There are three things desperately needed (from the masses) by the Republicans and Democrats to maintain control.

  • Votes
  • Money
  • People

The fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to provide all three is to engage the following groups:

  • Religious Organizations
  • Anti-Religious Organizations

These groups already have the people, money, and bodies on the ground to carry out pre-formatted, canned agendas. Both sides are locked into a fight designed by political agencies with no viable way of obtaining the end goals of either side.

This is to say that these groups don’t control the “War” but they do fight all the “Battles”.

Religion is the secret fuel of embedded party sustainability. It’s the key reason a third party can’t obtain and maintain power. It’s also the key reason both parties have extreme left or right wings. Each designed to connect to religion or oppose it.

This brings us to the three products that embedded parties provide back to religious or anti-religious groups.

  • Hope — via promises
  • Animosity — via rhetoric
  • Division — via fear

They rely on the fact that human life is short. So, each generation believes it’s fighting the good fight but in fact, all generations are fighting the same fights that past generations have fought before. 

To do this you must believe a lie that rests at the root of both extremes:

  • The first lie is that non-believers can be convinced to accept God simply by inspiring them through Bible verses and heartfelt stories.
  • The second lie is that believers can be reasoned into not believing if only you provide enough hard logic, knowledge and scientific fact.

The truth is there is no standard for understanding. Over time both sides will regularly gain or lose subscribers to their ideology. The variables that motivate individuals to make decisions outnumber the stars in space. The only truth is that there will always be opposing sides.

The only solution is to “Learn How To Compromise”.

If your political leaders are not trying to compromise (On All Levels) then they are, by definition, trying to enslave your way of life.

View All 10 Here

Join the conversation! 22 Comments

  1. People tend to forget that the individual is the smallest yet most significant state. Lose the individual, everything else follows.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
  2. How would we reach a compromise on issues (like abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc.) where the disagreement stems from conflicting moral values?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    • This is my stab at it:

      The Right would need to concede the following:

      o Prevention
       Sex education would need to be mandatory in school, (limited to human reproduction, child care, and disease transference only). Zero religious or cultural instruction.
       Contraceptives would need to be fully accepted and readily available to anyone at zero cost.
      o Rape would have to be an acceptable reason for an abortion.
      o Any health threat to the life of the mother would have to be an acceptable reason for an abortion.
      o Pregnancy tests would need to be fully accepted and readily available to anyone at zero cost.
      o Self-termination drugs would need to be fully accepted and available to anyone.
      o Doctor assisted abortion would need to be fully accepted up to the first 10 weeks.

      The Left would need to concede the following:

      o Prevention
       Abstinence education would need to be mandatory in school, (limited to self-control, long-term goals, and financial responsibility only). Zero gender or sexual instruction.
      o Embryo rights after day 70
      o Fines or jail time for abortions past day 70 (limited to the medical community only not the mother) Those who perform the abortion would be held liable.
      o An end to governmental child welfare, parental rights are forfeited if they are not financially able to take care of the child. Repeat offenders would be subject to legal action by the state.

      This solution is just an experiment to see what compromise would look like.

      Just a thought.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • Thanks for the response. In hindsight it appears my question might have been a bit vague. Those who are adamantly pro-life (or pro-choice) are unlikely to negotiate a compromise until you can successfully convince them to the merits of your argument. What I’m asking for is this: how will you bring the opposing parties to the table to adopt such a proposal given that anywhere from 15% to 30% (depending on the state) of the hospitals in the U.S. are run by religious organizations? And constitutional considerations aside, can you really force doctors to provide medical services that violate their moral conscience?

        Like

        Reply
        • You stated — “Those who are adamantly pro-life (or pro-choice) are unlikely to negotiate” a compromise until you can successfully convince them to the merits of your argument

          My response — This was the core of the post, if compromise is not made then perpetual conflict will continue. Compromise, by its nature, is the absence of convincing someone of your position. You accept that they are not convinced and concede valuable ground to prevent further loss.

          To put it differently: The goal is not to get people to the table, there is no agenda per say to motivate people to compromise.

          I’m stating that there are only to options available period.

          1) Fight
          2) Compromise

          The nature of a fight is that two sides engage in battle (depleting their strength and resources) while 3rd parties watch and become stronger since they are not in the conflict. This is the nature of “Divide and Conquer”.

          The nature of a compromise is to agree to disagree (join forces and fortifying strengths) while 3rd parties watch and become weaker since they are not part of the union. This is the nature of compromise.

          So, we either choose option 1 and lose or we choose option 2 and win.

          You stated — “can you really force doctors to provide medical services that violate their moral conscience?”

          My response — Sure you can by adding laws and replacing them over time. The first generation of doctors would be an issue but the 3rd, 4th, 5th, Not So Much.

          Can you force childbirth after 70 days if the mother doesn’t want it?

          The first generation of mothers would be an issue but the 3rd, 4th, 5th, Not So Much.
          In essence prevention would take over and it would be rare anyone would let themselves get to that stage.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          • What are your thoughts on a proposal that removes state coercion?

            – There are no legal restrictions against the availability of contraceptives but paying for them remains your responsibility.

            – Women retain the right to have abortions but bear the financial responsibility of procuring them.

            – Doctors retain the right to choose whether or no they wish to perform abortions.

            – Critical life skills (social, financial, health, family planning, civics, etc.) become an integral part of the school curriculum.

            Like

            Reply
            • Here are my thoughts:

              “There are no legal restrictions against the availability of contraceptives but paying for them remains your responsibility.”

              Response:
              Should be funded as part of the national health agenda to prevent the spread of disease. Free to the public

              “Women retain the right to have abortions but bear the financial responsibility of procuring them.”

              Response:
              No restrictions placed on any women at any time. They must fund any services they need.

              “Doctors retain the right to choose whether or no they wish to perform abortions.”

              Response:
              All abortions must be completed by all Doctors (via law) no exceptions.

              No abortions to be made by anyone in the medical community past 70 days (via law) no exceptions.

              “Critical life skills (social, financial, health, family planning, civics, etc.) become an integral part of the school curriculum.”

              Response:
              No tax payer funded training for social, civic, religious, family planning etc.

              Tax payer funded training for disease prevention, reproductive process, contraceptives, abstinence, etc

              Like

              Reply
              • I don’t quite follow your logic. Doesn’t the use of force (or threat thereof) run counter to your goal of achieving a compromise. My proposal at least grants everyone the opportunity to make their own choices without undue legal interference.

                Like

                Reply
                • I’m open to any idea that works with or without laws but in the end I think you will find that both sides will fight reason without a law to back it up.

                  Some doctors will deny service.

                  Some people will not use contraceptives.

                  We still have the option to just keep going as we are. Fight without end.

                  Like

                  Reply
                  • Right. And what I’m saying is that involving the law doesn’t end the fight — it just draws another party into the fray and the initial combatants then turn their attention to stacking the judicial system in their favor.

                    Which leads us right back to square one: without willing participants there can be no compromise, And without compromise there can be no peaceful resolve.

                    So the real challenge is to increase the number of willing participants.

                    Like

                    Reply
                    • You stated –“And what I’m saying is that involving the law doesn’t end the fight”

                      My response — The law is only brought in when the fight is over to enforce agreed upon policies. Or There is always the honor system but I wouldn’t trust it.

                      I wasn’t saying pass laws and then hope for the best. They must agree first on what the compromises would be and then enforce them with laws.

                      Since no one is even close to an agreement I wouldn’t worry about laws and enforcement (to early)

                      You stated — “without willing participants there can be no compromise”

                      My response — This is obvious, but I understand what you are saying.

                      You stated — “So the real challenge is to increase the number of willing participants.”

                      My response — I disagree, the real challenge is getting both sides to give up ground and accept a compromise. Bringing more people to the table without a plan where both sides must sacrifice will not solve the problem.

                      Like

  3. “Compromise” – depends on the compromise. Legalised murder, for instance, shouldn’t be an option ever (I’m talking about abortion – although I concede that a threat to the mother’s life is a justifiable reason). Legalising abortion up to 10 weeks is simply legalised murder. Not compromise should even be considered when it comes to murder (and most conservatives are supportive of allowing abortion in the cases of rape/threat to the life of the mother, so no “compromise” necessary there).
    As for euthanasia/assisted suicide: you don’t involve the medical establishment in killing a patient. Nor should doctors/salespeople be involved with supplying the means. If someone wants to kill themself, they can already go ahead and do it through several different means. No need whatsoever to get the state and/or medical establishment involved.

    Like

    Reply
    • You stated — “most conservatives are supportive of allowing abortion in the cases of rape/threat to the life of the mother, so no “compromise” necessary there)”

      You stated — “Legalised murder, for instance, shouldn’t be an option ever”

      My response — If we are talking about America then I would say that legalized murder is a current standard. We have the death penalty, police can kill civilians, and citizens can kill other citizens. So, as you stated in your reply, “no “compromise” necessary there”. I would also state that if you say, “allowing abortion in the cases of rape” but then say, “shouldn’t be an option ever”, then there is a direct conflict of opinion within your own concept of which way to support.

      You stated — “Legalising abortion up to 10 weeks is simply legalised murder.”

      My response — I stated 10 weeks because it’s what the current, “Abortion Pill “, covers. The pill is already legal and no doctors are needed. It’s effective up to 10 weeks. So again, as you stated in your reply, “no “compromise” necessary there”.

      The compromise I’m talking about is mostly prevention and training and also the removal of doctors being able to opt out and parents not getting jail time.

      To be honest I have no position on abortion since I don’t have the ability to give birth. I just did this as a thought exercise.

      As a Christian I am fully aware that murder is fully supported in the Bible. America is also fully onboard with murder in the court system, military and civilian mainstream.

      The argument is not about murder (which clearly is supported), it’s about compromise on the abortion issue to end the conflict between parties.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      • I realised that it might look like a contradiction. It’s partly because I’m not so supportive of the rape part. Children shouldn’t be murdered for the father’s crimes. (ALTHOUGH I did read a case of a Muslim widow who was raped by her brother-in-law & became pregnant and who would have been murdered by her son – on her brother-in-law’s urging – had she not had an abortion. So, I might remain neutral on that one.)
        As for the rest: there’s a difference between murder and the death penalty.

        Like

        Reply
        • You stated— “As for the rest: there’s a difference between murder and the death penalty.”

          My responses — Not according to the Bible.

          If we are talking from a secular perspective then it can be either way.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          • The Bible recommends the death penalty – but forbids murder. Specifically, murder was punished by death.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
            • The Bible doesn’t have any reference to a death penalty. Those words are not in it.

              On top of that the Bible is clear that only God can kill or give permission to kill and anything outside of that is murder.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply
              • It doesn’t use the word “death penalty”, but it commands executions for some crimes.

                Like

                Reply
                • You stated — “It doesn’t use the word “death penalty”, but it commands executions for some crimes.”

                  My response — If god doesn’t say it then why should we?

                  Let’s just stick with what is actually written (makes it easier)

                  27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

                  Like

                  Reply
                  • “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 6:9)
                    “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
                    “Take outside the camp him who has cursed [My name]; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. … And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the LORD, he shall be put to death. Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death. … And whoever kills an animal shall restore it; but whoever kills a man shall be put to death.” … Then Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they took outside the camp him who had cursed [the name of the LORD], and stoned him with stones. So the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses. (Leviticus 24:14, 1617, 21)
                    Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died. (Numbers 15:32-36)
                    “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
                    Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Again, you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘Whoever of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, who gives any of his descendants to Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from his people, because he has given some of his descendants to Molech, to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name. And if the people of the land should in any way hide their eyes from the man, when he gives some of his descendants to Molech, and they do not kill him, then I will set My face against that man and against his family; and I will cut him off from his people, and all who prostitute themselves with him to commit harlotry with Molech … For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him. The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. The man who lies with his father’s death has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.” (much of Leviticus 20)

                    Like

                    Reply
                    • You replied with — “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 6:9)

                      My response — A fetus does not have blood until week five.

                      So given your response you either now support abortion or your original response was irrelevant.

                      It will be interesting to see which you choose.

                      Like

                    • The remaining verses you posted validated my earlier comments that the Bible supports murder. I will also restate that the government also supports murder.

                      You can even have abortion if the wife simply cheated on you… unless you think God is wrong. In the end God left it as a choice for people to make, he didn’t tell anyone they can’t do abortions. There is no “Anti abortion” commandment but there is clear biblical scripture supporting abortion.

                      27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

                      Like

I want to hear what you have to say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Category

10 Things Politics, Government Secrets, Religion Gone Wild

Tags

,