Why..? by Merwin

Humanism Says Dissention is to be Erradicated

I highly recommend not only reading Humanist Manifestos I & II in full, but actually reading the lists of those that signed. The material contained in the Manifestos are marching orders for change, especially in regard to faith. These mandates have either already been implemented or soon will be. These initiatives are backed by the global power brokers... HEADS UP FELLOW CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH, FOR YOUR REDEMPTION DRAWETH NIGH!

Below are three excerpted affirmations from Humanist Manifesto II. Please notice where I emboldened and underlined the areas for special focus.

(Everything emboldened and in parenthesis like this sentence [within the excerpt] are my comments.)

And pay special notice if you will to the emboldened and underlined part of affirmation listed as "EIGHTH:"


Democratic Society

SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(Except the freedom of religion?)

EIGHTH: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels - social, political, and economic. All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives. Institutions should be responsive to expressed desires and needs. The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.

(And as usual the Humanist will decide which forces are "Alienating".)

NINTH: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.

(Humanism is an ideology.)

END OF EXCERPT

The above has been posted by myself previously, but sometimes the overwhelming size of a posting can cause a person to gloss over the material and not catch the subtleties.

The purpose for these being posted by me is to inform. I do not recommend going out and buying weapons, nor do I recommend hatred to those that persecute the faithful in these last days. My desire is to spread the information quickly to as many as have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Hopefully... very soon, even those that persecute, much like Saul on the way to Damascus, will be struck with the truth of what they heard before hand. They will remember that they were told of all the evidence of the days of travail leading to the great tribulation and a few will repent.

Fellow children of the Most High God... we cannot tell who may be those that have been chosen from before the foundations of the earth... by sight, Paul simply appeared as one of the persecutors when he was Saul.

Therefore spread the Word to all... time is too short.

Comments 22 comments

Captain Jimmy profile image

Captain Jimmy 6 years ago from WV


Chasuk 6 years ago

I'd like to make three points.

First, allow me to quote one of your quotes:

"To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes . . . the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom."

Do you notice those words, RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? I'm capitalizing them for your benefit.

To drive home my point, let's cut away anything extraneous:

"[The] full range of civil liberties. . . includes . . . RELIGIOUS LIBERTY."

So the evil conspirators did not omit religious freedom from their list of essential liberties, despite your claim to the contrary.

Please don't disingenuously suggest that the words "liberty" and "freedom" were not intended as synonyms.

My second and third points are intertwined.

You comment, "Humanism is an ideology."

Yes. It is an ideology which tries to guarantee us the freedom of choosing our own ideology. In other words, it is the ideology of freedom.

You attach great malevolence to these sentences: "The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated."

You seem especially troubled by the word "alienating."

Any government which tries to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness tries to modify -- or eradicate -- alienating forces.

Any democratic society tries to modify or eradicate alienating forces while simultaneously avoiding trespass of freedom and dignity.

To accomplish this while allowing us to choose our own ideology is complicated.

For example, we allow the KKKer to hold his racist, anti-Semitic ideology while preventing him from alienating blacks and Jews.

The KKKer might still arouse in blacks and Jews feelings of fear, of hostility, of unfriendliness, of estrangement (all symptoms of alienation), but we can't prevent that. However, we can prevent the KKKer from enshrining his ideology in law.

In a free society, everyone has the right to work, to play, to attend school, and to worship at the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque of their choice.

We guarantee this by modifying or eradicating institutional hostility wherever we can, within the framework of freedom and dignity.

Inconveniently for your premise, freedom and dignity is something that the authors of the humanist manifestos explicitly promote.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 Chasuk...

No go my friend... what does "eradicate" mean to you? What does "alienating" mean to you?

When this republic takes steps to "eradicate" an "alienating" philosophy there is, and should be public outcry.

And if they are so benevolent, why do they feel the need to modify (my) faith that they do not understand to make it more "humanized" according to what they find acceptable?

What gives them the right to modify anyone's faith?


Chasuk 6 years ago

When you alienate someone, you cause in them feelings of hostility, fear, or unfriendliness. You estrange them.

When you eradicate, you eliminate.

Those are the definitions I used in my rebuttal, as should have been clear. I used those definitions because that is what alienation and eradication are, by denotation, and not connotation.

Show me where the authors of the manifestos suggested the need to modify your faith. They specifically wrote of the importance of religious liberty.

Making your own interpretation of clearly expressed meaning is a bad -- dishonest -- habit.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

EIGHTH: affimation

"The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated."

"Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated."

"...should be modified or eradicated."

"...should be modified..."

"...modified..."

Dishonesty implies intent... that has never been my intention! I thought you and I were well beyond that.


Chasuk 6 years ago

You keep skipping facts, manufacturing controversy and contradiction where none exists.

An alienating force is a force which deprives citizens of freedom and dignity. You have religious freedom insofar as it doesn't deprive citizens of their freedom and dignity (insofar as it isn't an alienating force). That isn't a surprising proviso.

The seventh part of Manifesto II calls for religious liberty. The eighth part doesn't suggest taking those liberties away.

Any government which tries to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness tries to modify -- or eradicate -- alienating forces while simultaneously avoiding trespass of freedom and dignity. The ninth part of Manifesto II even enumerates some of the alienating forces that it is the government's responsibly to modify (lessen) or prevent (eradicate or eliminate). First on the list is the favoring of particular religious bodies through the use of public monies. Catholic presidents can't enforce adherence to Catholicism. Jewish governors can't enforce adherence to Judaism. Islamic mayors can't enforce adherence to Islam.

The most effective form of lessoning or eliminating alienating forces is through education. When we understand that Muslims and Jews and Roman Catholics aren't all evil conspirators (while acknowledging that a minority are), then our behavior has been self-modified. The bad action has been eradicated.

After education conquers alienating forces, everyone works, plays, attends school, and worships as they please, in full freedom and dignity.

Am I supposed to believe that this is a bad thing?

I retract accusations of dishonesty, but I am at a loss to understand how you manage to consistently misinterpret such clear expressions of meaning unless it is willful.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I get carried away, Merwin. I'm sorry. We both read the same document, but our opposing world views filter our conclusions differently.

I read a document of hope, you read a dire warning.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Thanks Chasuk...

The Bible is a document of - extreme - hope.

There have been those however, which have taken the document and used it as a vehicle to commit heinous acts.

And there have been those who read it and did not value it for its intent, but see it as a document of hate written for hateful hearts to march on.

My point for - all - of this is to point out that...

1) We have no way of knowing for sure what their intent was in writing the Manifestos. These were geniuses that have collected together to guide the world to... what? Utopia? If geniuses... their wording could have been more carefully constructed so as not to be misinterpreted by some layman like myself or some charismatic leader who happens to hate those of any faith that wishes to dictate faith policies into oblivion.

And...

2) To indicate that if these efforts to introduce all warmness and fuzziness that is inherent in the Manifestos should fall flat, and take on a malevolent character, then please do not be surprised if and when this happens. After all the document that Marx and Engels composed was not as bad as Stalin and Mao used it to be.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I've rewitten the Humanist Manifesto II with more brevity in mind, hopefully encapsulting the original intentions of the authors.

**************************

Preface

Forty years ago, we published Humanist Manifesto I, a document that now seems naïvely optimistic.

As we approach the twenty-first century, we present this new document, synthesizing faith and advancing knowledge, Humanist Manifesto II.

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism is a harmful diversion that reasonable minds have rejected.

The signatories of Humanist Manifesto II acknowledge that this is a work in progress, not a consensus, but we offer it -- and humanism -- as an alternative guide to humankind’s future.

- Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)

--------------------------------------

The next century is filled with global dangers that only secular humanism can help us survive, which is our impetus for submitting Humanist Manifesto II.

Religion

FIRST: We appreciate many of the ethical teachings of religious tradition, but we find belief in the supernatural and in deities destructive. Humans are responsible for saving themselves. No deity will save us.

SECOND: Humans are a species of animal that has emerged from natural evolutionary forces, and when our body dies, we die. Belief in immortality hinders self-actualization. However, it isn’t only religious ideologies that impede us; all ideologies that function religiously are obstacles to human progress.

Ethics

THIRD: Moral values derive from human experience, in which we create our own futures.

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence, balanced with compassion and empathy, are the most effective tools that humankind possesses. Science, art, poetry, music, and religion constantly renew humankind's sense of wonder.

The Individual

FIFTH: We believe in maximum individual autonomy, consistent with social responsibility, as humans realize their own creative talents and desires.

SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, anything that does not harm others should be tolerated. Sexual education is an important way of developing honesty in interpersonal relations.

Democratic Society

SEVENTH: We believe in freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom, including the right to die with dignity. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy.

EIGHTH: We believe in an open and participatory democracy at all levels - social, political, and economic. We believe that everyone has the right to work, to play, to attend school, and to worship as they choose, free of institutionalized hostility or impediment. We believe that it is the government’s mandate to guarantee such freedoms without trespassing on freedom or dignity.

NINETH: The state should not favor any particular religious bodies, nor engage in propaganda or oppression against dissenters.

TENTH: Economic systems should be judged in terms of the common good.

ELEVENTH: We believe in equal rights for all humans, including the right to adequately compensated employment, the right to health care, and the right to universal education. We reject anything that promotes alienation or discourages the opportunity for free and voluntary association.

World Community

TWELFTH: We encourage the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government, recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

THIRTEENTH: We believe in non-violent adjudication as a method of solving international disputes.

FOURTEENTH: We believe in the shared, global stewardship of our environment.

FIFTEENTH: We believe that the huge disparities in global wealth, income, and economic growth should be normalized by a consensus of nations.

SIXTEENTH: We believe in the importance of scientific and technological research for the good of humankind, being mindful of the harmful and destructive consequences of indiscriminate technological growth.

SEVENTEENTH: We believe that unless we live together as a global village we shall perish together.

Humanity As a Whole

IN CLOSING: We believe that destructive ideological differences must be transcended by humane means, abandoning the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, and race in moving toward peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness for humankind. We invite others to work with us for these goals.

**************************

Anyway, that is roughly how I interpret the document.

I agree with most of it.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Thanks Chasuk...

I will read this after church... but the first thing that occurs to me is your rewrite is simply how you would like it to be, and not the way it is.


Chasuk 6 years ago

Rewriting this, I did become aware of how embarrassingly overwrought some of it is, and how clearly a product of the 1970s. In those days, there were still a few real hippies on college campuses.

It would have benefited from firmer diction, and less verbosity (pomposity?).

If I were to nominate the most potentially troubling pronouncements, I would pick the twelfth and the fifteenth.

I tried to rewrite it to reflect the meaning of the original author(s), but of course my own bias is unavoidable. I will also admit to possible errors of interpretation. Some of it I changed very little, some quite a lot, with many excisions of what I felt was overy explicative material. I hoped that brevity would improve clarity.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 Chasuk...

I like your version better... but... that is not what was written or implemented, nor in the process of implementation.

Utopia cannot be imposed... by imposition it becomes the coercive and deadly societies of Winston, THX 1138, Logan, or other heroes of fiction who sought solace, escape, or change.

A paradise that has lost all resemblance to the original concept and sales pitch of that idealistic society, has simply become one born out of the necessity of controlling the masses in thoughts, deeds, and population.

And what will happen, as the present global population reaches maximum density and beyond, to the faiths that continue to grow their ranks? What happens to those that hold to the premises that all life is precious and that stand in the way of birth control, genocide and or outsiders dictating what is an acceptable expression of faith?

To those that stand against they who declare...

"As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism is a harmful diversion that reasonable minds have rejected."

(There are millions of reasonable minds that cling to the traditional, though, that would be a hard sell to anyone that is against traditional faiths.)

The manifesto mongers are going to be tolerant toward the demented faith-ers are they? How very gracious. When push comes to shove in the population crisis, they will be forced to push and shove toward a "final solution" similar to that of the Nazis and that includes those faith-ers of the opposition as being first to go.

I would wager that the rhetoric against faith-ing in the educational system is rigorous, intimidating, and relentless... more today than it was in my day.

On nearly every campus in the US, and my guess around the world, if you express the reality of your faith you quickly fall out of favor, and your academic career is jeopardized.

People of traditional faiths are treated as they are found by those that hand out the treatment, as mindless, opiate of the masses infected, automatons that mouth dogmatic platitudes. If these "unreasonable minds" do not get on board with the program they are eschewed with few exceptions.

Does this really represent benevolent treatment to you?

Most of the signatures on both manifestos are from Professors, leaders of Academia that set the tone for higher education.

I encourage you once again to read the document... does it sound like it really tolerates those minds it has already said are... un"reasonable"?

There is no equanimity there, it is expressed language full of disdain that borders on abusive.

Please take off your Humanist rose colored glasses for just a moment and read the material objectively.

You have read my writings where I chastise the faith community for ill behavior, I know we can be a bunch of knuckleheads and you know I don't play favorites.

If you cannot see the philosophy of disdain these are advocating in regard to how the faith-ing populace are to be regarded... then you should probably read it again.

Their language denigrates repeatedly, the mental worthiness of those who hold to traditional expressions of faith.


Chasuk 6 years ago

I agree with you and disagree with you.

I now understand your concerns about Humanist Manifesto II.

You read it thusly:

"We reject all irrationality -- particulary religion, and anything that functions like it -- but we are prevented from acting actively against it by our ostensible commitment to liberty and freedom. Instead, we hope that our own enlightening influence will cause these repugnant ideologies to diminish and eventually vanish of their own accord, but acknowledge that sometimes hard choices need to be made, so our covert and ultimately overt assistance may be required."

That isn't an incorrect reading.

I disagree wih you as to focus. I do believe that religion, and anything that functions like it -- zealotry, to use my own label -- is collectively a destructive evil. I do hope that it will diminish and eventually expire, through a slow process of enlightenment.

I believe that if bloodshed occurs, it will be the fault of zealotry, not of secular humanism.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

Your hopeful outlook does you justice.

I believe peace and fairness will come and soon... we just see it happening quite differently.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

I wonder what evil is in the 6 primary beliefs of Humanist Manifesto III? What can be such a threat to True Believers....

The six primary Manifesto beliefs:

1) Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

(That's the scientific method, isn't it? Darwin-type stuff?)

2) Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. (Godless heathens! I knew it!)

3) Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (Pure ATHEISM. NONBELIEVERISM. VOTEDEMOCRATISM. IVOTEDFOROBAMAISM.)

4) Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. (Service...they want service men. And service men are.....soldiers. They want an army! An army to enforce their humane ideals by eradication! See, it all fits together like pieces of a gigantic Humanistic puzzle!)

5) Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. (SOCIAL? SOCIALISM?)

6) Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. (COMMIES! I KNEW IT!)

Fundamentalist to salesgirl: I'll take the red tinfoil hat, please, the one with the crucifix on top, size small.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 AKA...

I've read some of your Hubs, if you come over here and want your stuff to be read remember to keep it "G" rated or it will be removed.

Thanks for your contribution.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

CoauthorU,

It is not my intention to ruin someone else's good time. Censor me. Bar me. No problem. No offense taken.

You (assuming the plural?), on the other hand, are always welcome to post on my hubs. You will not be censored. You will not be barred.

Life is too short for banality.


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

AKA your contributions are encouraged as long as they don't become profane or abusive for the sake of venting.

I can certainly accept the declarations that we Christians can be idiotic in so many words as long as is not simply Christian bashing for the sake of grins and giggles.

As much as that could be considered solid entertainment for many, its productivity is questionable.

Insults for the sake of being insulting is not what I think you are about, but then I have been wrong many times.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

CoauthorU,

(Insults for the sake of being insulting is not what I think you are about)

I do not have an agenda to bash anyone or any group - I only strike when something offends me or I find it too silly to ignore.

My profile was chosen for a reason: Do I really look like a man with a plan, Harvey?


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 AKA again...

Sooooo... What about this Hub did you find offensive or silly? I have given reference to Manifestos I & II on my Hubs and have made little or no mention of III anywhere but on...

http://hubpages.com/@wyanjen 's "The four-way-stop: a perfect example of Humanism". Where I replied about her comment concerning the Humanist Manifesto III as follows...

"As for the Humanist Manifesto III... if there is a finished and signed Manifesto III, I would very much like to read it. The last understanding I had of the effort was that it was a work in progress, and as long as it has that status I shall not waste my time, for it is way tooooo "organic" to be considered by me as a legitimate document as it may be changed on a "convenient" whim.

Manifestos I, & II on the other hand, if read as if you were a believer, are hard to consider them as being as benevolent toward faith as you proclaim "III" to be."

So I don't think I know for certain what your offended about or what you find silly.

Your quick jab is too easy to avoid with a simple bob and no weave. I suggest a series of coherent one-two punches much like what Sugar Ray Leonard was famous for.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(What about this Hub did you find....silly?)

Don't want to spend all night on this but the two statements you put in bold from this bigger statement:

(The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.)

You tried to make it sound frightening by bolding the scare words "modified or eradicated", then argued that simply because those word choices were used the entire statement was a evil plot without filling in the balance of the statement, which showed the truly evil ideas to modify and eradicate were "bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum" and "People are more important than rules or regulations."

There's some chilling evil all right - and you are right there, stirring the pot, obfuscating the real meaning in order to propagandize your agenda, at least it seems.

And you highlighted this little jewel as if it were to be feared:

(The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives.)

I hold you accountable considering your obvious education to teach rationalism rather than encourage emotion-charged idiocy. It is you who has to know - truly know and understand - that it is ONLY the secular nature of the U.S. government that ensures religious freedom in this country - including YOUR religious freedom.

A country without a secular government is Iran. Are you really suggesting that American Fundamental Christians should be in charge, as the Mullahs of Islam are in charge of the Iran government?

If you don't understand that it is the secular government that ensures your freedom to worship as you chose and you still believe that this should be a Christian Nation with a Christian Government then you deserve ridicule, as you are no different than the Mullah leaders of Islam who also believe religions should drive government and who also happen to believe that their religion is the only one that is right.

See, I used to ignore this kind of 700 Club Urban Mythology, but since the Christian Right became a political force, when they can actually have some influence over my life and the outcomes of elections, I stopped playing nice and started calling them out for their misrepresentations.

Now, if you are simply trying to warn your flock in order to have them go to church and pray, I apologize - but if you are trying to frighten in order to further a political/religious agenda, game on.

Fair enough?


CoauthorU profile image

CoauthorU 6 years ago from Inland Northwest, USA Author

2 AKA...

Thanks for your reply, very to the point, much appreciated.

Below are links to other Hubs that kind of explains... me, but I would also recommend reading the end of - this Hub - before it goes into our comments.

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Why-I-Do-S...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-Are-Y...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Bugs-by-Me

If you do not wish to read any of my other Hubs let me just say this to your assertion...

Obviously you were offended and did not find my offering silly, at least not in the "funny" use of the word. You found what I wrote, if silly, bordering on the dangerous side of silly.

My apologies are as follows...

My intent is not to rabble rouse, nor generate or advocate hatred of any kind.

It is not to generate fear in a flock (that I do not have), or to drive attendance for any congregation (my attendance is spotty at best).

My intention is to place the information that I understand may earmark some foundations that have been laid for holocaust, into the market place of ideas, as some type of indicator. A manner of declaration of what I think is probable... why?

So that if and when it does come to pass, some, were informed. And that tidbit of information along with tidbits from others, will hopefully trigger within them their Moed, their appointed time of repentance and conversion.

I believe there are a few things that could facilitate this occurrence. Among those are...

Preparation of information (of which I, among others, am engaged).

Events (that coincide with said information) coming to pass that speak to the heart of those who are the remnant Elect. These things can include "the catching away (rapture) of the church", and the worldwide persecution of those that remain. And the buying and selling of food or other necessities being limited to those who have received the mark. These are just a fraction of the examples to look for.

I am not trying to encourage rebellion nor the stalling of these events by a fear induced revival. I believe these events will happen soon and in my lifetime, and I believe they are unavoidable.

I do advocate prayer, I do advocate a compassionate and bold witness especially to those that are persecuting the believer, after all Saul the persecutor became Paul the Apostle.

As touching your comment about a secular government..?

Nonsense.

There are protections in place that provide for the secular perspective to be just as unharmed and harmless, as a believing perspective, but I think these safeguards are rapidly being removed and soon will favor only the secularists.

Very soon in this country, we will be held to many standards for what we can believe, based on a non-believing definition and enforcement.

We will be told what is acceptable behavior for believers in the global community and their will be heavy penalties for violators of these dictates.

No I do not recommend violence, I do recommend non-violent civil disobedience to any violation of a person's civil rights.

And that is for all people, the believers of any faith including atheism [it is a faith you know], Christianity Islam, Buddhism, Secularism, whatever.

I believe that Governance, locally or globally, is hoping to keep as much hatred, sect against sect, political party against political party, societal segment against segment as possible. It suits their ends to do so. Hatred is the breeding grounds for violence and death, and diminishes the already overburdened populace.

I know this is a cynical perspective, but I believe it is a true one.

Mankind in general is murderous. All of our segmented, collective history points to the fact that while we hope for peace and harmony, all of us are willing to murder one another and oppress one another to gain it.

I feel it is a shame when faith(s) do this, and I feel it is a shame when non-faiths do this. I don't believe there is any sector of society that is truly tolerant, and that is truly a shame.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working