an column in the Saturday, 2002-07-06 _New York Times_, "Beliefs", by P.
Steinfels, pA13, caused me to realize that i'd Erred in my prior post. I've
CORRECTED my Error below.
1st, here is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of
America:
~"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for redress of grievances."
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>With respect to the recent United States Supreme Court decision on school
>vouchers:
>>unfortunately, there's been a lot of 'blindly'-automated
>'knee-jerk'-reaction stuff.
>>"unfortunate", because the extremely-simple 'heart' of the matter has been
>completely 'overlooked', not because it's 'invisible', but because there
>exist "prefrontal constellations" [AoK, Ap7] that have been constructed
over
>the course of long-experience, inbred within this or that
>relatively-shared-experience 'boundaries', [i.e., within this or that
>'religious' or anti-'religious, subgroup, within this or that 'legal'
>purvue, within this or that educational-magnitude group, etc. [before
>continuing, work to =see= the experientially-generated group 'boundaries',
>which, of course, include "Religious" 'boundaries'.] to the degree that
>experience within such 'boundaries' is mutually-exclusive with experience
>outside any such 'boundary', a TD E/I-'antagonism' comes to exist, in-group
>vs. out-group. the how and why of this are explained in AoK. antagonistic
>behavioral inertias; Prejudice; mutually-inverted continuua of relative
>familiarities [AoK; Ap4].]
>>the extremely-simple stuff that's been 'overlooked' [rendered-'invisible'
>through the action of experientially-generated prefrontal constallations]
is
>with respect to the possibility that this or that 'Religion' does, to a
>degree, address Truth.
>>to the degree that this or that 'Religion' does, in fact, address Truth,
>'blindly'-and-automatically invoking "separation of Church and State"
>arbitrarily attempts to, literally, out-law, Truth.
>>in this one thing, it is clearly seen that such 'blindly'-and-automatically
>invoking "separation of Church and State" inflicts great harm upon Society,
>for, to the degree that Truth cannot be addressed, Society is doomed to a
>commensurate degree of Failure-to-thrive.
>>this dilemma, itself, exists as a result of prefrontal constellations that
>have been constructed, and intergenerationally-handed-down, in a
>self-augmenting way, over the course of Human History, as a result of all
>the 'blindly'-automated 'religious'-warfare that's occurred [numerous
>examples of which exist even as i write this; 'catholicism' and
>'protestantism' in Northern Ireland, 'islamism' and 'judaism' in the Middle
>East, 'islamism' and 'hinduism' in Pakistan and India, 'communism' and
>non-Communism in China, North Korea, Cuba, 'christianism' and 'islamism' in
>many places, 'christianism' and Judaism in many places [Synagogues being
>Desicrated, etc.], 'christianism' and non-'christianism', 'islamism' and
>non-'islamism', 'judaism' and non-'judaism', in general around the globe,
>etc.].
>>'humanity' has 'learned' to 'move away from' such 'religious-conflict'
>because of "humanity's" long experience with the Devastation it
>precipitates.
>>but look at the 'result' of such 'moving away from'. it's Consequence is
>that any Truth that happens to be espoused by this or that Religion is
>'blindly'-and-automatically 'moved away from' when "separation of Church
and
>State" is invoked.
>>it's 'hilarious'. all along, the Problem has =not= been a "Religious"
thing.
>all along, the Problem has been that Truth has been 'moved away from'.
>>so, folks who profess to honor the Constitution need to take a closer look
>at what they are, in fact, doing when they 'blindly'-and-automatically
>invoke "separation of Church and State". to the degree that this or that
>Religion does, in fact, address Truth, what they're actually doing is
>arguing against any and all Freedom to 'move toward' Truth, which
>constitutes a complete 'refutation' of the First Amendment of the
>Constitution of the United States of America.
>>'support' one Amendment by 'denying' another?
CORRECTION: it's all the one Amendment, 'transformed' to coincide with the
'vested-interests' of this or that group, into "a house divided against
itself".
as Lincoln said, "Christ and reason say the same", which is the 'point' of
my prior post, quoted in its entirety in this CORRECTION.
>>all such 'blindly'-and-automatically invoking of "separation of Church and
>State" is is a cheap acquiescence to an experientially-acquired volitional
>diminishing-returns decision [AoK, Ap7] in which Truth that our Children
>=must= be Educated, that our Children and their Parents have Obligation as
>Citizens to pursue the best-possible Educational experience, etc., is
>'ignored'.
>>Truth Trumps =all= 'absence'-of-Truth, every 'time', in any circumstances,
>in every instance, and no amount of 'blindly'-automated exertion of
>behavioral 'pressure' can change such in the slightest way.
>>exertion of behavioral 'pressure', that induces 'moving away from' Truth
>'just' imposes, upon itself, the Consequences of Truth's having been 'moved
>away from'.
>>the Problem has been that ancient Prejudices have been allowed to exert
such
>behavioral 'pressures' that induce 'moving away from' Truth.
>>is it any 'wonder', then, that 'humanity' has been so Ravaged by the
>Consequences inherent in 'moving away from' Truth?
>>nope.
>>so, what's Necessary is to Honor Truth, and such is Simple.
>>that Honoring Truth seems 'Hard' is but an Illusion that's bourn in
>long-familiar stuff that's been haphazardly-accumulated while 'the beast',
>Abstract Ignorance, has been allowed its 'blindly'-automated
>Dictatorial-existence within Human nervous systems.
>>the Key to =beginning= to sort it out is, once again, to =just= See the
>Needs of the Children, and Work to Fill those Needs.
>>in terms of the Needs of the Children, the 'blindly'-automatated invoking
of
>"separation of Church and State" can be seen for what it is: Prejudice,
>working to sustain itself, 'blindly' and automatically. Prejudice that
>'blindly' and automatically presumes that "Religion" is
"mutually-exclusive"
>with Truth.
>>what if this or that "Religion" does, in fact, address Truth?
>>our Constitution, supposedly, "forces" us to 'move away from' Truth?
>>it's 'hilarious' that all the knee-jerk stuff flat-out Presumes such, yet
>also Presumes that it's 'worthy' of 'respect.
>>to Hell with Truth?
>>it's 'hilarious'.
>>note well, i =totally= support "separation of Church and State" in this
way:
>each person is to Choose for her-him- self. the Government cannot Dictate
>the subject of such Choice.
>>take the recent "Pledge of Alegience" consideration as a working example.
>and, then, consider what you 'know' of my experience as i've worked to
>explain TD E/I-minimization to you. my work is my Choice. i've met, over a
>long course of years, with almost-complete 'rejection'. that is, i'm forced
>to exist in a situation in which i am an extreme 'minority'.
NQI: there's been a =lot= that's not "rejection". since i'm quoting The
Constitution, with respect to such, i'll quote a bit more:
"5th Amendment No person shall be [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
relax, i won't pursue-it. i ~"turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, and
give 'em my shirt, too". just wanted to demonstrate how Un-American the
'borrowing' is.
>>you've experienced my 'whining' about how much it 'hurts'.
>>but, you see? what i've experienced is a result of my Choice that entails
>doing that which 'runs-contrary' to the experience of the vast majority of
>folks.
>>it's for =me= to bear the Consequences of =my= Choice to behave in a way
>that 'runs-contrary' to the experience of the majority.
>>and you'll note that, through it all, i've Guarded Free Will. that is, i
>haven't taken any position that presupposes i've any 'right' to 'dictate'
>=my= Choice upon anyone else.
>>this's =exactly= the circumstance of those who disagree on including the
>words "under God" in the Pledge of Alegience", isn't it.
>>=their= Choice 'runs-contrary' to the experience of the majority. it's for
>them to bear the Consequences of =their= Choice.
>>there's =nothing= in the Constitution of the United States of America that
>gives anyone the Right to impose their own Choice upon anyone else.
>>yet, that's what the Judge in California was trying to make the Law say.
>>doesn't compute.
>>the same Logic applies right across the board with respect to "separation
of
>Church and State", including the "school voucher" stuff.
>>in a Democracy, one respects the Rights of others.
>>such doesn't mean that one must not Choose anything that 'runs-contrary' to
>the experience of others.
>>on the contrary, Democracy =only= Works if, while Guarding the Rights of
>others, one does act-upon one's Choice.
>>sadly, many have invoked "separation of Church and State" as if it means
>that, "if your choice runs contrary to my choice, you cannot act-upon your
>choice", which is anathema to Democracy.
>>Democracy isn't for 'wimps'.
>>Democracy is Given-Birth, and Sustained, in Citizens'
>bearing-the-Consequences of their Choices.
>>when i come up against such questions, i always think of them in terms of
>Guarding Free Will.
>>to Guard Free Will doesn't mean that one must abdicate Choice, but it does
>mean that one must strive to "do unto others as one would have others do
>unto him".
>>it's as i've explained, however, the 'doing unto self and others' happens
in
>terms of TD E/I-minimization.
>>and, when one looks, one sees that the Problem isn't "separation of Church
>and State", and it isn't "Belief".
>>it is in pervasive attempts to =impose= that which corresponds to TD
>E/I-minimization within one's own nervous system upon the nervous systems
of
>others.
>>such 'says', "I will experience TD E/I(min), but you will experience TD
>E/I(up)."
>>and =that= is the wellspring of the Problem that folks're Falsely
>attributing to "Belief".
>>again, and again, and again... it's 'the beast', Abstract Ignorance, and
our
>'loving' ['moving toward'] it more than we 'love' [move toward'] Truth,
that
>wreaks Havoc in our midst, and all over the place, around the world.
>>the rest is nothing but Sophistry which 'blindly' and automatically
sustains
>the existence of 'the beast', Abstract Ignorance, within the flesh of our
>nervous systems.
>>through our own Volition, we Choose 'the beast', yet, simultaneously,
expect
>"Democracy"?
>>"yeah, sure."
>>"Democracy" is folks Lifting themselves up in-Choice, bearing the
>Consequences of their Choice, while, simultaneously Choosing to behave
>Respectfully toward all others who do exactly the Same-Stuff.
>>Sadly, there's been 'two' much of 'choice', 'two' little of
>bearing-the-Consequences, and 'two' little 'Respect' for others doing the
>same.
>>one out of three doesn't cut-it.
>>TD E/I(down) to you and yours.
>>k. p. collins
>>k. p. collins
>if anyone 'wonders', the 'double-signature' is also an inadvertant Error.
and, yes, i do wish i'd been more-gentle in the original post. perhaps it
would've been sufficient to just point-out that overly-narrow interpretation
of the First Ammendment can lead into the untennable circumstance of
'out-lawing' Truth, its pursuit, and anyAcknowledgement of it.
as things stand, such is Rampant in the United States of America. the
primary 'reason' that i've been 'rejected', even as my work has been
'borrowed', is that i Acknowledge Jesus' Priority with respect to Truth. one
can See all the "prefrontal constellation" [AoK, Ap 7] stuff 'at work' in
the way folks all over the place 'move away from', in supposed 'silence'.
but, with respect to Truth, there's no 'hiding-place', and there's no such
thing as 'silence'.
it's as the sing maker in East Hartford said: ~"Truth wins, one way or
another, sooner or later."
'move away from' Truth, only asserts the Consequences of 'moving away from'
Truth.
'everybody' 'thinks' that, when i address such matters, as with respect to
"science's" knee-jerk 'moving away from' Acknowledgement of God, i'm being
some kind of 'fool', or worse.
but all i'm doing is trying to lift folks up out of the Crushing
Consequences of 'moving away from' Truth.
it's all Sorrowfully-'hilarious'. 'science' is 'afraid' of Acknowledging God
'because', if 'science' were to do so, it's supposed, that such would
'undermine' the Credibility of Science.
take a close look at such, and one sees, in-it, the Presumption of
Omniscience.
in other words, 'science' 'denying' God, while declaring itself to be 'god'
:-)
as i've explained in the past, to me, it's a matter of Ethical
Responsibility. i cannot 'explain' how it could be so, but i can Demonstrate
that, ~1500 years before the development of the Scientific Method, Jesus
Knew how our nervous systems process information.
when i look back through History, my jaw hangs down at Seeing how Great have
been the Consequences of all the inherent 'moving away from' Truth inherent.
and, yes, i understand, a bit, about doing the best thing one can do, but
being 'Rejected'.
so, i Stand with Jesus.
be-cause Jesus Honored Truth.
k. p. collins
k. p. collins
