Amedeo

Some people -- probably a minority -- may debate (either pro or contra something) because they are still uncertain as to what to believe, or what the truth in any matter is. The majory argue either defensively, to show opponents that they are right in what they believe, or offensively, to show that their opponents are wrong in what they believe. But the issue is not about who is right or wrong; the issue is about the FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.

Wittingly or not, a man of religion is not simply a believer in god and related matters, or a practicioner of religion (going to church or synagogue, etc. etc.); HE IS A POLITICAL ENTITY WITH AN AGENDA: TO ESTABLISH A THEOCRACY (WITH CLERICAL RULE), OR AT LEAST A POLITICAL SOCIETY DOMINATED BY RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES, LAWS, AND DUTIES.

Freethinkers and atheists in particular airm at showing the baselessness of the political ambitions of religionists. An athetist is specifically an anticlericalist and anti-theocracy. In the US, there is -- UNFORTUNATELY -- no formal movement of anti-clericalsm after the death of M. O'Hair. Bu theclerical forces are there, operating, and creating laws which encraoch on the freedom of the members of the republic.

Many of the "clerical" or ecclsiastical laws were inherited from England and never removed from the books; othersare being openly made in the secular Congress, and others are made by subterfuge under the pretext of human rights and of human liberty. These are most insidious and ilegal, but, as you know, the US Constitutution has been in process of repudiation since W. Wilson, and today we have a tyranny run by idiots. However, there is no Jefferson in view to declare the liberation of the Americans from the demagogically supported tyranny. If there were ten good reasons to separate fromEngland, we have 100 better reasons to hang the tyrants and establish our own republic.

An example a of an indidious law? It is called an anti-defamation law, which says in general words that if US citizens CONTEST the doctrine that the Jews suffered a holocaust, they are an insult to the MEMORY of those who have suffered the holocaust. The contestation or denial of the holocaust and other such doctrines is illegal and punishable by law. In Europe, governments have passed similar laws, and there have been trials and imprisonments of people who have contested the Jewish holocaust. In a word, the American right to contest and to require dues process of law have been eliminated by Congress. The rights of the citizens are being eliminated one at a time.

The debates by freethinkers and atheists are already an exercise in futility,
since the political forces of Christians and Jews have already trampled upon the republic. Take a survey of a thousand Americans at random and learn whether they have ever studied the Constitution (in school or on their own) and if the know the nature of a republic -- the nature of the Roman political society before the empire, and the republic which was aimed at by the Constitution. I bet anything you will not find 5% of the Americans who can talk for 5 minutes on the nature of the republic.

It's too late already, but some of us will continue the work of demolition, until they shut down or radically control the last public media of communication -- the internet.

Jagella

Very astute observation. The political motives of religionists are rather obvious, or at least to the two of us they are obvious. History bears out this fact, and I have little doubt that if Christians today regained the political power they had throughout much of the Middle Ages, we’d be back to the rack and the stake for unbelievers.

True. We do not have free speech.

I was just thinking about censorship on the internet yesterday. People will censor just about anything, and I’m left wondering who has the wisdom to decide what is or is not acceptable on the internet or anywhere else. My guess is that the people who make such decisions have appointed themselves as judges of righteousness, and they no doubt benefit in some way from their censorship.

Jagella

Amedeo

It's not just that, for one who joins a Group or a Forum is like a guest in somebody's house and his posts may be barred at the owner's dicretion (even though writers should be informed before deletions, since what is written is still the writer's property, and he may want to remove or copy his post). I am referring to the fact that especially in Europe there is already an automatic censor at work. Here I found a limited use of it. When I opened a forum at MSN, certain descriptions of my forum were sent back as inacceptable. Through trial and error, I found that, e.g., the word "Constitutionalism" was objectionable, "socialism" was not, and so forth.

I do not know about the present Forum, but anyone who opens or joins a Yahoo or a Microsoft (MSN) forum has to accept a lost list of rules and conditions [for the preservation of one's membership]. Believe it or not, the list includes some US laws, and specifically the anti-defamation law which forbids CONTESTATION of what insults the memory of certain people. Thus US law are being privatized, so that the owners of the forum can pass judgments on members who allegedly violated such laws. Most significantly, the owners make summary jugments in private, there is no trial and there is no recourse of appeal. The Constitution's rule of due process is totally ignored. So, in principle I can be guilty at the owner's discression. If he wanted, he could press legal charges against me. The written evidence that i contested the dogmas of certain people would be enought to put me in jail.

What I expect for the future is that automatic censoring systems will be employed, so that there will not even be the need for website owners to have to review complaints, or to depend on complaints (of the defenders of the faith) to do their censoring work. Presently there is government monitoring aimed at detecting secret messages being sent to terrorists and the like. The Zionists have a vast monitoring system in and out of the internet and they compile black books -- to keep track of what they adjudicate as anti-Semitic menaces.

BIG BROTHER is watching.........

Celsus

*Sigh*

Joel

Amedeo

I speak from experience, not guesswork. For instance, one public monitor on the internet, whom I was reading a couple of years ago, was threatening that writers out of line (with anti-Semitic attitudes) would have their names recorded in the book. (He was the same one who announced that he -- on American soil -- would do ANYTHING against those who would try to block US assistance to Israel). Of course, it is public knowledge that David Horowitz, the Ayn Rand Institute, and various Jewish university professors, have been preaching and WRITING to the American citizens that it is THEIR "CIVIL DUTY" TO ASSIST ISRAEL. This duty has not been written in the Constitution as an amendment, since they have all trampled on it to begin it. It exists only on paper.

But I know, It is not politically correct to reveal what they themselves reveal, or to hint that they are practically traitors of the Republic. Contestation is anti-Semitic and already illegal in the USA.