church

[whitelotus]

is the church currupt ?

see....basically the church and relgion were used to control stupid society. Why was society stupid and uneducated ? Because priests , monks kept all the books and knowledge locked up in the church. Only they were allowed to educate themselves. People were kept stupid so they would be easily controlled and tricked. The church is a million, even billion dollar business.

do you know where the idea of christianing came from ?
the church made it so people would christian themselves in order to buy yourself a ticket into heaven. They also sold parchments, scrolls and other things to people, as a way to get into heavin easily. And stupid society believed this, so they bought up all the different things in order to get into heaven, got christianed, etc etc........thus the church got rich.

I personally think, that my belief is inside me. I dont need to go to church for that. My body and mind is my temple, it is my sanctuary. If i have my belief, i dont need anything else. Whatever your god is , its inside you and all around you. Its not in wood, bricks and stone. Its not in 4 walls and a roof. Its inside you.

if i offended any church goers, sorry....but this is what i think. deal with it :D

im not saying that all churches are like this, some might have a good cause and beleif....but whatever.

but basically throughout history, this was the main reason for creating a church, it was to use society, milk them dry of money, a way to control people using the name of god.

i dont think the name of god(whatever god you believe in) should be used in order to get more money, or to control other people around you for your selfish greedy agendas

[patlajan]

I agree. But if you don't spring guilt and mind control on the masses they'll each start inventing their own religions to excuse their stupid behavior. Mind control is better than mindllessnes I guess. But today man is smarter, on certain parts of the planet anyway.

[PASAMONSTER]

I personally think, that my belief is inside me. I dont need to go to church for that. My body and mind is my temple, it is my sanctuary. If i have my belief, i dont need anything else. Whatever your god is , its inside you and all around you. Its not in wood, bricks and stone. Its not in 4 walls and a roof. Its inside you.



you took the words out of my mouth

[whitelotus]

yes, i agree.

whenever there are humans, there will always be some type of control on others using religion or whatever else there is .

is religion as strong as the law ?

who are we to excuse our actions using 'religion' as the excuse, over the law ?

i killed a cat and spilled its blood, its okay because im satanic, etc etc.

is the law above it, or is religion above the law ?

[patlajan]

Originally posted by whitelotus yes, i agree.

whenever there are humans, there will always be some type of control on others using religion or whatever else there is .

is religion as strong as the law ?

who are we to excuse our actions using 'religion' as the excuse, over the law ?

i killed a cat and spilled its blood, its okay because im satanic, etc etc.

is the law above it, or is religion above the law ?

In some places religion is the law.

[whitelotus]

anyone know if religion is the law in the states ? after all our four fathers / pilgrims came here for the reason to have free expression of there religion etc. And the church of england didnt allow them to.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan I agree. But if you don't spring guilt and mind control on the masses they'll each start inventing their own religions to excuse their stupid behavior. Mind control is better than mindllessnes I guess. But today man is smarter, on certain parts of the planet anyway.

Not with you apparently, since one can argue, you yourself are a victim of another kind of mind control. Then again, you are an eggplant.

[Shahumyan]

what i do not unnderstand is why Cilicia is still independent, other than to fill its own pockets up and pay up to the ARF scum? are there any more reasons?

[felizitation]

I agree with you in almost all the points. Religion became "useless", if we may say that, and used today for controlling the mass (for some countries at least).
Bible says "love", people went to "love" Irak, Afganistan, Koweit, etc... with God approval,. From an abroad point of view, USA's church seems to be very corrupted.

Religion used to be a ciment for society, and this role is now ensured partially (almost totally) by the state. It tends to disapear, but like any entity, is trying to survive.

But one may wonder what the society would be without this kind of faith representatives.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Not with you apparently, since one can argue, you yourself are a victim of another kind of mind control. Then again, you are an eggplant.

But not you, you are enlightened and know above all. And stop interjecting stupid stuff about eggplants, I guess it is my turn to say something about a mouse. You bore me so.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan But not you, you are enlightened and know above all. And stop interjecting stupid stuff about eggplants, I guess it is my turn to say something about a mouse. You bore me so.

Well, one can also argue that I myself am a victim of some other mind control. I never said I'm an exception. Why did you assume? I am confident to question my own beliefs and dogmas that I reside with. You're not, thus youre an eggplant.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well, one can also argue that I myself am a victim of some other mind control. I never said I'm an exception. Why did you assume? I am confident to question my own beliefs and dogmas that I reside with. You're not, thus youre an eggplant.

You've questioned none of your own crap. You are lying to yourself. Thus you are a mouse. Now go run along the walls and try to dig up some cheese.

[Shahumyan]

moog and bademjan (smpoog for all u pure armos)

[felizitation]

Originally posted by Shahumyan moog and bademjan (smpoog for all u pure armos)


So, what should be the place and role of church in our society ?

[Shahumyan]

at most charity work, and thats only if they dont show that theyre working as church people.

REligious buildings should only be used as museums, or converted into homes for hobos

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan You've questioned none of your own crap. You are lying to yourself. Thus you are a mouse. Now go run along the walls and try to dig up some cheese.

I questioned my belief in God, went from an atheist, to an agnostic, to again a believer. That sounds like questioning to me. My guess is that if you had a brain, it would just be another part of your body that smelled like rotten eggplant.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I questioned my belief in God, went from an atheist, to an agnostic, to again a believer. That sounds like questioning to me. My guess is that if you had a brain, it would just be another part of your body that smelled like rotten eggplant.

Thereby standing for nothing because it is more convinient. When standing for nothing you can critisize everything safely, because you are a cowardly mouse.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by patlajan Thereby standing for nothing because it is more convinient. When standing for nothing you can critisize everything safely, because you are a cowardly mouse.

One moment before I respond, please.....

I need to I find a Gibberish Translator.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by Shahumyan at most charity work, and thats only if they dont show that theyre working as church people.

REligious buildings should only be used as museums, or converted into homes for hobos

Ok, I'm not talking about buildings, actually i don't care the buildings. I'm talking about religion and society.
Since religion need to survive, it has to cope with the economical system in place. That is why we can see what is called "corruption" in this thread.

So, if religion or churchs have money, do you think it will solve the corruption problem ? How should react religion in the society ? Should it sustain the government ? (because i'm sure it gets money if so) Should it be absolutely apart of politics, which is not the case today ? Should it praise the wisdom even if the country decide to make wars ?

If it doesn't get money, how can it survive ? Alternative solutions ?

[whitelotus]

religion should not be apart of the government, state, laws, nor politics

we all have different beliefs, if you make religion apart of one big system, its not fair to the others who have other beliefs, this is the reason there is no religion in public schools etc etc. Because someone might get offended . Thats the basic difference between a public school and a private school, the religion that is preached on the kids etc. Private schools are free to do what they want, teach what they want etc opposded to a public school. So that is why most parents send kids to a private school so they can get a strong (catholic <-- for example) upbringing and knowledge about there religion etc. The education is no different, you can get the same level of education and benefits that a kid in private school does in public school with gate programes honors and crap.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus religion should not be apart of the government, state, laws, nor politics

we all have different beliefs, if you make religion apart of one big system, its not fair to the others who have other beliefs, this is the reason there is no religion in public schools etc etc. Because someone might get offended . Thats the basic difference between a public school and a private school, the religion that is preached on the kids etc. Private schools are free to do what they want, teach what they want etc opposded to a public school. So that is why most parents send kids to a private school so they can get a strong (catholic <-- for example) upbringing and knowledge about there religion etc. The education is no different, you can get the same level of education and benefits that a kid in private school does in public school with gate programes honors and crap.

apart == herou ?
I was saying that religion should not intervene in government, and the government should not intervene in religion. Which is not the case.
Public belong more to government than private, so it should remain laique. I think we agree.

What about the money stuff ?

[whitelotus]

the church has always funded itself, this is the reason its reached its currupt nature, by scamming people to gain more and more money, to scam people even more :D

endless circle. If you give them money, they will still want more, if you dont give them money, they will get some by scamming people, and it continues on and on.

thus, its currupt :D

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus religion should not be apart of the government, state, laws, nor politics

we all have different beliefs, if you make religion apart of one big system, its not fair to the others who have other beliefs, this is the reason there is no religion in public schools etc etc. Because someone might get offended . Thats the basic difference between a public school and a private school, the religion that is preached on the kids etc. Private schools are free to do what they want, teach what they want etc opposded to a public school. So that is why most parents send kids to a private school so they can get a strong (catholic <-- for example) upbringing and knowledge about there religion etc. The education is no different, you can get the same level of education and benefits that a kid in private school does in public school with gate programes honors and crap.

The "Seperation between church and state" in my mind at least, is really silly. "Democracy" has become the religion of the masses. All it was is replacing one form of organized coercion by another. How is that any different? The only difference is the system of thought. Now I am Christian, although not church going, I nonetheless believe in God. Furthermore, it is my personal relationship with God. I wouldn't want it forced on people, as European Imperialism did. Democracy, or Statism, or Secular Government, or "Novus Ordo Seclorum" in the back of your dollar, is simply replacing Church with State. I don't know why we don't call most of Christianity, Churchianity, instead of Christianity, since Christianity predated the Church for a long time, somewhere around 300s AD? not sure about the date.

[whitelotus]

i sure as hell wouldnt want someone to force there religion on me either.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus i sure as hell wouldnt want someone to force there religion on me either.

What about "democracy"? It's sure as hell being forced on Iraqis. Is there any difference? What about us people living within the empire? Do we have a choice to object to the State and its illegal income tax, or the fiat money pumped by the Federal Reserve? You can't object. It's heresy.

[whitelotus]

i agree with you, democracy is being forced on us, but we made that decision when we moved here. So we have no choice but to accept what rules they have made.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus i agree with you, democracy is being forced on us, but we made that decision when we moved here. So we have no choice but to accept what rules they have made.

I was too young to have known what my parents were doing.

No choice? No choice? How many times have I heard people say that. They have no choice. Do you really have no choice, or is it you don't want to or refuse to or are afraid to make the alternative choice? Of course you have choices. Not everyone chooses to choose.

[whitelotus]

the choice ive made is to stay here, if it bothered me that much i would move to another freaking country.

that is what i meant, we make the choice with dealing with it, if we made a choice not to, we would move somewhere else.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus the choice ive made is to stay here, if it bothered me that much i would move to another freaking country.

that is what i meant, we make the choice with dealing with it, if we made a choice not to, we would move somewhere else.

And how different is that? You must still be taxed for the State, no choice in the matter. And your property rights are violated.

The choice you have is to look at the system critically, as Socrates would, and not vote.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus the church has always funded itself, this is the reason its reached its currupt nature, by scamming people to gain more and more money, to scam people even more :D

endless circle. If you give them money, they will still want more, if you dont give them money, they will get some by scamming people, and it continues on and on.

thus, its currupt :D

Ok, again, we derivated from the main topic.
I have many things to say on the choices, but this is not the place. What the subject was dealing about is the place of the church in our society.

Now, lotus, go further. You said the church has always funded itself. This is obviously true. But actually, at least during the past centuries, the church used to have a social leading role, as being a divine representative on earth, as being a ciment of society, as being a symbol of mankind rules, etc
Now, except made for the "divine representative", all these roles are assumed, at least on the "paper", by states. So, what is remaining to church ? all the divine stuff ?

As having a social importance, it would have been normal to give to this institution (I recognise that there were some deviations and this is not what i want to talk about) the means to function correctly (ie. money).
Now the role being very restricted, it seems normal that the economical binds between the society and the church are weakened. And the deserted church have to survive on its own.

You are talking about "corruption". Yes, it's certainly corrupted since it tries to survive and people does not see the importance.

My point is the following: religion, and implicitely churchs, have their social role. More widely, we may talk about "sectarism". If this is not known religion, people often stick together with some divine entity upon the group, and belief to sthg more than human always exists.
In a certain extent, we would say that churchs (or mosques or synagogues) have still their social role, even if most of the work is today assumed by states.
So, like schools, it seems to be important to the society (of course, some people would not agree, but take it as an hypothesis). Hence, it should receive some money from the state itself, as any other institution.

The question is the following: in what extent, in the actual society, church should exists, and underlying this: What is the social role of church ? If its social role is recognised, should the state financially support the church ? If this kind of support exists, do you think the way the religion is praised would change ?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse And how different is that? You must still be taxed for the State, no choice in the matter. And your property rights are violated.

The choice you have is to look at the system critically, as Socrates would, and not vote.

That's your great, defiant choice? Not to vote? You big rebel pimp, you.

[whitelotus]

Originally posted by felizitation Ok, again, we derivated from the main topic.
I have many things to say on the choices, but this is not the place. What the subject was dealing about is the place of the church in our society.

Now, lotus, go further. You said the church has always funded itself. This is obviously true. But actually, at least during the past centuries, the church used to have a social leading role, as being a divine representative on earth, as being a ciment of society, as being a symbol of mankind rules, etc
Now, except made for the "divine representative", all these roles are assumed, at least on the "paper", by states. So, what is remaining to church ? all the divine stuff ?

As having a social importance, it would have been normal to give to this institution (I recognise that there were some deviations and this is not what i want to talk about) the means to function correctly (ie. money).
Now the role being very restricted, it seems normal that the economical binds between the society and the church are weakened. And the deserted church have to survive on its own.

You are talking about "corruption". Yes, it's certainly corrupted since it tries to survive and people does not see the importance.

My point is the following: religion, and implicitely churchs, have their social role. More widely, we may talk about "sectarism". If this is not known religion, people often stick together with some divine entity upon the group, and belief to sthg more than human always exists.
In a certain extent, we would say that churchs (or mosques or synagogues) have still their social role, even if most of the work is today assumed by states.
So, like schools, it seems to be important to the society (of course, some people would not agree, but take it as an hypothesis). Hence, it should receive some money from the state itself, as any other institution.

The question is the following: in what extent, in the actual society, church should exists, and underlying this: What is the social role of church ? If its social role is recognised, should the state financially support the church ? If this kind of support exists, do you think the way the religion is praised would change ?

well for example, the church basically ran england, screw the king, the church pulled the strings. What happened ? people rebelled against it, protestons... People moved the f*ck out and went to other places around the world, america being a main one.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus well for example, the church basically ran england, screw the king, the church pulled the strings. What happened ? people rebelled against it, protestons... People moved the f*ck out and went to other places around the world, america being a main one.

I'm not basing myself on "historical facts" but more on the notion of churchs. Any book of history would say me that "church is bad" or something like that. I would say religion is an idea which realization is quite impossible.
So, what are YOUR opinions concerning church and concerning the questions of my preceding post?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname That's your great, defiant choice? Not to vote? You big rebel pimp, you.

Well the other alternative is to rise in arms, but since I am against killing people, I will not go that far to violate my ethics.

[whitelotus]

Originally posted by felizitation I'm not basing myself on "historical facts" but more on the notion of churchs. Any book of history would say me that "church is bad" or something like that. I would say religion is an idea which realization is quite impossible.
So, what are YOUR opinions concerning church and concerning the questions of my preceding post?

to tell you the truth, i never really read your post, i just skimmed it haha so i have no comments :D

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well the other alternative is to rise in arms, but since I am against killing people, I will not go that far to violate my ethics.

It's probably pointless to continue demeaning you, because I would like to see changes as much as you do. But given the strength of homeland security in the United States, there aren't going to be any revolutions, violent or otherwise. So I find it most effective to work with the system you're given. Withdrawing from it and resorting to internet pedagogy that is mostly ignored isn't likely to get you far.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It's probably pointless to continue demeaning you, because I would like to see changes as much as you do. But given the strength of homeland security in the United States, there aren't going to be any revolutions, violent or otherwise. So I find it most effective to work with the system you're given. Withdrawing from it and resorting to internet pedagogy that is mostly ignored isn't likely to get you far.

The Mises Institute doesn't see it the way you do. They are people devoted to liberty and economic principles surrounding individualism. While accusing others of being closed minded for wanting to marry within their culture, the same open minded goomba is now exercising the very logic he is against, "going with what you know". And the same person who liked to quote Socrates in how it is essential to question everything with regard to the discussion on God or free will, to sound semi intelligent, is now doing the exact opposite.

The fact that you cannot engage in any form of critical thinking and how dependent you are on the system, is the exact reason why I expect the response that you gave. That other people may be victim because of Imperialism, abroad, and at home, and some may have their individual rights violated, is of no concern, as long as you have your football, and your ability to churn up love stories.

Thus when you proved yourself incapable, or unable to discuss this, it is expected that you would accuse me of "pedogogy" or earlier of "idealism" which is the exact thing I am against, which shows to me, you don't pay attention, nor bring your beliefs to question.

I think your behavior is just a big lard of contradictions that if used to cook bacon, wouldn't produce the desired results.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus to tell you the truth, i never really read your post, i just skimmed it haha so i have no comments :D
I put you in my mind's jail, and you'll never get out.

[whitelotus]

*bangs on the bars like a maniac*

i hope i dont get raped by bubbuh in there :<

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus *bangs on the bars like a maniac*

i hope i dont get raped by bubbuh in there :<

No, I'm just doing everything you were too ashamed to ask. Gna gna gna !!! :D :D (*smiling like a big maniac*)

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse The Mises Institute doesn't see it the way you do. They are people devoted to liberty and economic principles surrounding individualism. While accusing others of being closed minded for wanting to marry within their culture, the same open minded goomba is now exercising the very logic he is against, "going with what you know". And the same person who liked to quote Socrates in how it is essential to question everything with regard to the discussion on God or free will, to sound semi intelligent, is now doing the exact opposite.

The fact that you cannot engage in any form of critical thinking and how dependent you are on the system, is the exact reason why I expect the response that you gave. That other people may be victim because of Imperialism, abroad, and at home, and some may have their individual rights violated, is of no concern, as long as you have your football, and your ability to churn up love stories.

Thus when you proved yourself incapable, or unable to discuss this, it is expected that you would accuse me of "pedogogy" or earlier of "idealism" which is the exact thing I am against, which shows to me, you don't pay attention, nor bring your beliefs to question.

I think your behavior is just a big lard of contradictions that if used to cook bacon, wouldn't produce the desired results.

Your big long rant here doesn't change the fact that refusing to vote is not going to effect any change other than office-holders being appointed by other office-holders instead of by popular election.

I'm not sure where I indicated that individual rights are not any concern of mine.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Your big long rant here doesn't change the fact that refusing to vote is not going to effect any change other than office-holders being appointed by other office-holders instead of by popular election.

I'm not sure where I indicated that individual rights are not any concern of mine.

Your trivial focus on "office holders" appointing other "office holders" makes no sense, since people would then not identify themselves with these external State institutions, thus back to my question, who would be left for them to rule anyway? It is also a characteristic of power to corrupt, per Lord Acton, so it wouldn't be wise on the part of the "office holders" to appoint too many people, since their own power would be abrogated.

Of course assuming that there is an anarchical society, there wouldn't be any room for these to exist. To go further and state this as an idealism, begs the question, for no matter what we do in our lives is geared toward idealism, so I'm left wondering what it is you are trying to argue here.

As far as voting, well that is probably the worst thing to ever happen. One can make an argument that if it weren't for Democracy, much of the bloodshed in the 20th century could have been avoided.

If you legitimize the existence of the State, then you are ipso facto identified as not standing up for the individual, since all individuals come after the State and are a means to an end for the State.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Your trivial focus on "office holders" appointing other "office holders" makes no sense, since people would then not identify themselves with these external State institutions, thus back to my question, who would be left for them to rule anyway? It is also a characteristic of power to corrupt, per Lord Acton, so it wouldn't be wise on the part of the "office holders" to appoint too many people, since their own power would be abrogated.

Then they will likely appoint themselves. The offices will need to be filled somehow, and believe me, they will be. The people will be ruled whether they like it or not. The only way your idea could even possibly work is if every person in the world simultaneously agreed to not recognize any leaders nor have any desire to be a leader themselves. I'll give you two guess as to whether or not that's ever going to happen. If that isn't idealism, I don't know what is.


Originally posted by Anonymouse If you legitimize the existence of the State, then you are ipso facto identified as not standing up for the individual, since all individuals come after the State and are a means to an end for the State.

That's a bit like saying legitimizing the existence of God negates any sense of individuality, as all of His children are necessarily subordinate to him and ruled over with the threat of eternal damnation. What is more tyrannical than that?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Then they will likely appoint themselves. The offices will need to be filled somehow, and believe me, they will be. The people will be ruled whether they like it or not. The only way your idea could even possibly work is if every person in the world simultaneously agreed to not recognize any leaders nor have any desire to be a leader themselves. I'll give you two guess as to whether or not that's ever going to happen. If that isn't idealism, I don't know what is.




That's a bit like saying legitimizing the existence of God negates any sense of individuality, as all of His children are necessarily subordinate to him and ruled over with the threat of eternal damnation. What is more tyrannical than that?

See my response in the anarchy thread.

[loseyourname]

I did. Give me a little more detail on how that idea might work, and how it doesn't constitute a state, and you might find me a little more receptive than when you simply rant and insult.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse If you legitimize the existence of the State, then you are ipso facto identified as not standing up for the individual, since all individuals come after the State and are a means to an end for the State.

So you illegitimize the state by not voting? Meanwhile, you receive a taxpayer-funded education at a state university. Way to stand up for what you believe in.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname So you illegitimize the state by not voting? Meanwhile, you receive a taxpayer-funded education at a state university. Way to stand up for what you believe in.

So much for "taxpayer funded education". I'm paying so much, they might as well call it a private school.

[loseyourname]

Call it what you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are legitmizing the state's existence.

[Anonymouse]

Well, if you can argue that way, I would be legitimizing the State's existence, but am I voting politicians into office that later authorize U.S. military using cluster bombs on Iraq?

If you argue it in the way that the State has virtually caused the rising prices, fixed wages, taxation, that this is somehow had debilitating effects on me and the general economy of a market society, leaving me with no choice but for practicality and proximity to attend the school I do, then I wouldn't be directly justifying the State, simply out of necessity because of the State.

[loseyourname]

Many people feel the same way about voting. And I have not voted any politicians into office.

[Anonymouse]

Then rest assured. Essentially its a question of responsibility. Do you want elect people who will rule you and make decisions for you, or are you a self responsible individual and will make your own choices?

[loseyourname]

These people will rule whether or not you like it, unless you leave the country. I have no problem with you not voting, as long as you are influencing the decisions of the decision-makers in some other way, or doing something else that will actually get rid of them. Not voting isn't going to do that.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname These people will rule whether or not you like it, unless you leave the country. I have no problem with you not voting, as long as you are influencing the decisions of the decision-makers in some other way, or doing something else that will actually get rid of them. Not voting isn't going to do that.

But this is the problem. I mind my own business. I don't wish to impose myself nor my ideas on other people. When you vote, you are in essence imposing your views on others. That is the sole purpose of the redistributive, centrally planned, welfare State.

If I have property, I own it, then it follows that I can do whatever I want with my property, as long as I don't interfere with the property rights of my neighbor, regardless of what rules the State has enacted to the contrary. When I decide to step into my neighbors property and tell him what to do, and who to hire, and what laws he should obey, well then that is when you have politics.

By voting for an initiative that says "People cannot hire whom they please, but must hire a certain number of people X, and people B, and gender L" you are telling other people what to do, you may not agree or think so, but indirectly, your vote is tantamount to coercing others to behave a certain way. Nor am I saying you vote, I'm just using "your" as an example.

Later, when you get some other portion of the "people" ( no such thing exists" ) that are disgruntled with the decisions of some others, then you can point and say "it was the will of the people since they voted for it".

[loseyourname]

I agree with what you're saying, but as I already pointed out, these laws are going to be there whether or not you vote on them, and the politicians making the laws are going to be there whether or not you vote on them. Furthermore, these laws are going to affect you, as well as those you care about, and you may as well influence in some way what it is they dictate, otherwise you have become a passive inmate, taking what they give you with your head in the clouds.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname I agree with what you're saying, but as I already pointed out, these laws are going to be there whether or not you vote on them,

That is untrue. Affirmitive action didn't always for example. The more America has become centralized, particularly after 1900 and most importantly the New Deal, most of these laws surfaced.

Originally posted by loseyourname and the politicians making the laws are going to be there whether or not you vote on them. Furthermore, these laws are going to affect you, as well as those you care about, and you may as well influence in some way what it is they dictate, otherwise you have become a passive inmate, taking what they give you with your head in the clouds.

You cannot possibly change the system by using the system. There are only two ways to change the system. Either it collapses itself, or a revolution. Voting doesn't change the system. No matter who you voted for the government always gets elected. That was what Biafra(sp) of Dead Kennedys said. If voting really made a change, it would be illegal.

[loseyourname]

I'm not speaking of any specific laws, or any specific system. The fact is, there will always be a system of some form in place, and there will always be laws in place. And as long as you are a citizen of this nation, you have little choice but to obey them or be punished, possibly with imprisonment or even death.

Let me ask you this: Do you pay taxes?