Inter-cultural Relations

Conflict between cultures has existed for years and the root problem of most of these conflicts has been a lack of communication on some level. What fuels these conflicts is a lack of willingness to understand one another, or to listen to one another. The worst intercultural conflicts come from one or both cultures seeing their cultural traditions and customs as paramount to the other culture and not willing to learn and respect the other group’s way of life. Israel and Palestine have a history of conflict and turmoil that is almost unparallel. Israel and the Palestinians have a deep-rooted hate and animosity for one another and their conflict has been one of a lack of understanding and respecting the other group and a claim to an area they both see as their. This intercultural conflict has been going on for almost a century and there seems to be no resolution. What causes this turmoil and where did it originate?

            The Jewish people have been in the land of Israel since the beginning of time and see the land of Israel as their home and their inheritance. This cultural identity is what makes Israel so hostile to the intrusion of any other group in what they deem as their land of inheritance. Israel was conquered by Rome thousands of years ago and renamed Palestine. Over 1,000 years ago, Palestine was conquered by the Arabs and inhabited by them. This conflict over who owns or has the right to the land of Israel is at the root of the conflict between these two groups (MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA., 1998-2008). Both of these respective groups have a biased that they belong in the land and have a right to it. This diametrically opposite perspective is one of two groups of people who see themselves as the rightful heir to the land and want the other group out. Why they both cannot live there and be peaceful is the bias these two groups have that they are the rightful heirs to the land and the inheritance that comes with it.  The lack of communication plays every role in this conflict because both are fighting and refuse to listen to one another and see each other as a group who has the right to inherit the land or to live there.

“The Zionist movement arose to restore the Jews to Israel, largely ignoring the existing Arab population. Following the Balfour Declaration in 1917, Palestine was granted to Britain as a League of Nations mandate to build a national home for the Jewish people. The Arabs resented the Jews coming in to take their land. Led by Grand Mufti Hajj Amin El Husseini, they rioted repeatedly and later revolted, creating a history of enmity between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. Britain stopped Jewish immigration to Palestine. Following the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, pressure on Britain increased to allow Jewish immigration to Palestine. In 1947, the UN partitioned the land into Arab and Jewish states. The Arabs did not accept the partition and war broke out. The Jews won a decisive victory, expanded their state, and created several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees. The Arab states refused to recognize Israel or make peace with it. Wars broke out in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, and there were many terror raids and Israeli reprisals. Each side believes different versions of the same history. Each side views the conflict as wholly the fault of the other and expects an apology” (MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA., 1998-2008).

There really does not seem to be a resolution to this conflict because both groups see it from a different perspective and hate each other. While some resolution seems to have been brought in designating land to both groups, the Palestinians were not happy with that and wanted the Jews out completely. The only action they might possibly take is listening to each other, but they see the issue from such diametrically opposite perspectives they will not even discuss the issues they both face and have with one another. This unwillingness to even communicate or listen to one another is one of the root issues of intercultural communication breakdown these two groups have.  These devices of the UN partitioning land and Britain once again allowing immigration Palestine failed due to the deep-seated hatred these two groups have towards one another. The two countries differ in their cultural pattern in many ways. One way is religion. The Jewish people see themselves as Gods chosen people and that gives them the right to the land due to several Old Testament promises of a Messiah and a 1,000-year rule on the earth in the promised land of Israel.

With rise of Zionism by Theodor Herzl, he stated, “The idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is a very old one: it is the restoration of the Jewish state." “Herzl is considered the Father of Zionism, a political movement to create a Jewish state” (, 2011). The rise of Zionism has inflamed the situation even more and made the conflict more hostile than it was before. This movement would restore Israel to the land and have no regard to the Palestinian people. To disregard one group while favoring another group is a demonstration of poor intercultural communication because it regards one group as more important than the other and their rights and needs as paramount to the other group all the while disregarding the needs and desires of the other group. This is a lack of listening and a poor demonstration of conflict resolution skills that takes good communication skills to execute. The problem is that both groups see themselves as the primary owners of the land and their cultural identity is at stake if the other group “wins” or gains the possession of the land. The other cultural barrier they have is religion. Both of these groups have diametrically opposite religions that see the other group as “infidels” or gross unbelievers and this has created a religious bigotry and hatred that I so deep rooted and has such a strong opinion behind it, they are going to find it difficult to find a resolution to their conflict.

Some key intercultural communication theorist who could be enlisted to help solve this intercultural communication problem is a difficult question to answer. Nations and world leaders have tried to solve this problem with no success. Could an intercultural communication theorist solve this issue and if so why have they not solved it. We are talking about the lives of people who matter here, women, children, and the elderly who do not deserve to be mistreated on either side. There seems to be no resolution to this issue and the intercultural conflict will continue to rage on until both of these groups see the other group as more important than the land and their religious ideologies. Until then the lack of communication and the unwillingness to resolve the intercultural conflict is going to be one they have to deal with and find a peaceful resolution for or they will continue to have war and violent conflict. If someone is able to resolve in a peaceful manner the conflict between these two groups in a way that is fair for both of them that person needs to utilize such skills to resolve one of the oldest conflicts in history to make a better and more peaceful life for all of those living in the region affected by this ancient conflict.

While intercultural communication is pivotal to relationships with those of differing cultures and religion, some conflicts are so deep and have such a long history that resolution cannot be as easy as using certain theories or skills, especially when both groups want the other extinguished. It is important to remember the most important part of intercultural communication and the skill that is paramount to all of them, respect. If more respect and concern for the individual not ideologies was shown this would have dispelled many conflicts throughout history and made the founding of many nations a different story. Remembering the person and their feelings is sometimes the best and most effective intercultural conflict method available because when one remembers how they would feel if they were the other person that would give them a glimpse into that person’s feelings and perspective. Perspective is important, not just the one perspective but also both perspectives so each respective group can understand how the other feels and where they are coming from. Without respect and a desire to understand, there is going to be conflict, turmoil, and a lack of intercultural communication.

References

MidEastWeb for Coexistence RA.. (1998-2008). In a Nutshell: Israeli Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved from http://www.mideastweb.org/nutshell.htm

(2011). Modern History of Israel. Retrieved from http://www.hello-newman.com/Israel/history.html

Buttars and his bigotry

Senator Chris Buttars is one of a kind. One of a kind bigot. He has done it again. He made some very offensive and ridiculous comments about gays. Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes." And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement.""They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of." Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes." And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement.""They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of." Are you serious? The greatest threat to America? Is this man drinking antifreeze? He made some comments a year ago as well that shows his bigotry. "This baby is black...this is a dark, ugly thing."And even though Buttars says in the documentary interview,..."the ACLU - bless their black hearts...," it’s his other comments which may get the strongest reaction. So this man is a bigot and a racist. Why is it that the right breeds hatred, intolerance and discrimination, especially the religious right? It is this kind of bigotry that makes people want nothing to do with Christianity and religion. Why is that? Because it is the worst form of hypocrisy. Christ taught that all are one. There is no Jew, or Scythian, or barbarian, slave or free. He said to treat others as you would want to be treated. why does religion rear its ugly head and justify this kind of hatred? Spanish Inquisitions, Salem witch trials, Sand Creek Massacre, and several more. Apparently nothing has been learned from history.

Utah seems to breed discrimination

What is it about the conservative and religious right that breeds discrimination and fosters an attitude of hate and bigotry? The house senate on Tuesday 2/17/2009 voted down 5-8 a bill that would prohibit an employer from terminating someone for being gay. What is it about religion that creates so much bigotry and discrimination. I thought that we were supposed to love our neighbor, not discriminate and marginalize them. This kind of bigotry makes me sick and ashamed to live in this state. What a disgrace that we cannot even treat someone with equal dignity and respect even all the while having our own thoughts and opinions. I mean has this country learned nothing from the way that it treated and continues to treat Indians, then slavery and women after that. Now it's Latino immigrants and the gay community. What ever happened to the 14th amendment? Oh that only applies to those whom the lawmakers wish to give it to. What a sad thought that this country has not learned from their mistakes but just make the same ones over and over and changes their focus. Merriam Webster dictionary defines bigotry as follows: bigot
One entry found.

Main Entry:
big·ot
Pronunciation:
\ˈbi-gət\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, hypocrite, bigot
Date:
1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Racism as follows:

racism
One entry found.

Main Entry:
rac·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So the only difference is an intolerance of someones ethnicity or the intolerance of one's sexual orientation. So it is intolerant hatred based upon a belief of superiority in both instances. So a bigot and a racist are brothers holding hands united for the cause of fostering a superiority and oppressing those who are not of their mindset. This is love? If so I want no part of it!!!

Bailing out corruption

I have heard so much over the bailout of these companies that is makes me want to live in a cave on another planet. The tax payers have had to bailout quite a few companies to only find out that the CEOs were giving themselves huge bonuses that could have covered a large part of their debt. On top of this these corrupt businessmen were making more in a year than some will ever make in a lifetime. If they really cared about the company, the economy of this country, and the taxpayers, why did they not take a pay cut to help their company and the employees there and level the playing field a bit for the time being just to stimulate the company and the economy? The greed and corruption that has been seeping from corporate America is sickening and enough to make anyone that cares about human rights and equality to be disgusted. Now GM and Chrysler are seeking billions more in loans and GM says that it might need more in the future. What is this a socialistic country that we live in? We should have never bailed out these corrupt companies in the first place. These are the ones that oppress and exploit the innocent for their own selfish and sordid gain, and we bailed them out. What were we thinking? Or were we thinking?

Prop 8

This is an article that was written by a co-worker and it echoes many of my sentiments about this issue. I have posted this with her permission.

Written by Krissy Barnes.

I have been working on putting together some sort of opinion essay, or response rather, to the wrath that has unraveled on my facebook wall, but it has proven much more difficult than expected. Obviously the use of "wrath" is a bit melodramatic, but it really has gotten out of control. Beyond the 20+ comments over the past week or so, I've also started receiving messages of curiosity and requests for explanation over facebook. Who would have thought that such controversy could ensue over a brief statement, which for the record was not even a political stance, about not "being a fan" of something.After several days of pondering and several different versions of my so-called rant, I am at a loss of what to say. If you have your mind made up about this topic, there is really nothing I can do to change that. Before I go on, please read the letter sent out by the 1st Presidency at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage Perhaps we can clear up a few misconceptions right from the beginning.In the issue of politics, it has never been my intention to swing anybody from one stance to the other. I love talking politics and I love getting worked up over it, but rarely- if ever- with the intent of persuasion. If someone has done their research and has some solid arguments, I have never attempted to discredit their opinions. Particularly if I can sense they have a particular passion over it. It is for this reason that I take particular offense to some of the statements that have been thrown around based on Proposition 8- my wall being one particular venue as of late.I am a human rights activist. No matter whom it is or what they believe, I believe in equal rights for ALL, particularly where no harm to others is involved. Right now, gay people in America don't have those equal rights. You can criticize their lifestyles all you want, you can hold up the religion flag and claim it as a sin all you want, but the point is, they are PEOPLE , they are doing no harm to anyone else, and they deserve the same rights and opportunities as any other person in this country. This country was founded on a group of people seeking to escape religious persecution, yet here we are trying to change the very foundation that many worked so hard to defend.I have nothing against gay marriage. If two men or two women want to get married, so be it. It does not affect me personally and it's not going to affect MY marriage personally. As for Proposition 8, luckily I don't live in California anymore and I will not have to make the vote myself. In my heart, I am against it (aka "not a fan") and I see it inherently wrong and faulty. Furthermore, the so-called "evidence" to back it up is a construed arrangement of lies and fallacies. Nobody will have to learn about gay marriage in school, the Church will NOT lose its non-profit status, and temple sealers will NOT lose their licenses. I recommend all members of the pro-8 side read this document before writing the comments that are sure to follow this entry.http://connellodonovan.com/thurston_response.pdf I do not mind a bit if you disagree or comment, but I will mind if you use rumors and lies to back your argument. Regardless of reasons or spiritual levels or what anyone tries to say is right and wrong, I cannot say I am for Prop 8 and still feel like I'm being true to myself. The church's involvement in this issue makes me extremely uncomfortable, and I wish more than anything that they would have stayed out of it.Sometimes "the prophet said so" is not quite good enough evidence in political realms. It might be for you, and that is great. However, when you make arguments in any sort of public venue, a religious rant just isn't going to cut it. If your goal is to truly deny gay people from ever getting married, you're going to need to find a few more reasons to convince the rest of the country. Because religion aside, I have yet to find one.According to the last reports I saw, members of the Church had already spent OVER 10 MILLION DOLLARS toward the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. To me this number is alarming and sad. It appears that this sudden explosion of support is simply an excuse for people to push their own anti-gay sentiments and feel more validated in their opinion. Now people can't knock you and say you don't believe in equal rights for everyone, because you have the church to stand behind as an excuse. For clarification, if you truly are standing behind this point of view strictly because you are trying to be a God-fearing person who accepts the Prophet's counsel, I have nothing against you. I will never judge someone who is simply trying to "follow the Prophet." From my discussions and inquiries, this rarely seems to be the case. Also, keep in mind all the other things the Prophets have taught, such as showing charity and love for your fellow men. That one seems to get cast aside quite often in discussions I hear regarding the gay community.There have been many cases in the past when the Prophet has asked people to donate their time and their means to helping on a variety of different causes. In every General Conference session we are taught about Fast Offerings and Missionary Funds and Humanitarian Funds and the Perpetual Education Fund. All of these are great charitable causes put to good use. So where does an additional 10 million suddenly come from? I feel like the "official Church stance" has just become a wall of defense for the anti-gay rights team to hide behind; a sudden excuse to pour millions of dollars and millions of hours into "taking a stand" against gay people.I also find it interesting that these claims on the definition of marriage are coming from Mormons. Did we not have our own battles about different "definitions" of marriage, a mere 150 years ago? Sure polygamy was technically "between a man and a woman", but it was still seen as weird and twisted by most of the American population. I'm sure those of you with long lines of LDS history in your family trees have heard stories of oppression and hardship because the rest of the country didn't understand WHY it was that the Saints took on this lifestyle. Why is it alright to bash on another group's "alternate lifestyle"? Because polygamy was called by God and homosexuality wasn't? Laws in America should not be based on whose side was called by God and whose wasn't. Separation of church and state is there for a reason.I have many gay friends and even gay family members. They are very dear to me, and are some of the BEST people I have ever met. Where charity and love for people is concerned, I would hold them up against the Mormons I know any day. They want to be happy, they want to be part of committed relationships, and they want to be guaranteed the same rights in those relationships that the rest of us already have opportunity for. It's not about "destroying the sanctity of marriage" (cuz let's be honest... at a 50%+ divorce rate, we've pretty much lost it already), but making sure that all people have the same types of rights to the ones they love. Without the right to marry, presently those rights simply do not exist. In my search for more information and others opinions while I've been trying to make sense of all this, I have received several emails from some of these good friends, and I decided to share a couple."Denying people who love each other the right to get married does not question the sanctity of marriage. It enforces the values of marriage. Commitment, love, and happiness, a right everyone should be able to enjoy which should be guaranteed to anyone no matter what your sexual orientation, or gender. Also as an American in this country, it is not fair to deny me my rights as a human to marry the person I love because of religious practice that is ingrained into this society. There really is no valid reason why I am being denied my freedom." – Aaron"If I want to join into a union with someone I love, I want to have the same rights under the law that a straight couple has. It's about the RIGHTS not about what they call it, or the religious aspects. For the gay couple who have been together for 50 years only to not be allowed to visit each other in the hospital or who have to PROVE something to jump in the back of the ambulance with their loved one... THAT'S what it's about for me." –Josh"I think that our country was formed to give our citizens freedom, and so I wouldn't vote for anything that diminishes that." –Carol""What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" -Jeff"As a person, gay or straight notwithstanding, I am expected to work or contribute in some way to society, pay bills, vote, etc so why shouldn't I be afforded the same rights along with the same responsibilities as everyone else? Proposition 8 just breaks my heart and frustrates the hell out of me because I don't see a lot of logic in it, just discrimination and hatred." -Adam Now, tell me how I am supposed to look into the eyes of these people who I care about and tell them that I would vote against their ability to share in the same rights as I will someday have the opportunity to enjoy? I look forward to spending my life with the one I love, and they only do the same.To Prop 8 fanatics: It's so easy to talk big game about the sin of homosexuality and how the destruction of the world is surely near if they keep getting all these rights and how we should drop everything to devote all we have to making sure they never have the right to marry. Do you really know these people? Have you ever been faced with the decision of choosing your religion (since that's what everyone is telling you it comes down to) and telling your own family and friends that your religion, which you value so deeply, is commanding you to take a stand AGAINST them? Maybe your stance would still be for Proposition 8 from a purely religious standpoint, and I respect that. But perhaps you would approach it from a different angle. Perhaps support it in a bit of sorrow, rather than so much gloating.

Treasury plan to buy bank stakes carries risks

The current economic crisis and the failure of banks has reached epidemic proportions. Now the U.S. Government is talking about buying stocks in these banks and will sell bad mortgages to the government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program. This is bad news. This is a very bad move. Let's just cut straight to the chase and say it bluntly. This is socialism in the making. Thomas Jefferson said, "Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." This is exactly why when the banking industries came about Thomas Jefferson said no to making them a government institution. Now days the fanatical doctrine of our failed President Bush has permeated the thinking of the American population buy propagating that we should not question our government or criticize them. The thinking of Jefferson was one of constant criticism, scrutiny, mistrust as well disdain. He saw government as a necessary evil that needed to be contained and kept under control. Now days if we question or criticize our government we are call liberal, unpatriotic enemy combatants. "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson This is a powerful statement. This is what I believe we are seeing before our eyes, the degeneration of our government. It has long been entrusted to the rulers. Regulations, rules and government oppression is what we see riddled with corporate corruption which is oppressing the working and middle class American. AIG just spent $400,000 on spa treatments after an $85 billion dollar bailout. This is the epitome of corporate greed and oppression of the working class. Thomas Jefferson said it best, "Every generation needs a new revolution." It seems as if right now this is what is needed most, a new revolution in this generation. JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." If I am accused of being unpatriotic than I leave you with these great quotes that show that we need to criticize our government and look out for the rights of the people. Jefferson claimed that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Teddy Roosevelt said it best:"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)" George McGovern said,"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard." "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." Thomas Jefferson "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson This is what the American population has done, is to remain silent. Silence is a weapon of oppression. Thomas Jefferson said so many great things. His views on small government and the threat of big government are so relevant today. We face the threat of big government. Hear what he has to say. "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson A wise and frugal government is to leave us free to regulate our own pursuits in regards to industry and improvement. This is a way of saying the government needs to stay out of our business and mind their own. They are not to take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. Anything that we as a people have earned, the government shall not take this from us. We now face too much government control of the banking industry. They now have mortgages that people owe. The American population is now indebted to the government, the exact thing that Jefferson said is would NOT constitute a wise and frugal government. What have we done? OR more importantly, can we undo it? Let's hope so for our freedom and liberties.

What is Freedom & Patriotism?

What is Freedom & Patriotism?
First off I want to talk about the subject of freedom. This country claims to be a free country, but the Indian religion and ceremonies were outlawed for 44 years. Freedom maybe for the white man to practice Christianity. I have no problem with Christians or Christianity, but I do have a problem with intolerance and hate. If you have a different thought or religious belief than get to know that person, be their friend and share with them in love your beliefs.I see nothing wrong with kindly sharing what you believe. Ever heard a joke and had to tell someone because it was so funny? What is that? Why do we do that? Our joy isn't consummated until others share in that joy. If your excited about the Lord, share it and hold it sacred, but don't use it as a weapon. The Great Spirit/ God/The Lord put us all here to dwell together and we'll have to give an account for our actions.
But back to the subject. Is there nobility in being loyal all the while calling it patriotism, even though you see right through the horrific things that your country does? Now things that happened in the past are that history. You can't walk around and hold a grudge and be bitter forever or you're going to be a miserable person. But when the lies continue and the deception continues and the only difference is that now you speak the language and won't take their lies since you've see their track record. I tend to see that following the Creator is what I find to be the most noble act. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"John F Kennedy
Jefferson claimed that "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Teddy Roosevelt said it best:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (1918)" George McGovern said,"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard."

So to stand up for your country and government when they are clearly wrong is nothing more than unpatriotic and servile. So many people promote this mentality that The USA are the good guys and we should always follow the lead of the government. This is a slavish and fascist ideology that hinders freedom of thought. Silence is a weapon that we must never let anyone unleash on us or it will mean the demise of free speech and freedom of the press.

1 thought about Christ, Columbus & Truth

One thought about Christ, Columbus & Truth Christianity and what Columbus and those brutal people did was not what Christ taught.This is what Christ and the Apostles really taught. Not the distorted, apostate view that was brought to this continent. Christ was full of love for those who knew not about him and disdain for the religious hypocrite. Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him, Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship. (New Testament Acts 20:19 - 38) Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (New Testament Jude 1:2 - 4) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are bin him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (New Testament 1 John 2:1 - 11) Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the clove of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.(New Testament 1 John 2:15 - 17) For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his abrother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (New Testament 1 John 3:11 - 24)

George Carlin on Indians

George Carlin on Indians:"Now the Indians. I call them Indians because that's what they are. They're Indians. There's nothing wrong with the word Indian. First of all, it's important to know that the word Indian does not derive from Columbus mistakenly believing he had reached 'India.' India was not even called by that name in 1492; it was known as Hindustan.More likely, the word Indian comes from Columbus's description of the people he found here. He was an Italian, and did not speak or write very good Spanish, so in his written accounts he called the Indians, "Una gente in Dios." A people in God. In God. In Dios. Indians. It's a perfectly noble and respectable word.As far as calling them 'Americans' is concerned, do I even have to point out what an insult this is? ----- We steal their hemisphere, kill twenty or so million of them, destroy five hundred separate cultures, herd the survivors onto the worst land we can find, and now we want to name them after ourselves? It's appalling. Haven't we done enough damage? Do we have to further degrade them by tagging them with the repulsive name of their conquerors?You know, you'd think it would be a fairly simple thing to come over to this continent, commit genocide, eliminate the forests, dam up the rivers, build our malls and massage parlors, sell our blenders and whoopee cushions, poison ourselves with chemicals, and let it go at that. But no. We have to compound the insult."...I'm glad the Indians have gambling casinos now. It makes me happy that dimwitted white people are losing their rent money to the Indians. Maybe the Indians will get lucky and win their country back. Probably wouldn't want it. Look at what we did to it."

This is so well put. There is a song by the Descendants called 'Merican.

Lyrics : [sic]
we flipped our finger to the king of englandstole our country from the indianswith gaul at our side and guns in our handswe took it for our owna nation dedicated to libertyjustice and equalitydoesn't look that way to youit doesn't look that way to methe sickest joke i know
[chorus]listen up man, I'll tell you who i amjust another stupid americanyou don't wanna listenyou don't wanna understandso finish up your drink and go home
i come from the land of ben franklin otis redding, ellington the country that i love but it's a land of the slaves and the ku klux klanhaymarket riot and the great depression don't get caught in vietnamthe sickest joke i know
[chorus]
i'm proud and ashamed every fourth of July you got to know the truth before you say that you got pride
[chorus]
not the cops got taste 'cause the kids got gunsshrinks pushin' pills on everyonecancer from the ocean cancer from the sunstraight to hell we go
[chorus 2x]

So many people think that the founding of this country is on nobility and honesty. Not true. It was founded on imperialism and oppression. We have a sordid history of oppressing those who do not agree and calling it the spread of democracy. Raphael Lemkin is the one that defined the term genocide in 1944. That does not mean that it never happened, it just was not termed or labeled. Genocide is defined as: [G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another." George McGovern said that, "The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher standard." We have a long ways to go even though we have come a long ways. This country may be better than other countries, however that is also like saying that drinking Windex is not as bad as drinking Drano. So? It still is not good for you. Does that mean that we should just accept it the way it is rather than change it? No. We should do what we can to change it and improve it. Policies that favor on group and exclude or oppress another group need to be done away with.

We should all live by the saying Mitakuye Oyasin. Mitakuye Oyasin is Lakota Sioux for "All My Relations." It is a prayer of oneness and harmony with all forms of life: other people, animals, birds, insects, trees and plants, and even rocks. It reminds us that we are connected to these other aspects of Creation, that we share a common kinship in the Hoop of Life. Taken from http://www.geocities.com/allrelations/

If more people lived by this than we would live more in harmony. It sounds very similar to the Christian idea of The Golden Rule, " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Why is this so hard to live by? Maybe selfishness, lack of understanding others, lack of concern for others, or just downright cruelty in some cases. We need to call our country to a higher standard and express the greatest form of patriotism not slavish obedience. This country was founded on the Constitution of The Haudenosaunee, also known as the Great Law of Peace. See
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/index.html#ToC

How can this country treat the people that gave us our Constitution and Bill of Rights with such disdain?

The Presidential Race in 2008

The Presidential race in 2008 is a historic one for several reasons.


I. For the first time ever we could have an African American president. There is also talk of Hillary being the Vice President. That too would be historical.

II. For the first time in 20 years we will not have a Bush or Clinton in office.

I feel that this change will be a good one as long as we don't get four more year of Bush administration politics. Barack Obama is change that we can believe in. John McCain is nothing more than four more year of the last eight years of Bush's failed policies. Catch phrases like "mission accomplished" and "return on success" is nothing more than empty rhetoric and emptier promises. Should we expect anything else? The last eight years has been built on lies and empty promises. Just look at what the last 20 years of Bush and Clinton has gotten us. High gas prices, the loss of freedoms with things like the patriot act and the military commissions act and the supending of Habeau Corpus, unjust genocide in Iraq, the highest unemployment rates in over 20 years, hatred and disdain from the rest of the world, thousands of soldiers killed, and billions of dollars spent on spilling innocent blood over oil. The whole premise of invading Iraq was preventative war. This fascist regime needs one more catch phrase, "no more spilt blood over oil!!"

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure. ~Abraham Lincoln

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

These men were greater leaders than Bush could ever be. Listen to what Bush says:
From a speech at the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development in Wash. DC, 6/18/02.
"...the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."
~George W. Bush

Is this man a genocidal maniac or what? This is the last person that should be running this country.

The threat to our freedom.

Its Christmas time and you’re traveling and really excited to see your family and get some rest over the Holidays. You have a two week vacation and are ready for it. Instead you are under arrest. You are detained!! Why? What did I do? Tell me why!! No way! You have no rights, no one will tell you anything and then you are taken to some secret place blindfolded and then tortured for three days and prodded for information on the rest of them and what they have planned. What the hell are they talking about? No one will tell you anything and you get no phone call. Turns out you die and your family wonders what happened. Your name matched that of a terrorist on a watch list, and these clowns didn’t even check to see if it was the right person, they assumed. Why did this happen? The Military Commissions Act and the loss of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by George Bush and now it’s being misused and abused. Lat. "you have the body." (literally, "produce the body" from the Latin - meaning, broadly, "let this person go free or else give him a trial - you may not hold him forever with charging him with a crime") A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.
The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." The Court observed that “the writ of habeas corpus is one of the centerpieces of our liberties.




I. Habeas Corpus prevents tyranny and a dictatorship mentality that compromises the foundation of freedom and undermines the basis of the Constitution.

A. “Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham were presented with an opportunity to uphold the fundamental human right known as habeas corpus, or flinch and write a law that would retroactively make sure that George W. Bush could not be prosecuted for violations of habeas corpus in our overseas concentration camps and prisons. It was a contest between protecting the President and protecting the Constitution.
1. The Republican senators flinched, and chose Bush over the Constitution. In doing so, they turned their backs on a rule of law that stretches back over nearly eight centuries to an epic moment in 1215 on a meadow by the River Thames in the United Kingdom.
a. The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by a group of feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede.
b. Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws. The concept of habeas corpus in the Magna Carta led directly to the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution, and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions.”
Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said:
"38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
II. This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of governmental power that the feudal lords had gotten at Runnymede. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts.
1. Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime.
A. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich feudal lords), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis."
a. This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain people without charges for as much as their entire lives solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported on the record by these Republicans who have chosen to betray America's founding principles in exchange for peace with the White House.
b. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84:
"The establishments of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ... [T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. ...
"'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]
B. The danger here lies in the absolute power of the government with no accountability. People being jailed for selling a Direct TV system that has the Hezbollah station, names being mixed up or identities confused and they have no chance to be brought before a court and charged.

1. This fits perfectly with certain tenants of the Patriot Act and we as free Americans must stand against this. We cannot and should not let the government have this much power.

Maureen Ugolini said in a letter to the editor: “I've been thinking of having a memorial service for our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva Conventions, Magna Carta and a final farewell to Habeas Corpus. Do you think anyone will come?
Our congressional people have given the president the unilateral authority without limitation or restriction to abduct any person inside or outside America, citizen or not, to hold them indefinitely without trial, to keep their captivity secret, to deny access to judge or lawyer, to use ``evidence'' obtained from torture in prosecution, to torture as the president sees fit, all at the president's will or whim, without any possibility or remedy or any supervision whatsoever.
It's a recipe for a dictatorship. It gives the president the power to simply make anyone disappear.In my view this is the vilest piece of legislation in American history. Doubtless other countries have had uglier but this is the bottom of the barrel for America.I am now more fearful of my own government than of the ``terrorists.''” Conclusion
A. Keith Olbermann said in a special news cast on this subject on the signing of the Military Commissions Act and the loss of Habeas Corpus, “we have lived as if in a trance, we have lived… as people in fear. And now — our rights and our freedoms in peril — we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid… of the wrong thing.
B. For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering: A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.
C. We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
D. He goes on to say that the President has his blank check and he lied to get it and lied as he received it and what makes us think that he won’t lie as to how he will use it.
E. He then ends his speech as they did during the communist trials in the 1940’s, “Good night, and good luck.”

Electric law Library, Habeas Corpus (Retrieved November 27, 2006 from) http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm


Common Dreams Republicans Give In To Bush, Betray America by Thom Hartmann
(Copyright 1997-2006 Retrieved November 27, 2006 from) http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0925-35.htm



We the People: A Call to Take Back America (Paperback) by Thom Hartman, Gene Latimer, Paul Burke (Editor), Neil Cohn (Illustrator)


Copyright © 2006, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises (Retrieved November 27, 2006 from) http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/10/09/opinion/letters/119788.txt



(Retrieved November 27, 2006 from) http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/18/countdown-special-comment-death-of-habeas-corpus-your-words-are-lies-sir/