felonizing those of different political bents

Okay what's this on the major news stories lately? THOSE WHO HELP ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BY GIVING THEM FOOD AND WATER WILL BE CRIMINALIZED AS FELONS? Is this what I just heard has been cooked up for legislation? By Almighty know-it-alls trying to run this country? Or rather, keep the monopolies just like they want them? There are at least two points that need to be addressed regarding this potential legislation: 1) How is it exactly any part of the principles of Democracy --- particularly when COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT IN VERY MANY STATES FELONS CANNOT VOTE --- to conveniently devise "newspeak" definitions for "crime/s" (such as helping particularly-categorized people, when they become thirsty or hungry), so that voters who are not apt to vote in alliance with one's personal political bents are disabled from voting --- for having becomes "felons" based upon some newly-invented and carefully-crafted "crime/s" definition/s--- ????? This type of crafty legislation is designed to be a loophole around the principles of Democracy, and it's not even subtle. How audacious of them. I am both shocked and awed by these crafty bullies -- such spectacular hybrids of both "brain" and brawn. (As if this "Cain and Abel" combination could possibly be harmonious together or something.) In any oppressive or corrupt regime, does it not start out in all subtlety --- knowing just how much it can get by with and be tolerated --- and then "progress" to a point it becomes more and more daring, and then eventually drops the need to be subtle at all, once its "authority" is presumed and "settled" (so to speak)? 2) Personally, I feel that this (potential) legislation (newspeak definition for crime) is a serious attack on Christianity. I don't mean to be a preacher, but this is a country in which people love flauting Christianity and Christ around, as if he were some kind of a flag to be flown. But that is a totally different matter from actually following his teachings, quietly and privately --- as opposed to doing it for the p.r. and for the "show" of it all. One of the things that Christ taught was about feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty. (See Matthew 25:40 to read this for one's own self). He did not say that we had to be psychic --- such that we knew all the details of the lives of those who we feed or give drink, such as whether they had jumped the border, or all what-not as any pre-requisite to helping or not helping them. Even if we did know that they had entered the "land of the free" illegally, how can it be in line with the essense of Christian teachings to NOT feed someone, when Christ said to bless even one's own enemies? This would seem to indicate that it is okay (with God) to err on the side of caution when deciding whether or not, and how to help others. (Which incidentally I myself often do not do, for various reasons. For instance I might have a hard time helping any TRUE criminal, or letting a fox guard a chicken coup, etc.) Another point here: I am not seeing any problem with immigrants from South of the border. I cannot remember meeting any of them who were not extremely nice, respectful, and polite people --- much nicer than many of us, in fact. Certainly there must be exceptions, as with all groups of people, and there will be some variety among them. I am not sure what the problem is with keeping them out (or rather, letting them in). So are there not going to be enough clothes to go around, if we get too many more immigrants? Just what is this "problem" --- ? Obviously it is something --- some kind of "problem" that underlies this issue. All I can guess is that someone's monopoly must be threatened by it. Maybe someone is afraid that Mexicans are going to come in AND STEAL THEIR WARDROBE!!!!! --- which essentially equates to their identity, since people often presume their identity and stature and all with what they wear. Okay --- what is the threat? With decent and respectful human beings?

Comments

Good points, Jup.

Submitted by bass on March 26, 2006 - 10:47am.

Keep in mind that many folks who refer to themselves as "Christians" are that in name only. Our President is an excellent example of what a friend of mine, a fundamentalist Christian himself, once called "Hypo-Christians." They are very good at condemning the actions of others, but find ways to rationalize their own behaviors. They exist in government(see example above), in the "Pro-Life" movement(how many sane people believe that shooting doctors is "pro-life?), and in the media(how Christian is Pat Robertson, really?). Yet, at the same time, our Prez. is pushing a "guest-worker" program that would give legal status to many current illegal aliens. Of course, the real reason for such a law is pure bigotry. Do you think Jesus was a bigot?

(By the way, is there any

Submitted by jupiter on March 26, 2006 - 11:32am.

(By the way, is there any particular reason to think I think Jesus might have been a bigot? Guess some people do think that though.)

Can't imagine Jesus being a bigot. In my opinion, a bigot is someone who not only prefers to not think, but also (when making crucial judgments), refuses to take the effort to think. (I don't always take great and grand efforts to think myself, but when I know I'm not taking the trouble to think, then I think I at least try to reserve judgments.)

Jesus did have some very harsh words towards hypocrits --- namely, those whose religion was mixed with their own p.r. agenda/s --- whether braggadocia, or just subtle hints of one's own virtue/s.

It is very easy in life to see patterns in others, however, which is that person's "fruit" so to speak. (The Bible also mentions knowing others "by their fruits.") For instance I know of one person who is absolutely sure that she is an extra special child of God, and she surrounds herself in certain fundamentalist-bent echo chamber talk and preaching. I am not necessarily doubting that this person has some niche in God's universe. But she has signs of ("bad fruit") . . . .

Okay I am coming in to "edit" this post --- I am taking out the rest of these comments (that were after this) as I am deeming them to be perhaps a bit too "fish bowl" for the internet. Not that I care too much about protecting this particular person, but in a spy vs. spy world (which sometimes is the case), why should I inform the sinister how to send a better mole around next time (to those they'd like to spy upon?)

Sorry, Jupiter, you misunderstood what I said.

Submitted by bass on March 28, 2006 - 11:03am.

I did not mean to imply that you thought that Jesus was a bigot. Just the opposite. My point is that many people who refer to themselves as "Christians" do, in fact, have a high level of bigotry in them whether it is directed towards minorities, homosexuals, or non-Christians. That is not to say that Christians are unusually bigoted. All races, religions, and cultures have their biases, and some individuals in each group are more biased than others. I happen to believe that our President is among them.
As to the possibility that Jesus was a bigot:
I do not believe that IF Jesus truly existed, (I, myself, am a bit of a sceptic), he could have possibly been a bigot. The concept would be so far beyond his teachings as to be absurd.

Being that I am on the lurk

Submitted by jupiter on April 2, 2006 - 5:18pm.

Being that I am on the lurk for anyone subtlely trying to discredit me (or anyone speaking their own mind), I'm sure that it sometimes takes on certain forms of hyper-sensitivity, or what could come across as that, in my trying to be "careful." It can become being careful to a fault.

I probably shouldn't assume that everyone thinks of Jesus in the same way, but even people who are skeptical of his existence, or of his "deity," or other aspects of him, do often nevertheless appreciate the fact that if he did exist, his teachings have certain merit.

Also the people who parade around as better-than-the-average Christian ("enlightened" is often their word of fancy) had better get with the stick as far as flying the flag around as a convenient name to wave, particularly when there are glaring discrepencies between that and actually doing according to his teachings. So it is only natural that I bring up Christianity and Jesus when it is obvious that their lives are becoming further and further from his actual teachings, while they ride on the wave of the popularity of any special and presumed association with Jesus or Christ.

I do tend to assume that everyone uses "Jesus" as a measuring stick or guideline. (And maybe I go overboard on this.) However when very many people who pride themselves in a presumed next-to-Godness (of a "Christ" form, as if they hold a personal monopoly on him or this particular religion) --- when very many of these sorts can't even follow their own creed, then I do like to try to point this out --- particularly when their constituency or voting block has been bamboozled because of these sorts of apple pie presumptions.

The true teachings of Christ

Submitted by bass on April 3, 2006 - 10:21am.

Jupiter, I do believe that if the world followed what
I believe to be the true teachings of Christ, the world
would be a much better place. I will never claim to
be a Biblical scholar, but I'm fairly confident that
those teachings include tolerance and forgiveness.
Concepts like hatred, revenge, and bigotry don't fit.
Love of all mankind does. That's why folks like our
President and Rev. Robertson have little business calling
themselves Christians, IMHO.

Let us prey

Submitted by jupiter on April 9, 2006 - 9:03am.

I was going to start a new comment (section), but for some reason the "Forum" link does not come up. (Have I been singled out, or does it not come up for anyone else, as well?)

Okay after deciding to title this post "Let us pray," for a joke "let us PREY" sounded better --- more vulture-like. But the pun really doesn't have to do with this post, necessarily. ("Propaganda = Cry wolf" was another possible title I was going to put.)

ANYWAY THAT SAID, HERE IS MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY, AND THE REASON FOR THIS POST:

Yesterday on the national television news media there were headline-type (or would that be headline-hype?) words sprawled across the screen: "WAR AT THE BORDER."

Okay this gives rise to the question --- Is propaganda nothing more than a thicket of "cry wolf" --- ?

Are archeologists from the future going to dig up this television footage and presume a big vicious BORDER war was going on at this point in history?

All because of a VNR campaign to generate a sense of war-type/war-hype urgency over immigrants from South of the border?

If I fear for my life at the moment, it is not because of Mexicans trying to come up here to earn dollars, the only currency which seems to have the power to "speak" in the world today --- for some reason or other.

I wanted to word the above "at what point does propaganda become 'cry wolf'?" But after thinking about it more and more, it seemed obvious to me that all underlying agendas of propaganda are "cry wolf" --- by their very nature.

Let us hope, or let us pray rather, that if we ever have any true war, we will be able to discern the difference between reality and this crying "wolf." (As if we will want to know via first-hand experiences.) But the point is that we well might not even know what to believe the next time we see "proclamations" of "war" from our news media television screens over certain issues which are somehow vital to them. The word "war" is no longer even an attention-getter because it has become so over-used for various unlerlying VNR purposes.

One thing is for sure, and perhaps it is a good thing we've come to know this: It is that our television screens do not proclaim "the gospel," so to speak (or as a figure or speech I simply mean that we are not going to get the "truth" from them --- no offense meant to other religions).

Also --- I am not doubting that SOME entity has proclaimed "war" on immigration (like, whoever does the VNRs). What exactly that entity is is rather nebulous, however, since the government is SUPPOSED to be divided in powers and agendas and such, and separate from the media.

Okay I've "gotta get" now --- no more time for this.

a quick postscript

Submitted by jupiter on April 9, 2006 - 8:32pm.

Just want to say that I'm not positive that it was me who originally came up with the pun "Let us prey." I'm thinking I might have read it in a newsletter or magazine somewhere, or maybe even just heard someone else say it.

But I want to make a note of that, because sometimes it can be more or less offensive to use someone else's pun or phrase and what-not. Or (to make a long story longer), I would not want to assume it would not be offensive to someone else if that someone else thought of it (first), and then a second person used it, AS IF the second person had thought of it first when they did not. And so help me God I do not want to give anyone any life-long trauma for stealing their ideas. N6w 0y c60-4ter 2eys are 0essed 4-!!!! Was g65ng t6 say that th5s 0ay s64nd tr5v5a3, b4t . . . .

Not enough red-necks in the legislature?

Submitted by jupiter on April 13, 2006 - 7:54pm.

I don't plan on harping much more on this subject, but is it not quite obvious that making felons out of people who give drink to the thirsty and food to the hungry, nothing other than the enforcement of a very biased political bent?

There are many people whose very religious beliefs teach them to give food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty. To make felons of them is nothing more than pushing the extra-chromosone (as I believe Gore once put it), ultra red-neck extreme off on the whole country.

Frankly to me this sort of dictatorial legislation sounds very anti-christ, particularly being that it is totally against the teachings of Christ, if not usurping of individual autonomy.

Also I wonder if there is not a bit of the "channel-the-anger" propaganda involved. In society there is quite a bit of collective anger, and of course p.r. wants to shift, center and focus it on some sacrificial lamb type of target. So how about immigrants, and those who assist them, and perhaps particularly if their religious beliefs (and/or priorities) are slightly off-center of other echo-chamber "norms." (E.g. --- a belief in feeding the hungry and giving drink to the thirsty, etc. Welcome to the SOUTHERN, lynchin' brand of hospitality, except these days it seems to be the slow kill variety, of letting the hungry and/or thirsty starve or faint.)

Okay enough of this "harp." I plan to neither harp nor hype on this particular subject any more. But truth will still remain the truth, nevertheless. Whether or not it is harped on or hyped over. We'll just perhaps become very far removed from it, that is all, and then we'll wonder why all of life has become so hellish. "Gee Ma --- is it gettin' hot in here???????"