Comments on: Head-in-the-Sand Liberals http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/ "if you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much room" Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:11:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Michael Butler http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/#comment-719 Michael Butler Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:28:29 +0000 http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/#comment-719 We need more serious, craetive deliberations like those of Tom Harper (above) Michael We need more serious, craetive deliberations like those of Tom Harper (above)
Michael

]]> By: Tom Harper http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/#comment-718 Tom Harper Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:09:37 +0000 http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/#comment-718 The immiment threat of religious beliefs clearly has to be addressed. Coming from a european perspective, there is now more and more talk within our secular society of not being tolerant of 'religious intolerance'. But there seems to be little community talk about how we can actually change things. The 'why' and the 'when' for change is gloriously obvious, we just need to propose the 'who' and the 'how'. Imagine if we could establish a global network for religious discussion, a forum for politicians, religious leaders, and regular working people to voice the influence of religion on their daily lives both personally and globally, the pros and cons. How can we get people to look at their beliefs and say, "Yes this belief serves me, but more importantly it serves that which is greater than me, it serves my community". How can we get people to expand upon their beliefs, to say " My belief brings me wholeness and meaning, but I am willing to accept that it may differ from your belief. I am willing to accept that there are many different paths to the mountain top" How can we get people to accept that the ultimate nature of life is abundant diversity, that there is no need to be fearful of that which appears different from us? We all have a barometer of feelings, many different things either tip the balance towards making us feel good or feel bad, but we share common themes. Killing for example. Killing surely doesn't feel good for anyone. That must be something we can all clearly agree on, and yet we don't or we can't, our behavior smacks of the opposite, that killing can be good and necessary seems to be the message we are still sending out to our children all across the globe. The biggest irony of all of this is there is only one globe with life on it potentially alone in a vast vast universe, and yet we appear to some degree intent on destroying it. Either we just haven't evolved yet enough to acknowledge that certain behaviors (which are influenced by belief systems) just aren't serving us. We would rather be right than be kind, even on a small level, the argument with a spouse, or work mate, or child. How important is it really to defend that righteous sense of self and to what extent are we willing to defend it? At the moment we are choosing to fight to the death, in which case the 'self' is erradicated anyway. I wonder when we will choose to evolve, I wonder who will lead us there, I wonder how, I hope it's now, I hope it's now. The immiment threat of religious beliefs clearly has to be addressed. Coming from a european perspective, there is now more and more talk within our secular society of not being tolerant of ‘religious intolerance’. But there seems to be little community talk about how we can actually change things. The ‘why’ and the ‘when’ for change is gloriously obvious, we just need to propose the ‘who’ and the ‘how’.
Imagine if we could establish a global network for religious discussion, a forum for politicians, religious leaders, and regular working people to voice the influence of religion on their daily lives both personally and globally, the pros and cons.
How can we get people to look at their beliefs and say, “Yes this belief serves me, but more importantly it serves that which is greater than me, it serves my community”. How can we get people to expand upon their beliefs, to say ” My belief brings me wholeness and meaning, but I am willing to accept that it may differ from your belief. I am willing to accept that there are many different paths to the mountain top” How can we get people to accept that the ultimate nature of life is abundant diversity, that there is no need to be fearful of that which appears different from us? We all have a barometer of feelings, many different things either tip the balance towards making us feel good or feel bad, but we share common themes. Killing for example. Killing surely doesn’t feel good for anyone. That must be something we can all clearly agree on, and yet we don’t or we can’t, our behavior smacks of the opposite, that killing can be good and necessary seems to be the message we are still sending out to our children all across the globe. The biggest irony of all of this is there is only one globe with life on it potentially alone in a vast vast universe, and yet we appear to some degree intent on destroying it. Either we just haven’t evolved yet enough to acknowledge that certain behaviors (which are influenced by belief systems) just aren’t serving us. We would rather be right than be kind, even on a small level, the argument with a spouse, or work mate, or child. How important is it really to defend that righteous sense of self and to what extent are we willing to defend it? At the moment we are choosing to fight to the death, in which case the ’self’ is erradicated anyway. I wonder when we will choose to evolve, I wonder who will lead us there, I wonder how, I hope it’s now, I hope it’s now.

]]> By: Michael Butler http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/#comment-717 Michael Butler Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:01:24 +0000 http://www.michaelbutler.com/blog/mbutler/2006/09/18/head-in-the-sand-liberals/#comment-717 Peter Fleming asked me to post this for him: "Michael, this is a REPLY In establishing Sam Harris' "liberal bone fides" (shouldn't it read bona fides to honestly be in good faith?), "I’d like to see taxes raised on the wealthy": LIBER: this root word pertains to FREEDOM. Why do individuals call themselves "liberal" if they argue for LESS freedom? ......argue for the police forced confiscation, increased confiscation, of the earnings of an arbitrarily uncertain class of people they title "wealthy"? Why?, for god's sake. Where do these anti-liberals STOP?? Who is NOT WEALTHY by their totalitarian liegislating minds? We could call it hate legislation could we not ?! Why do "liberals" want MORE GOVERNMENT? ANSWER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRUE LIBERALS They are PSEUDO LIBERALS. Yet they say, DECRIMINALIZE OUR CRIMINALIZING DRUG PROHIBITION!!! LEAVE THE GAYS FREE TO MARRY! BRAVO, RIGHT ON! YES ! BUT HOW CAN ANYONE CLAIMING TO "BE LIBERAL" WANT MORE GOVERNMENT FORCE AND THREAT OF FORCE???? I don't get the hypocracy of it all. It is ironic that people (LIBERAL CLAIMERS) who want laws empowering more government FORCE, more threats of imprisonment, more threats of death by government. It is ironic that most of this group want massive amounts of more government, obligatory medical servitude, is a fabulous example............ THOSE SAME PEOPLE WHO BY PROMOTING BIG BIG BIGGER GOVERNMENT ARE LEADING US TO INEVITABLY MORE ARMED FORCES, MORE WAR. JUST LIKE THE SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVES (WHO ARE REALLY NOT CONSERVATIVE EITHER) WHO ALSO WANT BIGGER, MORE AGGRESSIVELY WAR-LIKE GOVERNMENT. CONGRATULATIONS: WE'VE GOT IT MICHAEL, DROP USAGE OF THOSE OUTDATED TERMS, PLEASE. ENOUGH!! OF THE COLLECTIVIST MENTALITY GETTING AWAY WITH THE MIS-USE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL WORD Catherine Austin Fitts (solari.com) says it best: "There are people who are pro centralization, and people who are pro DE-centralization. And I'm pro DE-centralization (......of government, of course!) and....Re: 9/11 - The only thing necessary is ENDLESS INVESTIGATION ! independent, individual, by the people, investigation Where was "CSI" forensic investigation when we neded it? And we don't need another JFK Warren Report propaganda piece. I hope this can go on your site. I don't know how to do it." Peter Fleming asked me to post this for him:

“Michael, this is a REPLY

In establishing Sam Harris’ “liberal bone fides”

(shouldn’t it read bona fides to honestly be in good faith?),

“I’d like to see taxes raised on the wealthy”:

LIBER: this root word pertains to FREEDOM. Why do individuals call

themselves “liberal” if they argue for LESS freedom? ……argue for the police forced

confiscation, increased confiscation, of the earnings of an arbitrarily uncertain class

of people they title “wealthy”? Why?, for god’s sake. Where do these anti-liberals STOP??

Who is NOT WEALTHY by their totalitarian liegislating minds? We could call it hate legislation could we not ?!

Why do “liberals” want MORE GOVERNMENT? ANSWER, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRUE LIBERALS

They are PSEUDO LIBERALS. Yet they say, DECRIMINALIZE OUR CRIMINALIZING DRUG PROHIBITION!!!

LEAVE THE GAYS FREE TO MARRY! BRAVO, RIGHT ON! YES !

BUT HOW CAN ANYONE CLAIMING TO “BE LIBERAL”

WANT MORE GOVERNMENT FORCE AND THREAT OF FORCE???? I don’t get the hypocracy of it all.

It is ironic that people (LIBERAL CLAIMERS) who want laws empowering more government FORCE,

more threats of imprisonment, more threats of death by government. It is ironic that most

of this group want massive amounts of more government, obligatory medical servitude, is a fabulous

example………… THOSE SAME PEOPLE WHO BY PROMOTING BIG BIG BIGGER GOVERNMENT

ARE LEADING US TO INEVITABLY MORE ARMED FORCES, MORE WAR. JUST LIKE THE SO-CALLED

CONSERVATIVES (WHO ARE REALLY NOT CONSERVATIVE EITHER) WHO ALSO WANT BIGGER,

MORE AGGRESSIVELY WAR-LIKE GOVERNMENT. CONGRATULATIONS: WE’VE GOT IT

MICHAEL, DROP USAGE OF THOSE OUTDATED TERMS, PLEASE. ENOUGH!! OF THE COLLECTIVIST

MENTALITY GETTING AWAY WITH THE MIS-USE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL WORD

Catherine Austin Fitts (solari.com)

says it best: “There are people who

are pro centralization, and people

who are pro DE-centralization.

And I’m pro DE-centralization (……of government, of course!)

and….Re: 9/11 - The only thing necessary is ENDLESS INVESTIGATION !

independent, individual, by the people, investigation

Where was “CSI” forensic investigation when we neded it?

And we don’t need another JFK Warren Report propaganda piece.

I hope this can go on your site. I don’t know how to do it.”

]]>