Religious and Secular laws defined without prejudice

Which one influences the other more?

The Church Influence on the People
The Church Influence on the People | Source
The People Influencing the Church
The People Influencing the Church
When ONE stands out in a crowd
When ONE stands out in a crowd

Irrational Discrimination vs Logical Discernment

We must first understanding the difference between 'discrimination' and 'discernment'.

Knowing what 'crime against humanity' is; and what is perceived to be a 'crime against religious establishments" are two different concepts, and understanding that difference is imperative to cognitive awareness.

We tend to confuse the two when it comes to making new laws.

The latter has no legal jurisdiction and should be kept out of general public politics.

When we realize the global standing that the U.S. holds in education amongst other nations around the world, it is understandable why the mainstream citizen holds seemingly illogical ideas about many abstract concepts today.

[U.S. ranks 47th +/- in global education]

Discrimination is one of the most profoundly misused and abused concepts today.

Dictionary defines discrimination as:

  • the process by which stimuli, differing in some aspects, are responded to differently.
  • the quality or power of finely distinguishing.
  • the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. (stereotyping)
  • prejudice or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment (racial discrimination)
  • to make a difference in treatment, or favor, on a basis other than individual merit.

Discernment is one of the most elusive aspects of the human mind.

In some people it seems to be inherent from birth. In others, it seems to be missing from their personalities altogether.

Dictionary defines discernment as:

  • the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure, or abstract.
  • to detect with senses other than vision.
  • to recognize, or identify, as separate or distinct.
  • to come to know, or recognize, mentally.
  • to see or understand the difference.
  • to show insight and/or understanding.

The missing link

Abstract or critical thinking, (or rationalization) seems to be missing from even the most "educated" and/or influential people in our society today.

This "realization" is especially frightening when we see this inability to know the difference between "irrational discrimination and logical discernment" manifested in our political and religious leaders.

It is unclear whether this "lacking" is actually present, or deliberately interjected by politicians to {as the politicians so aptly describe it } "rile up the bases" ; or to incite personal reactions to turn one political party against the other.

''Ignorance begets intolerance, intolerance begets hatred, and together they beget violence and wars''. (quote by d.william)

And as has been stated many times "there is not profit in peace".

Man's basic motivation

As long as 'greed' is our basic motivation in life, these negative, self serving aspects of human nature will continue to be cultivated, revered, nurtured and practiced - for profit and for control over others.

I recently attempted to have an intelligent conversation with two commenters on one of my recent articles. Their inability to grasp the subtle differences between 'irrational discrimination' and 'logical discernment' greatly disturbed, and perplexed, me for a short period of time.

After doing some inner self examination to decide if it was my shortcomings or theirs, i came to the realization that there are some people who will never be able to understand those subtle difference.

It is beyond my capabilities to teach people abstract thinking in metaphorical terms.

If a person does not possess these skills of logical discernment (logical thinking - common sense - rationalization) by the time they reach adulthood there can be NO "logical discussions" to overcome this shortcoming.

Our education system does not teach, or even sufficiently discuss, the realm of critical thinking in our current educational institutions. Especially in the lower grades when these conceptual teachings are the most critical.

Conservatives have gone so far as even stating that "critical thinking" should not be taught in school.

Their rationale being that when people learn how to use common sense and rationalization they tend to turn away from conservative ideas and religious teachings. Duh!!

This concept is learned, as is hatred, intolerance and bigotry. Whether this lacking is currently unintentional, or not, is debatable, but noteworthy as a problematic societal shortcoming.

If the laws change in this country banning the teaching of critical thinking, it will no longer be debatable as to whether this lacking is "intentional" or "unintentional".

The transition between ignorance and enlightenment is a long and arduous journey for adults steeped in the ignorance of illogical discrimination, but not impossible.

The desire to know and learn the truth must be present, as is true with all other ingrained anti social behaviors.

''Cults'' of the world

Last night "Link T.V." had a segment on Scientology; and interestingly enough reached the conclusion that it was indeed a "cult ". {And therefore merits another - "Duh" !!}

There is not one single religion that is not a "cult".

Arguments justifying religion as a useful and valid entity include such points as:

  • "more than 90% of the people in the world believe in it as a valid and useful institution of truth, therefore it must be".
  • And that statement in itself cannot be more untrue and misleading.

Arguments against religion as a useful and valid entity include such points as:

  • "at one time 100% of the people in the world believed that the world was flat, the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around it, ...etc..."

Do you see the subtle complex, abstract, and logical discernment here?

Self imposed auto conversion

more commonly known as ''deprogramming''.

The following is my condensed version of "auto-conversion" from illogical discrimination to logical discernment using self actualization (examination) as the catalyst.

Note the progressive transitional steps used to reach the logical conclusion>

1. I was taught that: (example: my religion is the only true path to salvation) or (add anything you want to examine here).

  • I believe what i was taught. Therefore it must be true.

2. I was taught that: (continue the the add-on example from above and the rest of this exercise.

  • I question its validity and relevance. Therefore i question this learned concept.

3. I was taught that: (my religion is...............

  • Science, logic, common sense, rationalization - has proven it wrong. Therefore the logical conclusion is that it is false.

4. I was taught this one falsehood as truth. I must re-evaluate other 'learned' concepts.

  • Therefore other information must be examined for validity and logic.

5. I was taught that (my religion is.................)

  • Reasoning tells me it is illogical. Therefore i must make an intelligent informed decision to either believe what i was taught, or my own logical common sense deductions.

This is a simple "de-programming" technique. Common sense generally prevails.

Of course it is more complex than this condensed version because most people have a true inner struggle, with knowing that what they have believed, (or done in the name of those beliefs), have actually caused harm to other human beings who did not (and do not) deserve those attacks on them.

Ask your Gods, (or your higher power), for forgiveness; make a resolution to not continue to harm others for any reason; and your healing (deprogramming) has begun.

God's will??

Life can truly be uncomplicated, easy, and enjoyable, if we just learn to accept things for what they are:

  • ''God's will'' - not man's interpretation of what God's will is.

The discussion that brought about this hub was in response to comments on the concept that:

  • illogical discrimination by the majority against a minority (for any reason) is wrong.
  • The opposing argument was that:- murderers (and other criminals) are minorities being discriminated against; thereby making the first statement invalid.

This is where the subtleties of discrimination versus discernment need to be used:

1. denying the basic legal right for same sex marriages by the majority is ''illogical discrimination''

  • (the subject of the debate is that the majority does not have the right to deny basic human rights from any minority group)

2. denying murderers (and other criminals) the right to continue to harm others is ''logical discernment''.

  • Murder (crimes against humanity) and denying same sex marriages have nothing in common). Thereby negating this as an argument.

3. anything else in 'moral judgments' is immaterial, illogical, and irrelevant.

  • Except in the minds of those who persist in judging others without any rational justification - other than their ill conceived beliefs that 'moral sins' against church beliefs, are equal in status to harmful crimes against other humans, or against humanity itself (whether that be the murder of one individual and/or genocide).

by d.william 02/19/2012

Discrimination Destroys Everyone

More by this Author


Comments 28 comments

maxoxam41 profile image

maxoxam41 4 years ago from USA

Why should we teach critical thinking? It shall be a natural and logical progress, it shall be the answer to one's constant curiosity! With the amount of information that we absorb daily, it is inconceivable for me not to develop a critical thinking. People who don't are mainly not interested in searching the truth, that is the final objective.

To develop a critical thinking, shouldn't we start by thinking first?


always exploring profile image

always exploring 4 years ago from Southern Illinois

Thank's for another great hub. I fully agree. Discrimination, prejudice and hate are all alive and flourishing. If people will stop teaching it to their children, maybe it will end someday....


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@maxoxam41

Thank you for being first to read and comment. That is exactly my point: those who do not possess the ability to use critical thinking DO NOT want to change, as they think they have all the answers to all the world's problems already. And that smug attitude is a courteously of their up bringing by closed and narrow minded religions and uneducated supremacists.

This is the whole point of the current neo conservative agenda to dumb down America. The greatest threat to their existence is education AND those terrible abstract ideas of equality and human dignity.


voyce 4 years ago

Great post!


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@alwaysexploring

Thanks for your support. I am hopeful for the future, as is evidenced by 2 more states voting to legalize same sex marriages (a small step in the right direction). Of course there is also New Jersey. Another country unto itself with its own obese and disgusting tyrant for governor. This state just voted to legalize same sex marriages, and this ignorant fat and disgusting individual vetoed it instead of signing it. It really shocks me at the audacity of how these neo fascists can unilaterally override the will of the people, based on their own individual ignorance.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@voyce

Thanks for reading and taking time to post a comment. It is appreciated.


noturningback profile image

noturningback 4 years ago from Edgewater, MD. USA

By critical thinking and without looking it up in the dictionary, I believe that to mean we should be critical of all thinking and in a sense evolving to a higher thought and those thoughts, will in turn and perhaps alter our current perceptions.

Therefore, it would seem to me, that what I am reading from you and your hub, is that we only have a basic understanding of what we have been taught, that we have learned from others, until such a point in time that we displaced those thoughts with thoughts/opinions we have developed on our own.

Whether we discriminate or discern is an opinion that we have and though others may have influenced our thoughts, we, as indiduals, are still the ones who formulate and live by and in those thoughts.

In response to your suggestion that opposition to gay marriage is based solely on discrimination. I strongly disagree, I had been exposed to others who were homosexuals in the military and they had lied in order to enlist.

They hid their sexual orientations, until they met with a certain naïve individual, namely myself, to whom they advanced upon, I became absolutely offended by their advances and even though I can tolerate differences of most any nature, to have another literally thrust their beliefs or lifestyles on another is absolutely unacceptable.

Therein lies my opinion on the matter and if that seems discriminatory to you, I can't offer any other choice in the matter of same-sex marriage, than it is an un-natural thing and my not being exposed to any such thing prior, I can only conclude that I formulated this of my own accord and without any teaching prior.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

noturningback:

Thank you so much for reading and commenting. You are absolutely right about the basic intent of this article.

I am sorry that you had a negative experience with a member of the gay community, but judging all members of any group, community, etc..by the actions of one or two individuals is a perfect example of the gist of this hub in regards to illogical discrimination versus logical discernment.

But, there are a couple of points that you must consider before condemning all gay people.

1. This experience will make you better realize how a woman feels when they are approached by an insensitive heterosexual male who thinks they can seduce all women.

2. Gay people WILL approach another person who shows outward signs of either being gay themselves, or gay friendly, or at least tolerant. This is jokingly referred to as having "gaydar" - you know, like how bats maneuver by radar.

3. Men in the military who approach female counterparts are doing the exact same thing to those women that the gay person (s) did to you. We must learn to accept life's diversities, speak your mind politely when you rebuke advances, and move on with your life. If women took to heart every inappropriate advance by hetero men, there would be very few relationships founded between the sexes.

4. gay people are like their hetero counterparts in that their need for acceptance sometimes overrides their sense of logical discretion.

5. Declaring same sex marriage as unnatural because one believes that marriage is strictly a venue for procreation is erroneous in itself. If this were true, then there would be a test prior to opposite sex marriages to predetermine if they are capable of conceiving; and if not, be denied the right to marry.

6. Denying same sex marriage because one believes that the only form of 'love' that is valid is between man/woman; which, is of course, in itself erroneous.

7. As i stated above, marriage is just a legality that binds two people together financially, spiritually and offers a committal between two 'people' of fidelity, trust, and personal commitment to each other.

8. Yes, unfortunately, the majority of gay people (both male and female) MUST 'lie' to survive in a world of ignorant hatred and violence perpetuated by the religious community against them.

9. the concepts of natural and unnatural are conceptual at best. As we all know, there are many deviations (not a bad thing) from the "average" person, but this does not make that deviation unnatural. Nature provides for its own protection, and when one species overpopulates itself to the detriment of other species (as the over population of humans is doing today) nature will always find a means to counterbalance until that symbiotic state between the fragile planet and the life forms living on it, is again attained (that balance that insures peaceful coexistence between the planet and its inhabitants).

We must trust in our Creator to decide what is right and what is wrong, not the interpretations of humans who judge one another unjustly. Despite the critics, haters, and ignorant people, homosexuality is NOT a choice that any individual makes as a lifestyle. Your may want to read my article entitled: dwilliam.hubpages.com/Are-People-Born-Gay?. This will explain it more aptly. You cannot disregard science over fantasy as most religions would have you do.

If you military experience has caused you any distress in any shape or form, it is not shameful, or unmanly, to get some professional help (counseling). If ANY problem goes unchecked, or untreated, it can manifest itself years later in negative behaviors that can jeopardize your personal mental and/or physical health.

God bless you and all the other military personel that give so much of themselves for the safety and freedom we all share as American citizens.


Pcunix profile image

Pcunix 4 years ago from SE MA

OK. I simply don't understand why you don't apply critical thinking to your own belief in some "god" whose will is - according to you - what I should be concerned about?


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@pcunix

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I am not quite sure what you are asking. ? My statement about God's will is quite clear:

"Life can truly be uncomplicated, easy, and enjoyable, if we just learn to accept things for what they are: God's will - not man's interpretation of what God's will is."

This was referencing the acceptance of people born to be what, and who, we are. Whether Short, tall, color of skin, physical deformities, etc.. (and this also includes genders - male, female, hermaphrodite and everyone in between). What we are born to be, is God's will, not to judged, criticized, made fun of, bullied, tortured and/or killed for any of these differences.

This is assuming one believes in there being a Creator (God), rather than not.

Personally, even though i have nothing but disdain for the evils of organized religions, i certainly have a belief in a higher power that was behind the creations of the physical world. I am extremely spiritual and not at all religious. As you know the two are NOT synonymous.

If this does not clarify your question, you will have to be more specific.


Pcunix profile image

Pcunix 4 years ago from SE MA

Never mind. You can't see the disconnect between the questions you suggest others ask themselves and your own unwillingness to do so, can you?


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@pcunix

Be more specific. I have no idea what your are referring to.


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

You wrote "It is unclear whether this [discrimination or discernment] is lacking..." that I wish to respond to. The idea of uniting a less educated population (diminished for political gain) is one of the oldest and most familiar ways to alter a political system and turn a population against a "class" or "religious" group (on the pretext of wealth) and the individual. The National Socialist Party - immediately after World War I - implemented such processes to keep themselves in power. Also, the idea of uniting the lowest common denominator against a "class" or "religion" succeeds when either a particular class is "wealthy" because human beings like to shroud their prejudices from even themselves. In short, what you define as "discrimination" can also be called "reverse discrimination" when the disdain for a particular "group" or "class" is distinguished by “class” or “group”. In short, that there is a "collectivizing" in our society and a divide between persons who want government control and those that do not is an old symptom that always preceded either war or an attack from the outside, one that is surely being repeated.

In the words of F.A. Hayek who wrote about this extensively, what the socialist is aiming for usually creates more animosity (evidencing a lack of discernment), so I wish to quote it here because so often history repeats itself.

This remains true even though many liberal socialists are guided in their endeavors by the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualistic system, and by transferring this power to society, they can thereby extinguish power. What all those who argue in this manner overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in the service of a single plan, it is not merely transferred but infinitely heightened; that, by uniting in the hands of some single body power formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created infinitely greater than any that existed before, so much more far-reaching as almost to be different in kind. It is entirely fallacious when it is sometimes argued that the great power exercised by a central planning board would be “no greater than the power collectively exercised by private boards of directors.” There is, in a competitive society, nobody who can exercise even a fraction of the power which a socialist planning board would possess, and if nobody can consciously use the power, it is just an abuse of words to assert that it rests with all the capitalists put together.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

Thank you for reading and offering such a profound commentary.

Not being familiar with the writings of F.A. Hayek, i cannot make a logical discernment as to your reasons for quoting anything from his works. It would be akin to taking one word out of an article and criticizing the entire concept of that article based on that particular word that one reader finds offensive, as is the case in many instances here on Hub Pages. When one tries to make a point based on a single obscure word or concept rather than the writings in their entirety, discussion is usually futile.


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

I was referring to your statement "It is unclear whether this "lacking" [irrational discrimination and discernment] is actually present, or deliberately ignored to {as the politicians so aptly it } "rile up the bases". Ignorance begets intolerance, intolerance begets hatred, and together they beget violence and wars." And your statement,

"As i have stated many times "there is not profit in peace". As long as greed is our basic motivation in life, these negative, self serving aspects of human nature will continue to be cultivated, revered, nurtured and practiced - for profit.

I wrote the Hayek comment to demonstrate that it is not an accident of discernment that is "merely lacking" [irrational discrimination and discernment], it is DELIBERATE and planned to sway a people FOR POWER'S SAKE, not profit's sake. It is by design this is being done. The same thing was done - as Hayek pointed out but not quoted in full here - with the National Socialist Party before Hitler's reign. So it is not doubtful as to what the intention is. Your whole writing contradicts itself because the "collectivizing" of people together is deliberately being orchestrated, not for "profit" but for control, in the same way the National Socialist Party worked it. To succeed, a people must be convinced of an "enemy." Today that enemy is being conveyed as the Christian. In World War II Germany it was the Jewish people. To get people to hate the Christian is to convince the uneducated that it is the Christian that is the whole problem. The next phase then begins with taking individual liberty away by convincing a people how UNFAIR it all is and how evil it all is so power can become more centralized without opposition. The liberal party who wants to control all of life must convince a people of an evil if it is to succeed in its endeavors so it can plan and give power to only a few. So from what you write, it appears that you believe that if we take power away from the individual - his or her own discernment (which is individuality) then everything would be perfect - if only we all thought the same. While it seems so simple an idea, in reality, when put into practice, it creates more violence, more blood shed, more prejudice and contempt than profit can do in a lifetime. Everyone is in a herd, a group, or party. Stop the grouping and let the power remain with the individual. Can the individual alone start a war? No. LIkewise, in economics, when politics removes power from the people and centralizes it under government control, it is here we will see a repeat of the German society Hayek wrote about over 60 years ago.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

Thanks again for your input. In your attempts to prove a point, and critique my article, you are trying to make an argument that profits and power are separate and apart from the current political intentions, but they are not separable in this article.

As my assertions are that the powers that be (corporate america, the 1% who control all the wealth, and the politicians who pander to them) have the combination of greed, profits, and control as their main goals.

Christianity (as well as all other organized religions) is being used as a pawn to achieve these goals by using them to divide the population through the pettiness of moral arguments that only distract from those real intents.

References to socialism and its implications in our society has little, if any relevance in the reality of things. A healthy, working society actually needs some forms of socialism to survive.

The radical right conservatives argue that liberal attitudes and entitlement programs are examples of how this government is turning into a socialistic government, when in fact this argument has little merit at all.

Liberalism and progressiveness has nothing to do with your perceived attempts to control the lives of others. When in fact it is the repressive organized religions who have that desire as part of their core beliefs.

There is certainly nothing evil about having the desire to live one's life with liberty, freedom, and the right to pursue ones own happiness, and move forward (progress) into a future that is conducive to preserving this beautiful planet for future generations to enjoy, get away from exploiting the earth to its inevitable destruction by raping it of all natural resources instead of moving to renewable energy sources (sun, wind, methane gas [from excessive garbage], and moving toward a world in which everyone has the same opportunities for employment, housing, safe water to drink, safe food supplies, etc.., etc...) . These concepts are not evil they are humanitarian in nature.

Organized religions are not the enemy per se, but rather those who exploit them for personal gains are. Not everyone wants to listen to the preachings of ancient threats of gloom and doom, or be subservient to leaders who rule with fear and guilt over people.

Religions are a private matter and have no place in society when they try to force themselves onto every one around them.

This world is not a Christian world, neither is this country. Nor is it a world belonging to any other cult that would like to take control over all there is.

The current political maneuvering to make this great country, one run by corporate america, radical religion, and the wealthy elite is more frightening than liberal attitudes, progression, and democracy.

When repression in this country is complete for everyone (and it will be) then there will be an uprising in this country just as there is in the middle east, and for the same reasons.


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

You're hoodwinked by the left. If Christianity were at the root of all the greed as you've been brainwashed to believe, there would not have been any rise of any social class or other religion in the U.S. at all. Christianity is not an organized religion; it is a philosophy for the individual. On the contrary, "religion" is "herdlike" or "collective" and is precisely the precepts of the left that has indoctrinated your thoughts. You have a "religiously-shaped" mind. There is no "repression" of peoples except by the left. LIke Mao said, "If a political party wants to succeed, you have to start with the young." Your're completely hoodwinked. There are no "moral" arguments made by Chrisitianity. None. If that were true, no social changes would have occurred. ASpects of capitalism, derived from individualism, have always upheld a person's right to "test the fire" of their own volition. It was the liberals that made the experience "extroverted" and among the masses to gain power. Read my hub http://hubpages.com/politics/The-Collective-Hate-o...


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

YOU are hoodwinked by the right.

Again thanks for your thoughts. I see that it is fruitless to discuss this any further with you. You are the typical GOP tea party member that does not understand how to communicate without pointing fingers, attempting to demean, and misinterpret what you read.

It is amusing however, that what you say about the liberals, they say the same things about the conservatives.

I was brought up in the Roman Catholic church, and am currently a registered republican, so your sarcasm is wasted in trying to tie me to either party, as i find them both distasteful, as well as those who follow either blindly.

One must learn to explore both views before making such comments as you are making. You certainly portray the perfect example of irrational discrimination (and) illogical discernment that i refer to in this hub. I think your comments will make my hub more credible. Thanks for you input.


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

Your hate of Christianity and your pointing fingers is demeaning, not what I wrote. That we have lived over 200 years in this country and over 2000 years of Western Civilization to arrive at a point in this day where the "individual" does not matter anymore is not because all of sudden this country became blessed with a left wing group theology that reigns supreme to all thought since the beginning of time. It is the opposite. The right wants less government and less intrusion in our lives. The left wants to dissolve the individual and makes us live under political control. If policies are shaped the way the left wants today, there would not have been an ability to clothe, house and employ so many people like there was before 2008. It is obvious their policies do not employ people, but rather base employment on conformance to policy. One can see the "collective" effect, that desire to be "accepted" that is intrinsic to left wing policy, completely contrary to liberal policy of the past that stood for individual liberty. You are young, I can tell. When I say "hoodwinked" it is because what the liberals say you believe without examination. I worked with them and I know them well. I am a lot older than you. What they say with their lips is not what they feel with their heart. Their judgmentalness makes the church lady look like a libertine. Liberals are very intolerant and discriminate on anyone who does not want to conform to their morality. They want control, control, control. Your hate of Christianity comes from within yourself. Christianity is frankly libertarian. Its fundamental philosophy is "do anything you want but don't hurt others or break any laws." This is far more "liberal" than the left whose philosophy says to all, "If you do not think like us you are prejudice," derived from "guilt" than actual condemnation that is real.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

Your comments amaze and astonish me. They are exactly the opposite of reality, logic, and common sense, and if you truly believe what you are saying we are in big trouble.

This kind of attitude is exactly why there will never be any middle ground reached in our lifetime.

You say i hate christians? I see much hate coming from you toward those who you think do not believe as you do.

I do not hate christians, or anyone else. I do, however, have much disdain for ignorance, and irrational thought patterns that are borne out of conservative madness.

As i stated , what you say about the liberals is exactly what is being said about the conservatives. You obviously get your news from the tunnel vision of Fox network, or from Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, none of which provide or possess much in the way of intelligent news reporting.

I, on the other hand, view all news stations from Fox news to MSNBC and the PBS and BBC networks. I also view many congressional debates and find that the majority of biases toward minorities such as women, hispanics, blacks and gays come from the religious right, not the progressive left. The born again cult, the mormon cult, evangelical cult, and the christian cult are all promoting those hateful and intolerant behaviors seen today in our politics today.


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

Never mind. What the commentator said above is correct: You contradict what you yourself lay out to be discrimination; and thus contradict yourself. If you cannot see it, it is pointless.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

Wow! It appears we are both the same after all, just viewing the world, life, religion and politics from opposite ends of the spectrum. It has been interesting hearing from you.

With you, of course, representing the righteous, and me representing the antagonistic evil in the world. (your opinion - not mine)

So, we can simply agree to disagree without concession - just like Washington - perhaps we both should have been members of congress. We would fit right in, in an atmosphere of non compromise where we continue to create a world of stagnation in lieu of progression and betterment for all of mankind.


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

I do not regard you as representative of "antagonistic evil" at all. You simply do not see how you contradict yourself.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

Thanks, i will try to correct this shortcoming.

The contradictions that your speak of are simply personal conjectures in the reader's own perceptions of the words they read.

I cannot change that fact, because i cannot change how people view the world around them and why we choose to judge others based solely on the fact that not everyone thinks alike, and values are different for each of us.

Different points of view, and diversity, is to be appreciated not attacked because one disagrees with them...

Stating these disagreements without judgmentalistic attacks are the backbone of intelligent debates. I find that those with staunch religiously, and politically, ingrained belief systems tend to attack rather than discuss (generally speaking).


LilMizMargi 4 years ago

Oh D.William.........like all liberals you fall back onto the usually and already expected claims of attack. So passe!


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

LilMizMargi

I usually say thank you for reading and commenting, but in this case i am at a loss as to what you are talking about as i suspect y0u are unaware of what you are talking about as well.

Attacking me for stating facts is hardly a "liberal" antic at all. If you would care to clarify your attempts at sarcasm, i would be happy to address them with you.

If you are one of those who believe everything you read in your bible, do not bother to respond with any quotes that matter only to you and your misguided beliefs.

If you have the capacity to learn and accept the truth you might find my article helpful to your enlightenment:

http://hubpages.com/politics/When-did-LIBERAL-beco...


cynthtggt profile image

cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

D. William: You write:

Thanks, i will try to correct this shortcoming.

The contradictions that your speak of are simply personal conjectures in the reader's own perceptions of the words they read.

I cannot change that fact, because i cannot change how people view the world around them and why we choose to judge others based solely on the fact that not everyone thinks alike, and values are different for each of us.

Different points of view, and diversity, is to be appreciated not attacked because one disagrees with them...

Stating these disagreements without judgmentalistic attacks are the backbone of intelligent debates. I find that those with staunch religiously, and politically, ingrained belief systems tend to attack rather than discuss (generally speaking).

But you yourself do EVERYTHING you laud against.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@cynthtggt

Not so. Your interpretation of those words i wrote are your own take on them, not necessarily what i wrote, said, or meant.

Because they do not coincide with your way of thinking as you read them and glean your own meanings, does not make them mean anything more than what i wrote.

If i had not put the dictionary meanings in this article to try an avoid such misunderstandings, there would be some consideration for altering my points of view, or at least clarifying them better. Once the definitions are made available, there is little room for interpretation by anyone else. You either have to accept the article based on the explanations or not, that is your prerogative.

If you could be more precise which part of this article you take umbrage to, perhaps i can be better equipped to answer your concerns. If you find the whole article distasteful, there is little i can do to correct that, except to suggest you tell your friends to read it.

If they have the capacity to know the difference between discrimination and discernment, maybe they can help you overcome your own doubt in hearing things you do not want to hear or face; cannot understand; or that might cause you conjecture about your own belief systems.

There is nothing 'hidden", sinister, or implied here that can not be corroborated. There is nothing in this article that even suggests i "hate Christians", my disdain is for ALL religious cults (including Christianity), and that they are all superfluous to living a happy, healthy, and productive life without fear or guilt imposed by those very entities that the majority believes to be truth.

Believing things you are taught are truths, do not make them so, just because that is what you were told to believe, or face dire consequences for not.

    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