travelgate-et al" Clintion.

Asher

 

[Jack_Flesher]

I don't know on the rest Asher, but every image I've ever seen of Ann Coulter, she was long and thin, still or live video. In short, my style of woman...

,

 

[Asher Kelman]

For sure Jack, I'd get on my horse, raise my lance and protect you from breathing dragons! Thank goodness you are already married so you are safe! The lady is vitriollic, mean and sarcastic. I have no issue with beliefs. I do have problems with devaluing others. It's not necessary!

Notice how John MacCain, for example, can have many totally hawkish ideas, support much of the Republican positions (although not up to Anne's dogma) but he's almost always respectful. He knows his opinions are hard to get across to a population that is dispirited by the war. However, this man is steadfast in what he represents. To my mind, with all that I have learned to date, he's a decent man.

That quality, decency is to me an essential part in public life. McCain, to my mind, struggles to do the right thing by people and the country. Coulter and other like professional shock-jock-scaremonger -book&lecture-circuit pundits, and other shrill extremists of the right and left are performers. That's the difference!

That's the sense I wanted to convey.

Asher

 

[nicolas claris]

The problem is not her body appearance, the problem is her thinking.
As a non American I didn't know a lot about her before this thread, so I googled her name…
Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee our presidents (plural intended) seem to be communist if we compare the ideas…

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Do such people ever change by the pressure of public opinion?

Whay would they?

Does vanity and narcissism strengthen resolve and they are fused to their dogma.

I do believe this is the case!

Do they just lack insight or is it supressed by the dogma?

Eduation, education, education. Yes, they lack insights and are misguided, often enough their intellectual capacity is not sufficiently developed to be able to really look behind smoke screens.

Another example. Coincidently, the last few days I am speaking with a young irish artist who is into painting landscapes and abstracts. Now that we started to know each other a little, she offered to perform some "healing" sessions on me, annoucning her as a Reiki Master.

She is a promising young artist, and has not been around the block often enough at 26 years of age I suppose.

However, she was asking me whether I believe in Angels and/or Reiki. So I explained her that I know Ki (japanese) or Chi (chinese) to be a reality in life, and that I practised for many years, and also witnessed enough astonishing demonstrations in Jaido and Aikido to not dismiss this as mambo jambo. However, I gently tried to explain here that Reiki is a new age rip off scheme to exploit vulnerable souls to part with thier money. I reasoned that the very concept of Reiki is flawed and nothing but a psycho sect and occultism on the scale like scientology and the likes. I quoted to her that the official reiki handbook speaks of 385 illnesses and diseases that they claim to be able to heal through "channeling the cosmic energy", from loss of hair to cancer tumors, yeah, but of course....

I was very gentle in my reasoning to her, and gave her undeniable evidence that Reiki is nothing but a rat catchers scheme to rip off people, of course I used different words and really was very gentle and logical in my reasoning.

However, she came back with a blast of occultic explanations why I am wrong, pages long of confused and totally irrational half baked pseudo knnowledge.

I then again tried to explain it different and told her that I used to live for a long time with native americans, and was invited to take part in certain ceremonies and rituals, as one of them in deed.

But and that was my point, there is another phenomenon, where people are being charged for sweatlodges, a stoned whackjob sits in there, often enough intoxicated and beats the drum like a whacko while a couple of hyped up chicks and chaps acting out extatically.

Utterly ridiculous!

So I explained that I am well aware about the new age exploitation of true indigenious spiritual experiences, on their purpose only, that they just prepare a spiritual sea food chowder to be consumed by vulnerable people, and this can cause more damaging than anything else.

Needless to say, none of my reasoning found an open ear. So I come to think, often enough, Dogma and brainwashing goes hand in hand.

The "brainwashing" in early education is followed by life lasting dogmas, and let us not forget, they are easy to use people for other purposes as well.

Nothing was ever more dangerous to establishment but free thinking people that were fortunate enough to have enjoyed education in real matters of life.

just my 0.02

@Jack....have her poster in your darkroom?.... <grins>

 

[Michael_Stones]

To follow up Asher's comments on 'those in touch with God or have their own brand of gifted "insight".' with a quote from Robert Persig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
'When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it's called Religion.'
Can mankind rid itself of adherence to this pernicious mass delusion or must it evolve into a different species?

 

[Asher Kelman]

To follow up Asher's comments on 'those in touch with God or have their own brand of gifted "insight".' with a quote from Robert Persig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
'When one person suffers from a delusion, it's called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it's called Religion.'
Can mankind rid itself of adherence to this pernicious mass delusion or must it evolve into a different species?

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't necessarily demand people give up cultural beliefs which act as scaffolding to bring man up from the animal. We do need to build the civil man. The issue is mistaking the scaffold for the building.

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

Hi Michael,

I wouldn't necessarily demand people give up cultural beliefs which act as scaffolding to bring man up from the animal. We do need to build the civil man. The issue is mistaking the scaffold for the building.

Asher

Hi Asher
No other species kills it's own members with anything approaching the same frequency, glee or for such stupid reasons as humankind. So has so-called 'civil man' evolved upward from other animals in any moral sense that our species claims as its own? Any honest appraisal of evidence points otherwise.

Surely a very significant part of the scaffolding that gives rise to mass violence against others stems from differences in belief about a personal deity. The events of 9-11, Bush's crusade against countries with other religions, Northern Ireland, and the former Yugoslavia are just some examples. Missionary zeal in the 19th century ranked alongside economics as a reason for European colonization of the rest of the world. Alternative arguments, such as that by Nial Ferguson, claim differences in ethnicity as the main reason for mass conflict. I think he mistakes the surface for the source, with religious differences figuring strongly among the latter.

Evolution gave our species a 'sixth sense' that might variously be termed self-consciousness, the capacity for thought, or introspection. The problem was that until the period of enlightenment, humans failed to harness this gift by testing belief against evidence in any systematic way. We were a superstitious species that became a religious species by enforcing superstitious orthodoxies on others. The problem now is that the orthodoxies are so entrenched that it's hard to see how to break out of them (e.g., the Founding Fathers would be appalled by the religious-right in present American politics). But if we don't, can you give me any good reason why mass human conflict will ever end?

You will probably object that religion provides codes of conduct for 'civil man' and that this somehow invalidates or weakens what I have argued. The answer is that belief in a personal deity was as unnecessary in past ages as the present for humans to behave civilly toward one another. Cultural codes that promote kindness and regulate harm surely arose for simple reasons of species survival.

You might also object that this post focuses only on one issue and ignores other legitimate matters. I'm not going to dispute this but plead concerns about brevity.

At the core of what I'm saying is that if part of the scaffolding is flawed or broken, then the building is less beautiful than it ought to be. But to repair the scaffolding, so as to appreciate the building in its full majesty, requires acknowledgment of the flaw. The next stage in human evolution, if the species is to progress towards greater civility, must surely involve replacement of delusional by rational ways of thinking. Giving up on a delusion is painful and I'm not sure our species has the courage for it. But as an incurable optimist, I hope it does.
Best Wishes
Mike

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

So Asher says, We do need to build the civil man.

I intend to think, and it is diffcult for me to get this finely tuned across in english, but basically we face a situation where our ways to exploit nature for short term benefits caused consequences that are endangering our very existance. I am not talking exclusively about climate change, but a great deal more of such examples can be brought to the table for evidence.

Then of course social dynamic aspects are in that equation, and the religions are a big part of it, besides the economical foundations.

It may sound simple to your ears, but I truly belief that "respect" and "education" is the key to the solutions for a future that the generations to come have to face, and both go hand in hand.

Since generations we are taught that mankind is the crown of creation, in one way or the other, and this is inherently wrong. We are just a part of a complex system that is driven by evolution. We do not need religions of any kind at all to act in a more ethical way, it does not need a beliefsystem to apply common sense, having said that, I have nothing against others beliefs, as long as they do not wish to impose them on me or others against their will.

I can only hope that generations to come will shake their head in disbelief looking at our legacy, and that concepts such as entropy and irreversibility are better engraved in common sense than they are these days.

Why do we not learn from history?

I know Asher to be a fan of memes, ideas transmitted like diseases, and there is a lot that speaks for it in terms of social evolution in deed. Meme complexes such as religions were so successful for that reason.

Now, how do we start a meme that builds a foundation based on respect for all creation? LOL, ...just did I suppose! <grins>

If I look at this Hubble Deep Field Picture from January 15th 1996, the deepest view mankind ever achieved into the Universe so far, back to the beginning of time, I always wonder, what are our children really taught these days?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Scaffolding can be crude and dangerous for the workers or well made and safe. The problem is that those who build and maintain the scaffolds have vested interest and don't want to go the way of the candle-makers.

Religions sound nice when presented by Bush as different peace-loving communities worshipping the Deity in their own way. However, push comes to shove, most religions, except for the Jews, have compulsion to spread their view of the world and obedience to their dogma.

They do it by conquest, deceit in food and hospitals. I personally so no value in a mother Theresa going to India to convert Hindus. Firstly, there are plenty of destitute inner city people in the USA to be rescued from poverty and hopelessness. There are plenty of Hindu kind women who have sacrificed material goods to help the poor but no one venerates them!

Still, I respect and value any Nun who works with the poor. They can be treasures. I still have misgivings that there may be a conversion in line with each bandage or piece of bread. However, at least that's not blowing people up!

We seem to have barriers in respecting an idea of "truths" as opposed to the "truth". People who are religious can use that way to be kind and cherish life. It's in all the faiths. Sadly, on the orthodox side, the obsession to vanquish other faiths has survived the Rationalism from Aristotle to the Enlightenment and the present day.

Hawkins has it right! The sooner man gets off the planet, the better!

Asher

 

[Michael_Stones]

It may sound simple to your ears, but I truly belief that "respect" and "education" is the key to the solutions for a future that the generations to come have to face, and both go hand in hand.

I wish you were right, Georg, but doesn't evidence point the other way? The 9-11 bombers were highly educated, as was the latest suicide bomber in Jerusalem; the Taliban recruits students 'educated' in Islamic schools in Pakistan; in Germany, members of the Baader-Meinhof gang were all highly educated (except for Andreas Baader). Education can lead to an inflated sense of self-importance, strong (if stupid) convictions, and low respect for dissenting opinion. Most Joe Mechanics and Jane Waitress who never got beyond grade-9 don't suffer from these self-delusions although some do (Tim McVeigh, for example). Education provides no inoculation against the problem we're discussing.

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Hi Michael,

may be I did not emphasize this enough, education and respect have to go hand in hand. I agree with you that knowledge on it's own is useless or even dangerous.

For sure, the education on offer, except may be for some elite and very expensive education, leaves a lot to be desired.

I never forget when I started living in PA with my ex and her son. I was shocked to learn under what immense stress a 10 years old already is placed, daily tests, tons of work and assignments, after school commitments etc., I mean real stress!

I think a nurishing learning environment is driven by curiousity, and not by some really insane desire for competition.

I came to think that this whole society was too much focussed on competition in general.

Then again, a little knowledge is dangerous, and I am afraid this is what schools often teach, the greater picture at loss, ethical values, well.... I am not sure wether I remember that correct, but I read somehwere that the installations of metal detectors in US schools increased substantially, like in those airports to scan for weapons. Same problems in Germany afaik, massive increase of violent outbrakes etc. pp.

I would not call that a nurishing learning environment to begin with. But what can we do?

I believe education starts at home, and schools can not compensate or have the tools to detect what might have gone wrong there in early days.

Then the parents are running 3 jobs to make ends meet, or have very limited time because they might be chasing a career, which in itself is a vicious cycle for a healthy family life and to be able to make time for kiddos.

I really think we need to take a long and hard look at the entire educational system in place, and ask ourselves if structural reforms are not needed.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Most Joe Mechanics and Jane Waitress who never got beyond grade-9 don't suffer from these self-delusions although some do (Tim McVeigh, for example). Education provides no inoculation against the problem we're discussing.

Michael,

Unfortunately, this is also untrue! The riots in 1968 that filled the streets and lead to the expulsion of 15,000 Jews from the country and being stripped of their Polish citizenship was not lead by any educated elite but by the "average Fryderyk" Source . It was just a normal consequence of the antisemitic dogma cheeirshed by all Europeans and fed by a thousand years of Church teachings; Catholic, Orthodox and then Lutheran. It was then (and still is in Russia, the Balkans, Austria, England, Holland and France), nothing unusual, quite ordinary and expected. (The Nazi movement that swept from Austria to Germany and the rest of well prepared Europe was merely a modern consequence with the benefit of industrialization. It was, interestingly, Muslim Turkey, BTW, who amongst others gave refuge to the Jews persecuted by ordinary Joe European.

It is a convenient myth that Nazis came up with a new rabid hatred when they merely mobilized the ordinary folk. Austria really goes for this self delusion. Germany admits to what needs to be changed. That is a major civilized move! Now they have to apply it to Gypsies, Turks and other "foreigners". Austria, by contrast, wrapping itself in a "Sound of Music" victimization theme has never faced up to the primary role the ordinary Austrians played. France, Hungary and the Baltic states the same thing!

The issue then is not education. It's rather freedom from dogma.

If people could not chant maybe that would be the start! No mantras, no repeating dogma over and over again!

Asher

 

[Rocky Cookus]

I wish I could share Michael's incurable optimism, but for me there simply is not enough weight to support that belief. Chomsky whom I respect and agree with on many points, draws similar conclusions, and while I would agree that people can make a difference, I not sure that in the long run what good that people do is significant. In short, I view humans as an infestation on the planet, and while there are good ones, collectively, the planet would probably be better of without us on it.

Sartre captures it well when he says, «L'enfer c'est les autres» ("Hell is others.") which to me means that Sartre sees humans as cowards for failing to do what's right: to question authority and to turn our backs on the lunacy that most of us willingly or unwillingly support. I'm afraid the prognosis isn't very hopeful. I'm OK with that, and don't hold myself responsible for the vile members of my species.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I wish I could share Michael's incurable optimism, but for me there simply is not enough weight to support that belief. Chomsky whom I respect and agree with on many points, draws similar conclusions, and while I would agree that people can make a difference, I not sure that in the long run what good that people do is significant.

I hate to think, Rocky, that I'm on the same side as Chomsky, who in his own way, for his logic, is actually a European progressive with a standard package of political mantras. Unfairly, he promotes his dogma with great eloquence and authority, despite the fact, he too is not the owner of "the" truth. In fact he's delusional too in that he feels everything he says is reasonable.

In short, I view humans as an infestation on the planet, and while there are good ones, collectively, the planet would probably be better of without us on it.

.

I'm stunned! This is also what I have thought althought it torments me to think that way. It goes so much against much of my upbringing to even consider humans that way. However, as a scientist and student of history, I am fearful of where man is travelling. We have learned to grow so much food, embrace industrial growth that we are growing logarithmically and this cannot be sustained.

If only we could have another overiding economic model that does not require constant growth, we could have a chance as a species to survive.

Sartre captures it well when he says, «L'enfer c'est les autres» ("Hell is others.") which to me means that Sartre sees humans as cowards for failing to do what's right: to question authority and to turn our backs on the lunacy that most of us willingly or unwillingly support. I'm afraid the prognosis isn't very hopeful. I'm OK with that, and don't hold myself responsible for the vile members of my species.

Sartre for another time!

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

If only we could have another overiding economic model that does not require constant growth, we could have a chance as a species to survive.

Yeppers! I would sign that! The dogma of everlasting progress has to disappear first.

As for Chomsky, well yes, I agree with a lot he concludes, but then again, isn't this elitist information? I am not that deep into it that I could conclude what Asher had to say about him, I only read two of his works, but how many people really read such literature?

The reality of things is that most "modern" people are entrenched in their daily struggle for survival paying bills and to give the kiddos some form of education, the "not modern" people live under more than difficult circumstances, pure survival I would call it.

I learned that, regardless to who I talked about such things, whenever I made the point that the wealth of the 7 richest people on the planet combined is more than the gross domestic product of the poorest 41 countries, representing ~0,5 billion people, everyone mentioned this to be wrong!

So what is our best hope for sustainable peace? Is this not the real question to be asked overall? Without such peace we need not think much further anyways.

What was possible in Northern Ireland, South Africa, etc. we can learn from it.

May be they are right when they say, the best hope for sustainable peace.... women!

http://theelders-news.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html#4020279397815242789

Last not least, and on a more positive note, I personally think if we can achieve this....

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html

.... we certainly have the potential to build a different future, ultimately, it is up to us!

 

[Rocky Cookus]

Never thought I would be having this sort of conversation on a Photography forum.

Well, Asher, I would agree that Chomsky's appeal is to many people like a fashion style, and these folks must be short on knowledge of him, have read and thought little about the man, and it can be annoying to see someone embrace a position for such shallow reasons. I would argue that it is more disturbing to see someone embrace a fundamental christian position, or to hear a comment about how someone has implicit trust in a leader without any analysis. For me no political leader has ever engendered a feeling of implicit trust--but rather varying degrees of contempt.

As mutton-headed as either position is, at least the former is a more "politically correct". I put that term in double quotes since I know it may cause alarms to go off, so a brief digression: the notion of politically correct has been manufactured by the political right, trivialized and made to seem ridiculous and then foisted off onto the political left as if it had its origins there. It has as much use in the language as the word "gay" did in the old sense of the word, so I probably shouldn't use the word "politically correct," but have done so with its original meaning which taken at face value would not be an objectionable quality by people regardless of their politics. I mean after all, who wouldn't want to be politically correct? Must run and get some coffee.

The point I want to make about Chomsky and for that matter anyone who has a following of brainless acolytes that blindly adhere, is that it's quite possible that a person can have great value despite an army of mindless followers, so for purposes of analysis, what that leaves us with is the mundane and the obvious: What is so-and so's position on the War, on capital punishment, on universal health care... Tangible questions many running for office now in the US are avoiding like the plague. Might make more sense to sell political offices on eBay--but back to Chomsky. I believe the following that Chomsky has reflects the good scholarship and research to support his position. He is hardly a charismatic figure, has a pretty dry and subtle humor, and probably only in recent years become more accessible to the public. He is not an easy read. Michael Parenti, a contemporary of Chomsky, who is quite popular, is by contrast quite entertaining and effective in his public lecture circuit--not to mention very savvy about politics.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Re Chomsky!

He is hardly a charismatic figure, has a pretty dry and subtle humor, and probably only in recent years become more accessible to the public. He is not an easy read. Michael Parenti, a contemporary of Chomsky, who is quite popular, is by contrast quite entertaining and effective in his public lecture circuit--not to mention very savvy about politics.

On the contrary, to a person seeking to distance him/herself (politically correct syntax) from the insincerity of politics, Chomsky can indeed be charismatic. He inspires a sense of authority, insight, wisdom and awe as one watches him espouse in a slow disarming way. His talks on socio-political sources of power and evil are so well prepared, with sequences of logic and apparent rationality, that one can be spellbound. However, fundamentally he's still just another a preacher and a driver of dogma.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

To me we have existential issues for humanity and life on this planet if we continue to grow exponentially, consuming resources so that the balance of nature is damaged.

As a young man, I was driven to do good. I thought, from the highest feelings of morality, that provision of pure water, availability of antibiotics and food, for poor in "under-developed" countries with high infant mortality, was noble. Now I am not so sure. I am unsettled. I now see this activity as in some part even harmful and thus as a moral conundrum. The good we did is often consumed by the new population of empty stomachs. More resources are needed and more people are poor.

In the so called Western World and in particular, here in the U.S.A., we are not necessarily doing much better. The promised "Great Society" (which was to bring more happiness), delivers boxes of more and more goods to be discarded to new wastelands which we choose to call "landfills". It's as if we somehow filled a need, something missing, in the landscape!

So we are driven. Even being driven is considered a worthy attribute. Survival without growth is not really respected!

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

Anne Coulter may very well be a guy. Maybe she's Tom Delay in drag. By the way, what every happened to Delay's indictment? Are they waiting till Bush is out of office he can't pardon him? Might be a good strategy.

 

[doug anderson]

Ironically, these people are not "spiritual" at all. They are intolerant and sometimes down right murderous to people who do not "think" as they do. I'd hesitate to call it thinking; it's more like conditioned response. They see a certain red flag created by their believe system and they attack it. There's very little self-awareness among these people, and many of them end up being proven hypocrites. This includes, for example, numerous politicians who have given lip service to the religious right and then been exposed as brothel visitors, pedophiles or bathroom pickup artists (I cite Larry "wide-stance" Craig.

I think these people make perfect fascists. All they need is a Hitler to stimulate their lower brain functions.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ironically, these people are not "spiritual" at all. They are intolerant and sometimes down right murderous to people who do not "think" as they do. I'd hesitate to call it thinking; it's more like conditioned response.

It might also be that being rational and thinking independently is also a conditioned response. That's the frightening thing about the empty shell of man. It can be programmed anyway you like!

Think of what a band of thugs did when they colonized the Americas. Not only did they humiliate, rob, rape and decimate the civilizations, but they trained them to believe in the mythology of an odd tribe that didn't even speak Spanish. Today millions of the offspring of this crime are proud of their new beliefs. for them, there's no other truth. However, in countless burial sites, the bones of their male ancestors are proof of what it vicious arrogance brought about mass certainty of the nature of things.

I wonder what we lost, all the songs, poems, science that were part of the destroyed civilizations.

Think what the far right would do if they had the power today to create their own autocratic state. Would they step back and say, no this is wrong or just start making lists of the unsuitables?

Asher

 

[doug anderson]

"Think what the far right would do if they had the power today to create their own autocratic state. Would they step back and say, no this is wrong or just start making lists of the unsuitables?"

They'd turn on each other, accuse one another of not being the true chosen and fragment into different sects always at war with one another. Then they'd pick one sect and accuse its members of having long noses and hoarding money, and put them in camps and exterminate them.

 

[Shane Carter]

Good grief, what a bunch of hysterical crap on this thread. I have never heard so many hateful, paranoid, and ignorant people. And that after I bit my tongue with the religious bigotry thread recently which was even more offensive that this tripe, it just keeps coming.

Asher, please delete my membership in OPF, this is definitely not a crowd I want to associated with.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Shane My Friend,

I don't see hysteria! Also where’s the bigotry? Before being dismissive let's see where's the offense. This is the one special place in OPF for open discussion.

It's designed to allow a useful cauldron where ideas are tested. Nothing here is the absolute truth. Rather it's a search and a discussion. There's no intention to be offending anyone. If we're blind to doing exactly that, then open our eyes. I'd really like to know where the bigotry is? If you can see it, then maybe you are right but I don't know what you are referring to.

If we are missing seeing ourselves as we are, this is a good time for saying what is wrong! As a general principle, when offended people don't explain what's going on that is so horrible, how can anyone else understand the new point of view? Dissenters just walking off does what?


Asher

 

[doug anderson]

Good grief, what a bunch of hysterical crap on this thread. I have never heard so many hateful, paranoid, and ignorant people. And that after I bit my tongue with the religious bigotry thread recently which was even more offensive that this tripe, it just keeps coming.

Asher, please delete my membership in OPF, this is definitely not a crowd I want to associated with.

Methinks you do protest too much. What are you hiding?

By the way, the title of this thread is Provocative Thoughts and Images. If you don't want to be provoked, don't visit the thread.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Don't worry, Shane is not going anywhere!

We'll get an explanation down the road I expect! Still we'll try to keep our eye open that we have balance!

Asher