[FairfieldLife] How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[TurquoiseB]

How the Church Of Scientology is choosing to deal with this German film
critical of its organization is interesting, because we don't know yet
how the TM organization is going to deal with the German film "David
Wants To Fly." Both organizations have a history of trying to legally
suppress critical comment about them. Heck, the Scientologists tried to
have an episode of "The Simpsons" banned, probably because its writers
were being "mean" to them. We'll just have to wait and see whether the
TMO takes the same "ban the critics who are being mean to us" approach.

Scientologists Try To Block Highly Critical Film

The Church Of Scientology has expressed anger at a German TV film  that
is reported to be critical of the controversial organization.

Germany's state broadcaster, ARD, is planning to broadcast the film, 
titled Bis Nichts Mehr Bleibt, which translates as Until  Nothing
Remains.

The 90-minute drama tells the story of Heiner von Ronns, a German man 
who leaves the organization after donating a large amount of money, and 
ends up losing contact with his daughter and wife, who remain members. 
The film is based on a true story.


Reports indicate  
the film is notable for being  extremely critical of the organization,
portraying it is totalitarian  and dangerous.

Scientology leaders called the drama a piece of propaganda and have 
sought to censor the film before its broadcast, criticizing the state 
station for not supporting religious tolerance.

Jürg Stettler, a spokesman for Scientology in Germany, said, "We will
show that the so-called expert engaged by ARD Ursula Caberta is feeding 
the media false information," adding that the film's reportedly true 
story is fabricated.

"Exactly the opposite of what ARD shows is the truth," he said.
ARD's programme director Volker Herres has dismissed the accusations, 
and hit out against Scientology.

"We're not dealing here with a religion, rather with an organization 
that has completely different motives," he said. "Scientology is about 
power, business, and building up a network. Its lessons are pure science
fiction, it's no religion, no church, no sect."

The Church of Scientology has had a difficult history in Germany,  where
it is officially designated an anti-constitutional organization.

In 2007, the German protestant church called Tom Cruise the "Goebbels of
Scientology
 " after Cruise, a prominent  member, starred in the film
Valkyrie, set in Nazi Germany. The  following year the German government
attempted to ban the organization  after reports of illegal activity
 .

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Mike Dixon]

You mean like the photo of Ralph Reid that appeared on News Week?





From: off_world_beings 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 4:50:54 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

  
 
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore2000200 0 wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > > > experience, and would like to know.
> > > 
> > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > but do you really get your news off the 
> > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > disillusioned.
> > > 
> > > Sal
> > >
> > 
> > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for years.
> > 
> > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover:  http://screencast. 
> > com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> > 
> > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days 
> > ago:http://screenca st.com/t/ MTMwZWI3Z
> 
> The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> for that crap.
> 
> Sal
>
Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and Friends:
http://screencast. com/t/NDYxZGM5Zj Yt
...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast. com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like any 
author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their way to make 
him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do that.
OffWorld



  

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> >
> > It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his 
> > thinking so attractive to me. He is saying something that 
> > is the opposite view of the karmic belief system, "it's not 
> > fair!" They didn't earn this suffering by their bad deeds 
> > in a past life, they just drew the short straw in life by 
> > chance. I've just been thinking about this. 
>
> A phrase that has been used often to explain things that 
> don't make sense to us, is, "God in his infinite wisdom 
> has..such and such" Which is another way of saying, 
> I haven't the foggiest idea why. Any maybe this weak 
> explanation works for many people. But for others it doesn't. 
> But I am thinking that an equally absurd explanation is that, 
> "The random universe in its randomness has resulted 
> in.. such and such, and so and so. Please give 
> me a sensible explanation of good and bad things happening, 
> action and reaction in the world of human life without 
> introducing the concept of reincarnation.  I cannot, and 
> that is why I subscribe to this concept. And we can act 
> to change this unfairness.

I've just finished watching the latest episode of
"Caprica," which is turning out to be, if anything,
far more interesting than its predecessor, "Battle-
star Galactica," and there is a moment in it that
made me think of this exchange.

If you don't know BG, know that the Cylons, a race
of cybernetic organisms who become fully sentient 
over time, were almost the end of the human race. 
They were monotheistic in a society that was poly-
theistic, and they believed not only in a single 
God, and that He had a Plan for them, but that they 
could "know" what that Plan was. The followup series 
is set 50 years earlier, and deals with how the 
Cylons were invented, and where this belief system 
of theirs came from.

Turns out it came from *human* monotheists who 
believed the same things, so much so that they felt
it was OK to blow up people in trains to change 
society to the way that *they* thought it should
be. So in this latest episode, one of these human
monotheists is trying to talk a human polytheist
out of feeling residual guilt because her brother
died in an accident years ago. The monotheist says,
"Listen to me. God does not want you to punish your-
self. He loves you unconditionally. He made you in
His image. We don't know why He takes those we love.
We just have to give ourselves over to His final
judgment. We have to trust in His wisdom. And if
you can learn how to do that, then you can be free
from all the pain of these terrible years. You just
have to trust Him, no matter what. Just trust God."

The thing is, it's all a trick. The monotheist saying
this WANTS something from the woman she is talking to.
She's trying to get some information from her that
will help her to bring down the polytheistic society
and forcibly replace it with what *she* thinks society
should be like. 

How is this different from any number of religions
saying the same thing, "Trust in God," with a hidden
agenda of getting those they've convinced to stop
asking the big question, "WHY does this stuff happen?"
and just trust that they (or their designated priests,
gurus, or shamans) know the answers?

For that matter, how is it different from those who
tell people to trust in "the unfathomable nature of
karma?" Same bottom line: "Just trust that some intel-
ligence (or operating system) out there is in charge
of things, and that it's all working perfectly, and
working out the way it does for a REASON.

My bet is that most of the religious organizations
saying this WANT something from the people they're
saying it to. Many of them just want followers and/
or their cash. Others have an idea of the "perfect
society" they would either like to see remain in 
place or replace the one that is currently in place. 
And by convincing the believers that they are on the 
side of God (or have a clue as to the mechanics of 
karma), they have created another convert to the cause.

Personally I don't have a clue How It All Works. The
idea of karma still feels intuitively right to me,
but I know that it could be a crock. Equally intui-
tively, the concept of God feels like a crock to me. 
For all I know the universe *is* random, and if so 
I have no problem with that. 

Fair, schmair. That's a *human* concept, thought up
by tiny insects crawling on a big ball (that is really
a very tiny ball among billions of other balls) trying 
to figure out the answers to questions that probably 
aren't even *questions*, except to them and their
own puny notions of self importance. 

I'm happy with "Things just happen." I am not in the
market for *anyone* trying to convince me that they
know WHY things just happen. Some may need that to
get through a day of things happening. I need only
the things themselves, as a

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Mike Dixon]

Corection: Ralph Reed on the cover of Time MAgazine, May 15th 1995.




From: Mike Dixon 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 4:28:29 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama


You mean like the photo of Ralph Reid that appeared on News Week?





From: off_world_beings 
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, March 12, 2010 4:50:54 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

  
 
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:32 PM, off_world_beings wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:38 PM, lurkernomore2000200 0 wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Enlighten me. How was the picture photoshopped?  I don't have the 
> > > > experience, and would like to know.
> > > 
> > > I don't know the answer to that, lurk,
> > > but do you really get your news off the 
> > > Drudge Report or Fox News?  Color me
> > > disillusioned.
> > > 
> > > Sal
> > >
> > 
> > Both of which have used photoshopped photos as if they are real for years.
> > 
> > Here is a shot of Jesse Ventura's new book cover:  http://screencast. 
> > com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
> > 
> > Here is a screenshot of the fake cover that Fox and Friends used 3 days 
> > ago:http://screenca st.com/t/ MTMwZWI3Z
> 
> The Fox page was gone, but I can imagine.
> It's disillusioning when intelligent people fall
> for that crap.
> 
> Sal
>
Here is the Fox version -- screencapture from the video of Fox and Friends:
http://screencast. com/t/NDYxZGM5Zj Yt
...compared to the actual cover --  http://screencast. com/t/YzNiZTRmYW
I know the actual cover is also a trumped up version of Ventura, like any 
author picture, but the Fox and Friends version went out of their way to make 
him look dweeby. News organizations are not supposed to do that.
OffWorld




  

[FairfieldLife] Today, a Yagya for wisdom and balance.

[Buck]

FW;
Dear friends and devotees,

At 1:30 pm Saturday, March 13),at Shri Devi Mandir in FF 
Pundit Sarathi performs a special Yagya (Puja and Homa) 
for the Grahas Sukra (Venus) and Budha (Mercury).
 
Both of these planets will be in extreme conditions:
Sukra will be exalted, and Budha will be debilitated (on March 14). 
This Yagya also includes all 9 grahas, and Durga, the Goddess 
who can destroy all our vices and less positive tendencies.

This is a very good time to propitiate these two grahas. 
The Vedic New Year is March 16 - it is good to start the year on a strong 
footing. 
Sukra is (among other things): desires, harmony, balance, creative power, and 
beauty.
Budha is communication, intelligence, discrimination, shrewdness and defines 
our 
ability to play. At this moment in time, we all need these qualities to be in 
balance. 
 
When Budha is debilitated and Sukra is exalted, they are in the same 
sign of the zodiac Meena or Pisces, so they are fully influencing each other. 
The condition of these Grahas at the beginning of the year can color how the 
world 
behaves for the rest of the year. So, rather than exaggerated desires, and lack 
of 
balance, harmony and discrimination, not to mention debilitated communication 
and intelligence, we would like to bring these qualities into equilibrium and 
stability.


All temple events are free and open to the public. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Christians Urged to Boycott Glenn Beck

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> >
> > http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/christians-urged-to-boycott-gl
> > enn-beck/?hp
> >
> 
> This is great news for TM initiations!
> 
> If everyone was to leave churches that preached "social justice" the only 
> church left to go to would be the TM Church because as we all know the TM 
> organisation NEVER, EVER does anything in the social field.
>

Yep, David Lynch observed that last month in an interview in Iceland too:

"Is there a system of ethics connected to the practice of TM?

No."

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Lakshmanju and Maharishi

[Vaj]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 11:18 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:

> She stole that from Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity and beyond"!


Actually while it's common for Hindu gurus to laud empty praise upon one 
another (even if they are pedophiles), if you look into this, the source 
doesn't pan out. It's bizarre to me the TM Org would stoop so low as to 
fabricate quotes from a dead guru. Now THAT's desperate.

And of course it's rather odd given that MMY was a student of Lakshman Joo, not 
the other way around. L-J's teachings actually go against MMY's.

Go figure.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:

> Personally I don't have a clue How It All Works. The
> idea of karma still feels intuitively right to me,
> but I know that it could be a crock. Equally intui-
> tively, the concept of God feels like a crock to me. 
> For all I know the universe *is* random, and if so 
> I have no problem with that. 

When all else fails, just go with your own experience, your own intuition.  
That's what I have found works best.  And there doesn't seem to be any shortage 
of "wonder" moments.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[curtisdeltablues]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:

Goddamn Barry!  You just handed me at least an hour of my life back today 
responding to Judy.  Thanks man.  Now I can get back to this Blind Boy Fuller 
song I'm working one with nothing to add here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnoeTmbUmZw&feature=PlayList&p=8B9F82CB6A5DBD76&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=8

http://tinyurl.com/ye78fu8






>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> > > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> > > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the
> > > Simpsons and the Family Guy.
> > 
> > Are they really funny, or are they just mean?
> 
> The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell
> the difference makes Curtis' whole point
> about her compulsively defending "privileged" 
> religious beliefs that do not need defending.
> 
> The Simpsons is the longest-running American 
> sitcom, the longest-running American animated 
> program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as 
> the longest running American primetime enter-
> tainment series. The Simpsons has won dozens 
> of awards since it debuted as a series, including 
> 25 Primetime Emmy Awards, 26 Annie Awards and a 
> Peabody Award. Time magazine's December 31, 1999 
> issue named it the 20th century's best television 
> series.
> 
> The only thing THE CORRECTOR can see is someone
> being "mean" to people by mocking their "privileged"
> religious claims.
> 
> One of the points that Curtis has been trying to
> make is that the compulsive "defenders" of religion
> (especially when it's theoretically not their *own* 
> religion they are compulsively defending) are basic-
> ally closet Victorians. As in the description of 
> codependency I posted not long ago, they view people
> as being *unable to defend themselves or take care
> of themselves*. The codependent activist feels that
> it is his or her *job* to defend these weak people
> that others are being "mean" to. But the whole bot-
> tom line of the disorder is that the "defense" is 
> a closet way of putting them down. "They're too weak 
> to stand up for themselves, so I have to do it."
> 
> The religions in question that have been mocked by
> The Simpsons have wisely *laughed along* with the
> mockery, and hopefully in a few cases even learned
> from it. An exception, of course, is Scientology,
> which tried to adopt THE CORRECTOR's approach and
> have the episode mocking them *banned*.
> 
> THAT is what her stance is really about. She is 
> trying desperately to make Curtis the Bad Guy for
> mocking something that just *screams* to be mocked.
> Her goal on FFL is to encourage one or more other
> posters to post something critical of Curtis for
> expressing his stance. In this she has FAILed as
> completely as she has when trying the same thing
> with other posters she was trying to demonize over 
> the years. 
> 
> The wisest promoters *of* the beliefs being mocked
> realize not only the unprovable but also the ridic-
> ulous nature of many of their beliefs, and thus
> laugh along with the audience when they are poked
> fun at well. All that THE CORRECTOR can see is 
> someone being "mean" to weak people that she, being
> "strong," must defend. What a crock. What self-
> serving, self-important crap.
> 
> THE CORRECTOR had several paths open to her when
> Curtis began his latest round of challenging and
> poking fun at certain religious beliefs like karma,
> reincarnation, and the caste system. She could have 
> laughed along with the mockery (like the millions 
> who laugh along when The Simpsons make fun of belief
> systems equally tenuous and unprovable). She could 
> have gone all "serious" and tried to make a case for 
> karma and reincarnation and the caste system episto-
> mologically or philosophically, and thus put her 
> *own* opinion and ass on the line. But she didn't.
> But she chose the easiest and the laziest path of
> all -- she chose to try to make Curtis out to be a
> Bad Guy for mocking beliefs *she* is too lazy to 
> actually defend intellectually. 
> 
> It's always the same -- when someone says something
> that gets a laugh on this forum, *especially* if the
> laughter is justified because it reveals the shaky
> foundations of a belief system she secretly believes
> in but is afraid to admit to believing in herself,
> the only reason she can think of for provoking the
> laughter is someone being "mean." It *challenges*
> her that someone has poked fun at a belief, and 
> rather than take the adult route when so challenged
> and either laugh along at the fun-poking or refute
> it intellectually, she goes *almost every time* for
> trying to demonize the comic.
> 
> I think that THE CORRECTOR has by far the 
> LAZIEST mind on this forum. Her responses are 
> predictable because by now *everyone* knows

[FairfieldLife] Re: MGF Chat Summary - Raja Luis and Dr. Robert Roth

[guyfawkes91]

 >>Two countries have requested implementation in their police forces, >>which 
 >>are highly militarized.
Birds of a feather flock together. The TMO always did well when mixing with 
dictators. Promises of "invincibility" go down well with people who have good 
reason to be scared of their own population. 

But rather more interesting is the influx of media types, who one normally 
expects to be free spirits and not at all keen on authoritarian systems. I 
think there's likely to be a culture clash at some point. Maybe some of them 
will do a bit of background research, or maybe get their accountants to do some 
due diligence on the money flows. If you see poor teachers and yet the upper 
echelons are building palaces for themselves you don't need a high powered 
forensic accountant to work out what's going on. 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my 
> life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man.  

De nada. Call me a codependent Victorian, but no one
gets away with calling The Simpsons "mean" when I'm
around. That's treading on *my* religion. :-) Besides, 
I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I figure me 
chiming in again will make her so mad she'll have 
posted out before I even get where I'm going.  :-)

> Now I can get back to this Blind Boy Fuller song I'm 
> working one with nothing to add here.
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/ye78fu8

Cool. Can't wait to hear your version. Party on, dude.


> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> > > > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> > > > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the
> > > > Simpsons and the Family Guy.
> > > 
> > > Are they really funny, or are they just mean?
> > 
> > The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell
> > the difference makes Curtis' whole point
> > about her compulsively defending "privileged" 
> > religious beliefs that do not need defending.
> > 
> > The Simpsons is the longest-running American 
> > sitcom, the longest-running American animated 
> > program, and in 2009 it surpassed Gunsmoke as 
> > the longest running American primetime enter-
> > tainment series. The Simpsons has won dozens 
> > of awards since it debuted as a series, including 
> > 25 Primetime Emmy Awards, 26 Annie Awards and a 
> > Peabody Award. Time magazine's December 31, 1999 
> > issue named it the 20th century's best television 
> > series.
> > 
> > The only thing THE CORRECTOR can see is someone
> > being "mean" to people by mocking their "privileged"
> > religious claims.
> > 
> > One of the points that Curtis has been trying to
> > make is that the compulsive "defenders" of religion
> > (especially when it's theoretically not their *own* 
> > religion they are compulsively defending) are basic-
> > ally closet Victorians. As in the description of 
> > codependency I posted not long ago, they view people
> > as being *unable to defend themselves or take care
> > of themselves*. The codependent activist feels that
> > it is his or her *job* to defend these weak people
> > that others are being "mean" to. But the whole bot-
> > tom line of the disorder is that the "defense" is 
> > a closet way of putting them down. "They're too weak 
> > to stand up for themselves, so I have to do it."
> > 
> > The religions in question that have been mocked by
> > The Simpsons have wisely *laughed along* with the
> > mockery, and hopefully in a few cases even learned
> > from it. An exception, of course, is Scientology,
> > which tried to adopt THE CORRECTOR's approach and
> > have the episode mocking them *banned*.
> > 
> > THAT is what her stance is really about. She is 
> > trying desperately to make Curtis the Bad Guy for
> > mocking something that just *screams* to be mocked.
> > Her goal on FFL is to encourage one or more other
> > posters to post something critical of Curtis for
> > expressing his stance. In this she has FAILed as
> > completely as she has when trying the same thing
> > with other posters she was trying to demonize over 
> > the years. 
> > 
> > The wisest promoters *of* the beliefs being mocked
> > realize not only the unprovable but also the ridic-
> > ulous nature of many of their beliefs, and thus
> > laugh along with the audience when they are poked
> > fun at well. All that THE CORRECTOR can see is 
> > someone being "mean" to weak people that she, being
> > "strong," must defend. What a crock. What self-
> > serving, self-important crap.
> > 
> > THE CORRECTOR had several paths open to her when
> > Curtis began his latest round of challenging and
> > poking fun at certain religious beliefs like karma,
> > reincarnation, and the caste system. She could have 
> > laughed along with the mockery (like the millions 
> > who laugh along when The Simpsons make fun of belief
> > systems equally tenuous and unprovable). She could 
> > have gone all "serious" and tried to make a case for 
> > karma and reincarnation and the caste system episto-
> > mologically or philosophically, and thus put her 
> > *own* opinion and ass on the line. But she didn't.
> > But she chose the easiest and the laziest path of
> > all -- she chose to try to make Curtis out to be a
> > Bad Guy for mocking beliefs *she* is too lazy to 
> > actually defend intellectually. 
> > 
> > It's always the same -- when someone says something
> > that gets a laugh on this forum, *especially* if the
> > laughter is justified because it reveals the shaky
> > foundations of a belief system she secretly believes
> > in but is afraid to

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> 
> Goddamn Barry!  You just handed me at least an hour of my
> life back today responding to Judy.

Narrow escape, eh, Curtis? Just adopt Barry's total
misunderstanding of my post, and there's Much Less
Work for Mother.

Oh, and be sure not to bother to read my response to
Barry. You don't want to know what I actually meant,
or how wrong he was. (Well, actually, you know how
wrong he was on a lot of it, but it serves your
purposes to pretend otherwise, even when you've
already agreed with me on a number of the points
Barry gets all fouled up.)

As to the question I asked in the post Barry is
commenting on, I wonder if you'd have had the cojones
to misunderstand it the way he does if he hadn't done
so first to give you cover (especially if you did read
my comment about George Carlin in my earlier post,
which had to do with the same issue).

Just for the record (Curtis, stop reading here):

> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> > > > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> > > > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the
> > > > Simpsons and the Family Guy.
> > > 
> > > Are they really funny, or are they just mean?
> > 
> > The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell
> > the difference makes Curtis' whole point
> > about her compulsively defending "privileged" 
> > religious beliefs that do not need defending.

I've never seen the shows, so obviously it isn't a
matter of my not being able to tell the difference.

My assumption, however, is that they're really funny
and *not* just mean, or they wouldn't be so popular.
As I explained to Curtis in another context a couple
weeks ago, I find it just about impossible to be
offended by anything that's really funny.

So, no, my disapproval of mockery wouldn't extend
to "Simpsons" and "Family Guy" if I'm right that
they're really funny. It's only *mean* mockery that
I object to.

(Tangentially, it occurs to me that the distinction
may have to do with compassion vs. the lack thereof.
Does really funny mockery stem fundamentally from
compassion, whereas mean mockery stems from hostility
and loathing? I don't know; I'm going to have to
think about it.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon 
wrote:
>
> Corection: Ralph Reed on the cover of Time MAgazine, May 15th 1995.
>
>
>
> 
> From: Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@...
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 4:28:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama
>
>
> You mean like the photo of Ralph Reid that appeared on News Week?>>

Time Magazine is a mostly right-wing rag,  but their use of traditional
photography in 1995 on a corrupt christian fundie politician in the pics
below, was nothing like the Fox News photoshopped smear of professional
working journalists.



Here are pics of Fox News alterations of regular working journalists:

""Steinberg's teeth have been yellowed, his nose and chin widened, and
his ears made to protrude further. ""



""Similarly, a comparison of the photo of Reddicliffe used by Fox News
and the original photo
  suggests
that Reddicliffe's teeth have been yellowed, dark circles have been
added under his eyes, and his hairline has been moved back. ""



http://mediamatters.org/research/200807020002


OffWorld

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my 
> > life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man.  
> 
> De nada. Call me a codependent Victorian, but no one
> gets away with calling The Simpsons "mean" when I'm
> around.

Just to rub Barry's nose in his error: I have no
reason to think "The Simpsons" is mean. On the
contrary, I assume (never having seen it) that it's
really funny rather than mean.

I was making a distinction between "The Simpsons"
and Curtis's own *mean* mockery.

See my longer response to Barry's post for more about
this (that is, if you're not Curtis, who MUST NOT
read it, and Barry, who of course won't read it).

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
> 
> The reason it is wrong to persecute gay people has nothing to do with the 
> scripture.  The reason people practice hospitality and charity has nothing to 
> do with the scripture.  These are values we hold as a society or at least try 
> to impose laws to disallow the worst violations.  Linking these behaviors 
> good or bad to the authority of scripture rather than the process of 
> reasonable discourse about what kind of world we want to live in is the 
> problem in my view.  Because there is nothing intrinsic in the system of 
> authority that guides one person to use it for good and another to use it for 
> evil.
> 
> So I say let all human ideas stand on their own merit and don't shield 
> spiritual claims with claims of bigotry just because someone challenges the 
> idea as a bad one, held for bad reasons.  You would be right to tell a 
> holocaust denier that his idea was wrong by the evidence even if he didn't 
> use it to do bad things to Jews today. And a person who challenges them to 
> provide evidence to support their outrageous belief is not a bigot for asking 
> them to prove it.


Apologies up front for jumping into what appears to be a much longer 
discussion. While not disagreeing with your major points, applying them in a 
larger context seems a gray area. Not challenging, or countering, just 
exploring.

Take for example a fanatic fan, perhaps strongly believes that the Red Soxs  
WILL win this year, it is their destiny, and they are the greatest franchise 
that ever existed. They may not hurt anybody with this belief  (well except me  
perhaps if I challenge to vigorously -- or after their 6th beer. ) And some 
fans can take you down a long logical trail as to why the Red Soxs in reality 
do rock. It may be hard to refute some points, and time sucking to unravel 
flaws in what appears to be reasonable logic. Why should I take the time -- if 
the belief doesn't hurt anyone.

While I CAN challenge them, I doubt that I would take the time. There are so 
many idiotic positions people build out if false information, premises, 
reasoning and perception. Which ones should one challenge, how vigorously, and 
to what gain for anyone?  

Plus, its my observation, that people are far less likely to change their 
minds, is sustained and deeps ways, if you simple challenge their beliefs. They 
may indeed dig in deeper not that their egos are involved. It is often more 
productive, from my experience, to create conditions that enable the "believer" 
to challenge their own ideas, and to see the light -- to create that "ah ha" 
experience within them - on their own terms, using their own logic. Not always 
easy -- but not always hard either. 

I might distinguish between lower and higher probabilities of harm. The false 
Red Sox's belief may induce little if any harm. What about the belief 
"everybody is essentially good deep inside" or "everyone is essentially bad 
deep inside". Either belief could cause harm to the believe or those they 
interact with. Should we challenge them with the Truth -- (which of course is 
MY slant on things) that people are neither fully good or bad inside? And do I 
have any proof of that? 

Let's take Creation stories. When there is a mystery -- all sorts of 
explanations may arise -- look at 9/11. For something as big as creation, a 
huge array of stories, many great, arise. Yet we don't really have definitive 
proof as to how creation really came about. Physics thinks it knows some things 
about it, but not the whole thing. 
Some of the cross-cultural creation stories are certainly more entertaining, 
often more inclusive (children of nature and all), and more inspiring than dry 
physics and equations might be. Is the latter superior in all ways?

What about a false idea that does good. A number or religious groups are 
increasingly seeing the environment as God, or God's creation,  and are 
increasing gearing up to fight for ecological causes.  Is it productive to tell 
them they are all wet, challenge to prove God works in this way? Or just let 
them  to be deluded while doing the right thing. And maybe God is embedded deep 
in nature -- and should be cared for -- like an alter everywhere - I can't 
disprove that.
 
Your point appears to touch on the right to challenge. I don't feel constrained 
to challenge any's belief. I only choose to do so if their crazy story affects 
me. If someone says that God says I need to kill my first son -- I would 
challenge them in a quite vigorous WTF way (or do a call out to God" God, you 
must be putting me on. God said, no, I said huh, and God said son, do what you 
want but look out next time you are on highway 61". 

If someone says that God says I need to kneel and pray 5 times a day -- I might 
say -- well, thats nice, but it's not part of my routine, I don't care to do 
so, I see no proof that God said this (probably because I may challenge an 
anthropo

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[authfriend]

Curtis, fair warning, you DO NOT WANT TO READ THIS.
You want to keep your head firmly buried in the sand
so you can work on your music. Trust me on this.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm just wondering if this disapproval of mocking religious
> > > claims extends to TV cartoon satires cuz that would pretty
> > > much knock out my favorite shows on Sunday night, the
> > > Simpsons and the Family Guy.
> > 
> > Are they really funny, or are they just mean?
> 
> The fact that THE CORRECTOR cannot tell
> the difference

How could I "tell the difference" when I've never
watched either show?

 makes Curtis' whole point
> about her compulsively defending "privileged" 
> religious beliefs that do not need defending.

> The only thing THE CORRECTOR can see is someone
> being "mean" to people by mocking their "privileged"
> religious claims.
> 
Well, no, Barry completely missed *my* point.

As I said to Curtis last night in reference to *his*
mockery (before he made the post quoted above,
ironically; if he'd read my post, he probably wouldn't
have made the one above):

"If you were George Carlin, maybe you could get away
with it. But your mockery isn't funny enough to make
the medicine go down, IMHO, even for mature adults."

George Carlin was very funny. I assume "Simpsons"
and "Family Guy" are also very funny, because they're
so popular.

What I disapprove of--because it's counterproductive
in changing behavior--is *mean* mockery. But if it's
really funny, it can be like the old saw about the
spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.
Funny can get past resistance and actually do some
good, as Barry goes on to note:

> The religions in question that have been mocked by
> The Simpsons have wisely *laughed along* with the
> mockery, and hopefully in a few cases even learned
> from it.

Exactly. *That* was my point.

But that isn't the case with *mean* mockery. Mean
mockery just pisses people off, and they stop
listening altogether. If you can keep 'em laughing,
it's a lot harder for them to keep up their defenses.

> One of the points that Curtis has been trying to
> make is that the compulsive "defenders" of religion
> (especially when it's theoretically not their *own* 
> religion they are compulsively defending) are basic-
> ally closet Victorians. As in the description of 
> codependency I posted not long ago, they view people
> as being *unable to defend themselves or take care
> of themselves*. The codependent activist feels that
> it is his or her *job* to defend these weak people
> that others are being "mean" to. But the whole bot-
> tom line of the disorder is that the "defense" is 
> a closet way of putting them down. "They're too weak 
> to stand up for themselves, so I have to do it."

This may be the case with some people, but not with
me. As I've said to Curtis over and over in this
discussion--which Barry obviously hasn't read, or
hasn't been able to comprehend (and which Curtis is
too chicken to challenge him on)--I think going after
*behavior* is much more effective than going after
beliefs per se. If you can get people to see that
their *behavior* is wrong, they can no longer think
of that behavior as something God wants. And they'll
start questioning their beliefs on their own. That's
much more powerful than somebody else telling them
their beliefs are wrong.

 An exception, of course, is Scientology,
> which tried to adopt THE CORRECTOR's approach and
> have the episode mocking them *banned*.

Completely wrong. I don't want to ban anything,
especially not if it's really funny.

> THAT is what her stance is really about. She is 
> trying desperately to make Curtis the Bad Guy for
> mocking something that just *screams* to be mocked.

Completely wrong. It's *mean* mockery I object to.

> Her goal on FFL is to encourage one or more other
> posters to post something critical of Curtis for
> expressing his stance.

Completely wrong. I have no such goal. Curtis and I,
in fact, have had a reasonably cordial agree-to-
disagree discussion about the practical value of
challenging religious beliefs. I have no basis to
"demonize" him for his stance on this and have not
done so.

 In this she has FAILed as
> completely as she has when trying the same thing
> with other posters she was trying to demonize over 
> the years.

Since I wasn't trying to do anything of the kind,
there's no way I could have "failed" at it.
 
> The wisest promoters *of* the beliefs being mocked
> realize not only the unprovable but also the ridic-
> ulous nature of many of their beliefs, and thus
> laugh along with the audience when they are poked
> fun at well.

Indeed. And quite possibly even some who aren't so
wise. Humor--*funny* humor, not mean humor--can get
past their defenses if it's done right and make them
see the ridiculousness of the be

[FairfieldLife] Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson out of its textbooks

[do.rflex]

Texas Board of Education cuts Thomas Jefferson out of its textbooks

  [thomas-jefferson-big copy]  The Texas Board of Education has been
meeting this week
  to
revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days,
"the board's far-right faction wielded their power
  to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the
U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics":

– To avoid exposing students to "transvestites, transsexuals and
who knows what else," the Board struck the curriculum's
reference
  to "sex
and gender as social constructs."

– The Board removed Thomas Jefferson
  from the Texas curriculum, "replacing him with religious right
icon John Calvin."

– The Board refused to require
  that "students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S.
government from promoting one religion over all others."

– The Board  struck the word "democratic"
  from the description of the U.S. government, instead
terming it a "constitutional republic."

As the nation's second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous
leverage over publishers, who often "craft their standard textbooks
based on the specs of the biggest buyers
 ."
Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported
 , "when it comes to textbooks, what happens
in Texas rarely stays in Texas."

-DJ Carella 
Update Following repeated failed attempts to add figures in Hispanic
history to the textbooks, one board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, stormed
"out of the meeting late Thursday night, saying, 'They can just pretend
this is a white America and Hispanics don't exist
 .'"

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-je\
fferson-out-of-its-textbooks/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[Joe]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > 
> > Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my 
> > life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man.  
> 
> De nada. Call me a codependent Victorian, but no one
> gets away with calling The Simpsons "mean" when I'm
> around. That's treading on *my* religion. :-) Besides, 
> I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I figure me 
> chiming in again will make her so mad she'll have 
> posted out before I even get where I'm going.  :-)

Whaddya know Barry.you're right! Look at her go!

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[ShempMcGurk]

This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film blocked lessens my 
opinion of them.  Simply because if you want less people to see a negative film 
about you, the last thing you do is try and get it banned.

Haven't they heard of the concept of "banned in Boston"?  A sure way to make 
your movie or book a hit is to get people thinking there is something that is 
so much of interest or controversy that you try and squelch it. A guarantee for 
good box office.

The makers of the film must be thanking the Church for their donation of free 
publicity for the film.

I wasn't aware that TM did this, contrary to what Barry writes below.  
Certainly, the TMO will do this vis a vis blocking access to MUM students or 
course participants but I wasn't aware that they did this to the general public.

Could he or anyone supply some examples?

And is Barry correct about "The Simpson's"?  I remember a "South Park" episode 
about Tom Cruise and his alleged homosexuality being attacked by Scientology, 
but wasn't aware of a "Simpson's" episode. And, by the way, the ONLY "South 
Park" episode I ever saw was the Tom Cruise one precisely because Scientology 
and/or Cruise tried so hard to have it banned that I simply had to watch it, 
proving my point above.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> How the Church Of Scientology is choosing to deal with this German film
> critical of its organization is interesting, because we don't know yet
> how the TM organization is going to deal with the German film "David
> Wants To Fly." Both organizations have a history of trying to legally
> suppress critical comment about them. Heck, the Scientologists tried to
> have an episode of "The Simpsons" banned, probably because its writers
> were being "mean" to them. We'll just have to wait and see whether the
> TMO takes the same "ban the critics who are being mean to us" approach.
> 
> Scientologists Try To Block Highly Critical Film
> 
> The Church Of Scientology has expressed anger at a German TV film  that
> is reported to be critical of the controversial organization.
> 
> Germany's state broadcaster, ARD, is planning to broadcast the film, 
> titled Bis Nichts Mehr Bleibt, which translates as Until  Nothing
> Remains.
> 
> The 90-minute drama tells the story of Heiner von Ronns, a German man 
> who leaves the organization after donating a large amount of money, and 
> ends up losing contact with his daughter and wife, who remain members. 
> The film is based on a true story.
>  rman-film>
> 
> Reports indicate  
> the film is notable for being  extremely critical of the organization,
> portraying it is totalitarian  and dangerous.
> 
> Scientology leaders called the drama a piece of propaganda and have 
> sought to censor the film before its broadcast, criticizing the state 
> station for not supporting religious tolerance.
> 
> Jürg Stettler, a spokesman for Scientology in Germany, said, "We will
> show that the so-called expert engaged by ARD Ursula Caberta is feeding 
> the media false information," adding that the film's reportedly true 
> story is fabricated.
> 
> "Exactly the opposite of what ARD shows is the truth," he said.
> ARD's programme director Volker Herres has dismissed the accusations, 
> and hit out against Scientology.
>  ologists-try-to-ban-critical-German-feature-film.html>
> "We're not dealing here with a religion, rather with an organization 
> that has completely different motives," he said. "Scientology is about 
> power, business, and building up a network. Its lessons are pure science
> fiction, it's no religion, no church, no sect."
> 
> The Church of Scientology has had a difficult history in Germany,  where
> it is officially designated an anti-constitutional organization.
> 
> In 2007, the German protestant church called Tom Cruise the "Goebbels of
> Scientology
>  390.html> " after Cruise, a prominent  member, starred in the film
> Valkyrie, set in Nazi Germany. The  following year the German government
> attempted to ban the organization  after reports of illegal activity
>  5537.html> .
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my 
> > > life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man.  
> > 
> > De nada. Call me a codependent Victorian, but no one
> > gets away with calling The Simpsons "mean" when I'm
> > around. That's treading on *my* religion. :-) Besides, 
> > I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I figure me 
> > chiming in again will make her so mad she'll have 
> > posted out before I even get where I'm going.  :-)
> 
> Whaddya know Barry.you're right! Look at her go!

Lessee now, that would be three posts, two responding to
Barry's two posts, and the other to Curtis's.

Wow! I sure am posting out fast, just as Barry predicted!



It's funny, religious people believe stuff for which
there's no evidence; but the religion critics here (I
don't dare use the word "antireligionists" because it
upsets Barry) believe stuff for which there not only is
no evidence, but for which all the evidence is *to the
contrary*--even when that contrary evidence is right
smack under their noses.

As Tartbrain has sagely observed, "Trying to correct
other's false beliefs before correction all of ones own
false beliefs is folly."

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film 
> blocked lessens my opinion of them. ...
> I wasn't aware that TM did this, contrary to what Barry writes 
> below. Certainly, the TMO will do this vis a vis blocking access 
> to MUM students or course participants but I wasn't aware that 
> they did this to the general public.
> 
> Could he or anyone supply some examples?

I was thinking not of any films but of the online
seminar that John Knapp had organized. The TMO's
lawyers contacted him and made threats if he went 
ahead with it, so he canceled the seminar.

> And is Barry correct about "The Simpson's"? I remember a 
> "South Park" episode about Tom Cruise and his alleged 
> homosexuality being attacked by Scientology, but wasn't 
> aware of a "Simpson's" episode. 

Now that you mention it, that may be the episode
I was thinking of. Stupid of the Scientologists
to try to censor it, whichever show it was on.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[WillyTex]

TurquoiseB:
> > I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I 
> > figure me chiming in again will make her so 
> > mad she'll have posted out before I even get 
> > where I'm going...
> >
Joe:
> Look at her go!
>
You sound really scared, Joe.

With Barry going on a road trip to Houston, he
will probably miss at least 24 hours of online
debating on FFL. So, you're on your own for a
few hours at least. 

Judy is way out of your league when it comes to 
debating; she will probably wax you real good if 
you're not careful - you guys suck at debating.

So, we now know that Barry has a religion, and 
that Curtis is on a spiritual path.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film
> blocked lessens my opinion of them.  Simply because if you
> want less people to see a negative film about you, the last
> thing you do is try and get it banned.
> 
> Haven't they heard of the concept of "banned in Boston"?  A
> sure way to make your movie or book a hit is to get people
> thinking there is something that is so much of interest or 
> controversy that you try and squelch it. A guarantee for
> good box office.

Interestingly, the producers of the recent film about
Darwin tried to evoke precisely this result by claiming
it couldn't get a distributor because the distributors
were afraid of protests. Not sure it did them much good,
though, given the film's very mixed critical reception.

Even more interesting is this paragraph from the Guardian
article at the link:

"The filming of Valkyrie sparked numerous clashes between
the filmmakers and the government, which initially prevented
them from filming on several historical sites, including the
Bendler Block where Stauffenberg was hanged, due in part to
Cruise's association with Scientology. The ban was eventually
lifted."

The HuffPo article Barry quotes doesn't mention that 
the attempts at film-banning have gone both ways.

It does note that the German government took a good stab
at banning the Scientology organization itself:

> > The following year the German government attempted to
> > ban the organization after reports of illegal activity.

According to the linked article, it had to drop the
attempt for lack of evidence of illegal activity.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film 
> > blocked lessens my opinion of them. ...
> > I wasn't aware that TM did this, contrary to what Barry writes 
> > below. Certainly, the TMO will do this vis a vis blocking access 
> > to MUM students or course participants but I wasn't aware that 
> > they did this to the general public.
> > 
> > Could he or anyone supply some examples?
> 
> I was thinking not of any films but of the online
> seminar that John Knapp had organized. The TMO's
> lawyers contacted him and made threats if he went 
> ahead with it, so he canceled the seminar.
> 



...and now that you mention it, someone -- presumably the TMO -- had that 
youtube of that German Rajah calling for invincibility for germany removed.  
That pissed me off more than when the copyright holders had them remove my 
favorite youtube version of the Bangles "Walk like an Egyptian".  The German 
audience rising in spontaneous opposition to that nutcase was great 
theatre...and especially the part where you see Bevan stealthily sneaking 
offstage once things start to go south.  But unless you're looking for it, you 
miss it




> > And is Barry correct about "The Simpson's"? I remember a 
> > "South Park" episode about Tom Cruise and his alleged 
> > homosexuality being attacked by Scientology, but wasn't 
> > aware of a "Simpson's" episode. 
> 
> Now that you mention it, that may be the episode
> I was thinking of. Stupid of the Scientologists
> to try to censor it, whichever show it was on.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film
> > blocked lessens my opinion of them.  Simply because if you
> > want less people to see a negative film about you, the last
> > thing you do is try and get it banned.
> > 
> > Haven't they heard of the concept of "banned in Boston"?  A
> > sure way to make your movie or book a hit is to get people
> > thinking there is something that is so much of interest or 
> > controversy that you try and squelch it. A guarantee for
> > good box office.
> 
> Interestingly, the producers of the recent film about
> Darwin tried to evoke precisely this result by claiming
> it couldn't get a distributor because the distributors
> were afraid of protests. Not sure it did them much good,
> though, given the film's very mixed critical reception.
> 
> Even more interesting is this paragraph from the Guardian
> article at the link:
> 
> "The filming of Valkyrie sparked numerous clashes between
> the filmmakers and the government, which initially prevented
> them from filming on several historical sites, including the
> Bendler Block where Stauffenberg was hanged, due in part to
> Cruise's association with Scientology. The ban was eventually
> lifted."
> 
> The HuffPo article Barry quotes doesn't mention that 
> the attempts at film-banning have gone both ways.
> 
> It does note that the German government took a good stab
> at banning the Scientology organization itself:
> 
> > > The following year the German government attempted to
> > > ban the organization after reports of illegal activity.
> 
> According to the linked article, it had to drop the
> attempt for lack of evidence of illegal activity.
>


I suppose that trying to get something banned is NOT, as I write above, always 
a "sure way" to success.  It doesn't always work.

Donald Trump seems to be successful in threatening to sue people and getting 
them to shut up about him.  I'm thinking Rosie O'Donnell who was stifled by The 
Donald when she attempted to show that not only wasn't he worth as much as he 
claimed but that he was on the verge of bankruptcy.

[FairfieldLife] Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson U.S. Army (ret.): Rove, Cheney are cowards

[do.rflex]

Lt. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson U.S. Army (ret.) calls Rove, Cheney cowards. 
Accuses Cheney of leaking classified information to Rove in violation of law, 
in scathing interview with Lawrence O'Donnell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/35845599#35845599

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:

> Plus, its my observation, that people are far less likely
> to change their minds, is sustained and deeps ways, if
> you simple challenge their beliefs. They may indeed dig
> in deeper not that their egos are involved. It is often
> more productive, from my experience, to create conditions
> that enable the "believer" to challenge their own ideas,
> and to see the light -- to create that "ah ha" experience
> within them - on their own terms, using their own logic.
> Not always easy -- but not always hard either.

Exactly what I think.

As I've said to Curtis, it seems to me that one way to
approach this is to address actual behavior without
reference to beliefs.

If you can make a convincing case to the believer that
a particular behavior is actually harmful, with no
redeeming value--preferably by using examples of harm
that the believer is familiar with firsthand (such as
banishing a gay child)--the believer is going to have
to question the belief that this is something God wants
them to do, since God presumably wants only what is
good.

And once this question has arisen, it can lead to other
questions, such as whether the believer has accurately
interpreted the scripture of his/her religion, or even
perhaps whether the scripture itself accurately 
represents what God wants. From there, all kinds of
additional questions become possible, right up to and
including God's very existence.

As you say, if it's the *believer* who asks these
questions of him/herself, it's much more powerful than
if the critic poses them.

The *primary* goal, though, IMHO, is to stop the bad
behavior and the suffering it inflicts. If beliefs
change or are dropped as a result--and there's no
guarantee of that--it's a bonus. But futzing around
with epistemological challenges which, valid though
they may be, don't influence the bad behavior means
that the suffering inflicted by the bad behavior
continues.

It's more satisfying intellectually to trot out one's
grasp of epistemology and use it to triumphantly 
wrestle the beliefs to the ground, but it's unlikely
to spur the same wrestling on the part of the believer.
To the believer, the virtue of faith is that it
transcends epistemology.

(I subscribe to the rest of the points Tartbrain makes
as well, BTW.)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[Bhairitu]

Joe wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>   
>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>>>
>>> Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my 
>>> life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man.  
>>>   
>> De nada. Call me a codependent Victorian, but no one
>> gets away with calling The Simpsons "mean" when I'm
>> around. That's treading on *my* religion. :-) Besides, 
>> I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I figure me 
>> chiming in again will make her so mad she'll have 
>> posted out before I even get where I'm going.  :-)
>> 
>
> Whaddya know Barry.you're right! Look at her go!

The whole reason that I created the Post Count software in the first 
place, first to run on my PC and then as a PHP script that Alex could 
run,  was to give a "horse race" commentary for Saturday morning "off 
and running" posting.  OTOH, Barry baits these posts and probably the 
ongoing "soap opera" or "badminton games" is why a lot of people lose 
interest in FFL.  They have to wander through a bunch of YOBJ posts to 
get to anything interesting (much easier on an email client).

[FairfieldLife] Why I Meditate >>> Russell Simmons in the huffingtonpost

[merlin]

Russell Simmons
Founder of GlobalGrind.com 
  
Why I Meditate 
 
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/why-i-meditate_b_474689.html

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen 
Massenmails. 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with
> this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe
> I'm just that naive about it.

They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and
Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty
blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like
Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was
reported by UPI. Drudge reported it too. Don't know if
the NY Times ever deigned to dignify it by commenting in
the paper (the two were Times reporters who had done a
negative story on Fox), but the Times did comment to UPI.

I thought I remembered that Fox eventually apologized,
but I can't find any reference to this on Google.

I don't think the Ventura photo even comes close to
what Fox did in this case. So far, I haven't seen the
Ventura thing picked up anywhere on the blogs, nor have
I seen any comment from Ventura. So I'm dubious that it
was intentional; I think, as I said, that they used a
preliminary mockup of the cover, not realizing the final
cover was different.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
>  wrote:
> 
> > It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his thinking so
> attractive to me. He is saying something that is the opposite view of
> the karmic belief system, "it's not fair!" They didn't earn this
> suffering by their bad deeds in a past life, they just drew the short
> straw in life by chance.  I've just been thinking about this.  A phrase
> that has been used often to explain things that don't make sense to us,
> is,  "God in his infinite wisdom has..such and such"  Which is
> another way of saying, I haven't the foggiest idea why.  Any maybe this
> weak explanation works for many people. But for others it doesn't.  But
> I am thinking that an equally absurd explanation is that, "The random
> universe in its randomness has resulted in.. such and such,
> and so and so.  Please give me a sensible explanation of good and bad
> things happening,  action and reaction in the world of human life
> without introducing the concept of reincarnation.  I cannot, and that is
> why I subscribe to this concept. Andwe can act to change this
> unfairness.
> >
> > I think it is fascinating that you are promoting a guy who explicitly
> states that he does not belief in God and whose views are so much more
> inline with Gandhi than Guru Dev.
> >

Again, I am sure I am in the thick or a larger discussion and debate -- so 
apologies if I am repeating or trotting ideas already shown to be bogus.  The 
Big Question, "Why are things the way they are?". First, its fascinating and 
curious to me that my dog doesn't appear to ask this question -- but is far 
more enthusiastic about things than I, and plainly quite more gleeful at the 
wonders of life. 

"A walk? FANTASTIC! Thats the greatest idea of the Century! I could jump and 
down. Wait -- I AM jumping up and down. Bro, you are a genius."

"Wow, get a load of this smell, oh, now this one, lets run -not walk, Run over 
there and smell that thing. So MANY wonderful new smells to discover.Isn't life 
Great!"

But until we reach the ultimate View, DC, a parallel thought to the Big 
Question is why do things happen to me, and to "you" (as in any other)? Are 
these two questions related? 

Experimentation, experimental design, statistics -- science in general -- 
pursues the Big Question -- but has its limitations (that are increasingly 
overcome as knowledge expands). To pose a question of other posts and threads, 
why is the 8 year old beggar child so poor and exploited? 

"Science" (which includes the social sciences -- as well as humanities that 
explore causal chains in other ways) has a lot of ideas and partial data on why 
poverty exists -- though hardly much consensus.  One poster would appear to say 
the key driver is "economic system" others appear to think it's political, 
others class warfare, etc. Some merit can be found in all of these perspectives 
-- but none definitively answer the issue.

"Science" has somethings also say why poverty is happening to this person and 
not that one: education, social structure, parents income and wealth, height 
(Dilbert says a key criteria for managers is height -- which in my experience 
seems to bear some fruit)etc. 

But the questions as to why that 8 year old girl was born into poverty and a 
girl across town was born into a life of privilege is far less clear. I too 
find reincarnation is a plausible, but highly difficult to prove, explanation. 

And I don't feel that reincarnation, for me, is an exploitive tool to oppress 
others. If past action results in particular current conditions (almost a 
truism), that in no ways voids   compassion. How the 8 year old girl got into 
that condition, random or karmic, in no way diminishes the compassion we can 
have and actions we can take to help her, or others like her, out. (And that is 
no to say giving handouts -- particularly when thins smell manipulative -- is 
the best answer

However, does it matter? 

I am sure catcalls will follow this post -- but there is a value judgement in 
all of this that assumes that wealth is superior to poverty. I have learned 
some great things when I was flat broke over  sustained periods as well as when 
I have been more financially secure.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> 
> > Plus, its my observation, that people are far less likely
> > to change their minds, is sustained and deeps ways, if
> > you simple challenge their beliefs. They may indeed dig
> > in deeper not that their egos are involved. It is often
> > more productive, from my experience, to create conditions
> > that enable the "believer" to challenge their own ideas,
> > and to see the light -- to create that "ah ha" experience
> > within them - on their own terms, using their own logic.
> > Not always easy -- but not always hard either.
> 
> Exactly what I think.
> 
> As I've said to Curtis, it seems to me that one way to
> approach this is to address actual behavior without
> reference to beliefs.
> 
> If you can make a convincing case to the believer that
> a particular behavior is actually harmful, with no
> redeeming value--preferably by using examples of harm
> that the believer is familiar with firsthand (such as
> banishing a gay child)--the believer is going to have
> to question the belief that this is something God wants
> them to do, since God presumably wants only what is
> good.
> 
> And once this question has arisen, it can lead to other
> questions, such as whether the believer has accurately
> interpreted the scripture of his/her religion, or even
> perhaps whether the scripture itself accurately 
> represents what God wants. From there, all kinds of
> additional questions become possible, right up to and
> including God's very existence.

Good questions are like kleenex -- one leads to another -- more questions. 

And points of view, premised on particular assumptions - can swing back and 
forth -- or in a spiral upwards. And can lead to a Hegelian type dialectic 
where an initial idea or view -- when the linchpin assumptions are removed, can 
create an opposite view. The resolution of the conflict -- synthesis becomes a 
new view subject to the same eternal swing.  

Asking (oneself or others) the right questions can trigger an inner landslide 
and reconstruction that is more powerful than direct argument. 

> 
> As you say, if it's the *believer* who asks these
> questions of him/herself, it's much more powerful than
> if the critic poses them.
> 
> The *primary* goal, though, IMHO, is to stop the bad
> behavior and the suffering it inflicts. If beliefs
> change or are dropped as a result--and there's no
> guarantee of that--it's a bonus. But futzing around
> with epistemological challenges which, valid though
> they may be, don't influence the bad behavior means
> that the suffering inflicted by the bad behavior
> continues.

Yes. And not disagreeing -- but "bad" behavior, one could speculate, may be a 
swing of the Hegelian dialectic-- in ideas but also action. The "bad" thing" 
invokes and opposite behavior (in our selves or others), get synthesized, is 
re-contracted -- resynthesized etc. Who can say the swing to the "bad"side was 
unproductive in that it lead to the swing to the good side.  The cycle, one may 
view, is all good. 

 
> It's more satisfying intellectually to trot out one's
> grasp of epistemology and use it to triumphantly 
> wrestle the beliefs to the ground, but it's unlikely
> to spur the same wrestling on the part of the believer.

But it may help one resolve issues internally. That is, when people argue 
vigorously against another -- or their ideas -- this can be a facade -- or 
smoke screen -- to the real action -- we are arguing with our selves -- trying 
to convince ourselves of the merit of our current view. 

> To the believer, the virtue of faith is that it
> transcends epistemology.
> 
> (I subscribe to the rest of the points Tartbrain makes
> as well, BTW.)
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:

> I am sure catcalls will follow this post -- but there is
> a value judgement in all of this that assumes that wealth
> is superior to poverty. I have learned some great things
> when I was flat broke over  sustained periods as well as
> when I have been more financially secure.

Not to mention that rich people can be psychologically
miserable (sometimes as a result of their wealth, other
times independently of it). You don't have to be
materially deprived to undergo great suffering. For that
matter, you don't have to be poor to undergo great
*physical* suffering.

[FairfieldLife] The Political Case for Health Care Reform

[do.rflex]

White House pollster Joel Benenson writes in the Washington Post
  that there's "no question that a
majority of Americans oppose a government-run health system. But there
is no government-run health care in the plan, and not a single American
would be forced into any government-run program."

"In politics, new information is always the most potent. When it comes
to health care and insurance, once reform passes, the tangible benefits
Americans will realize will trump the fear-mongering rhetoric opponents
are stoking today."

He concludes: "It is no accident that Republican leaders are warning
Democrats of dire political consequences if health reform passes. But
there is every reason to believe that for Republicans, the negative
consequences will be their own."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/13/the_political_case_for_heal\
th_care_reform.html

Re: [FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[Bhairitu]

authfriend wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> 
>   
>> I am sure catcalls will follow this post -- but there is
>> a value judgement in all of this that assumes that wealth
>> is superior to poverty. I have learned some great things
>> when I was flat broke over  sustained periods as well as
>> when I have been more financially secure.
>> 
>
> Not to mention that rich people can be psychologically
> miserable (sometimes as a result of their wealth, other
> times independently of it). You don't have to be
> materially deprived to undergo great suffering. For that
> matter, you don't have to be poor to undergo great
> *physical* suffering.

A lot of the wealthy have people managing their wealth.  Otherwise 
they'd probably blow it overnight.  Bill Gates in an interview in 1991 
seemed to indicate that his money was "somewhere out there" or not 
really connected with it.  His dad was a corporate lawyer and probably 
suggested early on for some management firm to take care of his wealth.  
The problem is that they are so disassociated with that wealth and the 
real world that sometimes decisions they do make can be disastrous for 
others.  And its also why the wealthy have often been referred to as 
"eccentric."

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> > Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with
> > this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe
> > I'm just that naive about it.
>
> They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and
> Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty
> blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like
> Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was
> reported by UPI. I think I do remeber it now.  I guess they play us,
fellow Americans, as such fools, that they can foist almost anything on
us, and we will accept it.  And maybe we do to a certain extent.  I am
sure you read the piece in the NYT about a month ago about Roger Ailes. 
No one appears to be his peer in putting forth a product to promote a
certain agenda like he does. Drudge reported it too. Don't know if
> the NY Times ever deigned to dignify it by commenting in
> the paper (the two were Times reporters who had done a
> negative story on Fox), but the Times did comment to UPI.
>
> I thought I remembered that Fox eventually apologized,
> but I can't find any reference to this on Google.
>
> I don't think the Ventura photo even comes close to
> what Fox did in this case. So far, I haven't seen the
> Ventura thing picked up anywhere on the blogs, nor have
> I seen any comment from Ventura. So I'm dubious that it
> was intentional; I think, as I said, that they used a
> preliminary mockup of the cover, not realizing the final
> cover was different.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[Joe]

Well I'll be damned..here's ANOTHER one!

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Goddamn Barry! You just handed me at least an hour of my 
> > > > life back today responding to Judy. Thanks man.  
> > > 
> > > De nada. Call me a codependent Victorian, but no one
> > > gets away with calling The Simpsons "mean" when I'm
> > > around. That's treading on *my* religion. :-) Besides, 
> > > I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I figure me 
> > > chiming in again will make her so mad she'll have 
> > > posted out before I even get where I'm going.  :-)
> > 
> > Whaddya know Barry.you're right! Look at her go!
> 
> Lessee now, that would be three posts, two responding to
> Barry's two posts, and the other to Curtis's.
> 
> Wow! I sure am posting out fast, just as Barry predicted!
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny, religious people believe stuff for which
> there's no evidence; but the religion critics here (I
> don't dare use the word "antireligionists" because it
> upsets Barry) believe stuff for which there not only is
> no evidence, but for which all the evidence is *to the
> contrary*--even when that contrary evidence is right
> smack under their noses.
> 
> As Tartbrain has sagely observed, "Trying to correct
> other's false beliefs before correction all of ones own
> false beliefs is folly."
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:

> But the questions as to why that 8 year old girl was born into poverty and a 
> girl across town was born into a life of privilege is far less clear. I too 
> find reincarnation is a plausible, but highly difficult to prove, 
> explanation. 
>
There are many instances of detailed past lives memories, even in lives of 
ordinary people.  One I recently overheard on TV involved the child of a down 
to earth American couple where the child recalled his life as a WW2 pilot 
involved in dog fights. (I think I have that straight)  There has always been 
plenty of evidence to support the reality of past lives, but it seems to be 
something that upsets the status quo, so it generally goes no where, and really 
I don't think it even matters.

But if you are trying to make sense of things, at least for me, it is a 
necessary pre-supposition.  Whether or not the fact (if it is a fact) of 
reincarnation then requires a belief in God, I don't know.  I think it probably 
does, or at least a higher power of some sort.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> 
> > I am sure catcalls will follow this post -- but there is
> > a value judgement in all of this that assumes that wealth
> > is superior to poverty. I have learned some great things
> > when I was flat broke over  sustained periods as well as
> > when I have been more financially secure.
> 
> Not to mention that rich people can be psychologically
> miserable (sometimes as a result of their wealth, other
> times independently of it). You don't have to be
> materially deprived to undergo great suffering. For that
> matter, you don't have to be poor to undergo great
> *physical* suffering.

Beyond a certain minimum, the correlation of wealth and happiness are weak. 
What that minimum is can vary from context to context.The Grameen Bank (founded 
by Nobel winner Yanus for his work in micro finance) uses the criteria in the 
list below. 

And GDP measures all wealth. Are constituents of an economy with 1000 units of 
GDP that produces mostly superficial and/or harmful things better off than a 
comparative one flourishing in education, art, scientific achievements, 
humanism and innovation?   
 
The Ten Points of the Grameen Bank Definition of Poverty

1.The bank member and her family live in a tin-roofed house or in a house worth 
at least 25,000 taka (roughly equivalent to $370 ). The family members sleep on 
cots or a bedstead rather than the floor.

2.The member and her family drink pure water from tube wells, boiled water, or 
arsenic-free water purified by the use of alum, purifying tablets, or pitcher 
filters.

3.All of the member's children who are physically and mentally fit and above 
the age of six either attend or have finished primary school.

4.The member's minimum weekly loan repayment installment is 200 taka (around 
$3).

5.The members use a hygienic and sanitary latrine.

6.All family members have sufficient clothing to meet daily needs, including 
winter clothes, blankets, and mosquito netting.

7.The family has additional sources of income, such as a vegetable garden or 
fruit-bearing trees, to fall back on in times of need.

8.The member maintains an average annual balance of 5,000 taka (around $75) in 
her savings account. 

9.The member has the ability to feed her family three square meals a day 
throughout the year.

10.All family members are conscious about their health, can take immediate 
action for proper treatment, and can pay medical expenses in the event of 
illness.
 

[FairfieldLife] WillyTex: Proud to Live in the Great State of Texas!

[Joe]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/texas-textbook-massacre-u_n_498003.html

[FairfieldLife] Re: Funny or mean? You decide.

[Joe]

...and I'm a member of the CIA.

You've got it nailed Tex. I'm scared shitless of Judy. Her debating prowess has 
me shaking in my boots and losing sleep.
I repeat: how did you get so dad-gummed SMART Tex?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> TurquoiseB:
> > > I'm about to head out on a Road Trip, and I 
> > > figure me chiming in again will make her so 
> > > mad she'll have posted out before I even get 
> > > where I'm going...
> > >
> Joe:
> > Look at her go!
> >
> You sound really scared, Joe.
> 
> With Barry going on a road trip to Houston, he
> will probably miss at least 24 hours of online
> debating on FFL. So, you're on your own for a
> few hours at least. 
> 
> Judy is way out of your league when it comes to 
> debating; she will probably wax you real good if 
> you're not careful - you guys suck at debating.
> 
> So, we now know that Barry has a religion, and 
> that Curtis is on a spiritual path.
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
> 
> > But the questions as to why that 8 year old girl was born into poverty and 
> > a girl across town was born into a life of privilege is far less clear. I 
> > too find reincarnation is a plausible, but highly difficult to prove, 
> > explanation. 
> >
> There are many instances of detailed past lives memories, even in lives of 
> ordinary people.  One I recently overheard on TV involved the child of a down 
> to earth American couple where the child recalled his life as a WW2 pilot 
> involved in dog fights. (I think I have that straight)  

I saw that too. Lots of detailed stuff supporting reincarnation. However, I 
found it interesting the the boy, at age 10 or so, had no recollection 
whatsoever of providing all the detailed information when he was younger. 

> There has always been plenty of evidence to support the reality of past 
> lives, but it seems to be something that upsets the status quo, so it 
> generally goes no where, and really I don't think it even matters.

 
> But if you are trying to make sense of things, at least for me, it is a 
> necessary pre-supposition.  Whether or not the fact (if it is a fact) of 
> reincarnation then requires a belief in God, I don't know.  I think it 
> probably does, or at least a higher power of some sort.

I separate the God hypothesis and the Reincarnation hypothesis. Why would one 
have to exist with the other? (I ask myself, not challenging your direction.) 
Populations continue through patterns and forces of biology and evolution. A 
anthropomorphic god is not necessary to explain that. Why would a god be 
necessary to explain a continuation of inner life if it exists)? 

There is a tendency to lump things together and then say that because one of 
the things is bad or false, all the other stuff must be also. Like a recent 
post linking karma and caste systems at the hip. I see no reason to link the 
two. Karma (we all have different definitions perhaps) certainly is not 
dependent on some  archaic feudal social organization.  Nor do I see god as a 
prerequisite for a hypothesis of karma. 

Cultures and societies generally have much longer lives than humans. So, while 
continuity of individual life through reincarnation may be dicey to prove, its 
clearer to see how the actions of one generation can affect future ones (though 
far from crystal clear.) 

Odd example perhaps, but one I was thinking of earlier. Japan has suffered a 20 
year deflation and their economy has gone sideways over those years. Did their 
aggression during the 30's and 40's set up chains of events that led to the 20 
year slackness of their economy?  Maybe thats too far of a stretch. But their 
economic policies of the 70's and 80's surely had its effects on their 20 years 
in the desert.  

And digressing onto even further tangents, I try to look at history outside the 
conventional "truth" of my society. Many examples of conventional wisdom that 
as sacred cows yet quite suspect in their validity. This is a point AI was 
trying to make in an earlier post I made on one of Curtis's points of the 
sacred cows of religious beliefs. I think such sacred cows extend far wider 
than just religion. What American doesn't look at Pearl Harbor with disgust and 
feel all out war on Japan and massive bombing civilian populations (not just 
the two a bombs, but over 100 cities were incinerated -- not industrial 
targets, entire cities and their civilians) was justified  because - hey out of 
the blue they hit us. To express a divergent view, in public, usually does not 
meet with much careful consideration -- but rather knee-jerk (a bit jingoistic) 
reactions -- and echoes perhaps Obama's comments in his Nobel Price speech -- 
sometimes there is evil that must be fought.  

But if evil exists and must be fought, then why did we not go to war against 
Britain, France and other major colonial Empires that for 100's of years 
invaded, overran, exploited and treated the locals viscously and harshly? 
Japan, it can be argued, while vicious in its aggression of the 30s through 
Asia, was simply replacing older colonial empires with a new one -- an Asian 
one which is perhaps a step better than European ones. But discussing the 
reality of geopolitics, past and present, is difficult due to the prevalence of 
secular many sacred cows. The US initiated a steel and oil embargo on Japan 
because Japan overthrew part of the French colonial regime in Viet-Nam. The  
horror. Kicking an exploitive colonial imperialistic power on its ass. The poor 
imperial French. The meanie Japanese. And the embargo directly led to the 
Japanese attack on the Philippines and Hawaii six months later.   

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with
> > > this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe
> > > I'm just that naive about it.
> >
> > They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and
> > Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty
> > blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like
> > Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was
> > reported by UPI.
>
> I think I do remeber it now.  I guess they play us,
> fellow Americans, as such fools, that they can foist almost 
> anything on us, and we will accept it.  And maybe we do to a
> certain extent.  I am sure you read the piece in the NYT
> about a month ago about Roger Ailes. No one appears to be
> his peer in putting forth a product to promote a certain
> agenda like he does.

The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
channels, but it's still not all that significant
overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
than it really is.

What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!

Re: [FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[Sal Sunshine]

On Mar 13, 2010, at 5:04 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:

> There are many instances of detailed past lives memories, even in lives of 
> ordinary people.

Of course there are--there's also many instances of people
flying and turning invisible too.  The problem is, this never
seems to happen when impartial observers are around.

>  One I recently overheard on TV involved the child of a down to earth 
> American couple where the child recalled his life as a WW2 pilot involved in 
> dog fights. (I think I have that straight)

And this sounds legit to you because...?

>  There has always been plenty of evidence to support the reality of past 
> lives,

Really.  Plenty of good, solid evidence based
on actual proof?

> but it seems to be something that upsets the status quo, so it generally goes 
> no where, and really I don't think it even matters.

I just think most people consider it bullshit.
But if it makes you feel better to say people
are "upset" by it, lurk--as if they just *knew*
it was reality but couldn't bring themselves to 
admit it--why, go right ahead.:)

Tell me, is the idea of just losing consciousness
and going back into the great beyond *so*
terrifying that these fairy stories are really
necessary?  Not that there's anything wrong
with them, of course...

Sal

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with
> > > > this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe
> > > > I'm just that naive about it.
> > >
> > > They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and
> > > Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty
> > > blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like
> > > Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was
> > > reported by UPI.
> >
> > I think I do remeber it now.  I guess they play us,
> > fellow Americans, as such fools, that they can foist almost 
> > anything on us, and we will accept it.  And maybe we do to a
> > certain extent.  I am sure you read the piece in the NYT
> > about a month ago about Roger Ailes. No one appears to be
> > his peer in putting forth a product to promote a certain
> > agenda like he does.
> 
> The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> channels, but it's still not all that significant
> overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> than it really is.
> 
> What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
> news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
> much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
> way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
> being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
> direction.

> And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!

I am not sure any corporate media -- with all of its vested interests (e.g., GE 
-- until recently owning NBC -- what a joke for journalism), dependent on large 
corporate advertisers, and dependent on viewer ratings from an entertainment 
junkie public, will ever provides with what we need to know. 

Fortunately with the internet, and all, there are far wider sources available 
to most to enable tracking down the truth (since, "its out there"). 

A similar argument could be made against education -- that they will not teach 
us what we, or our kids, really need to know. That Texas textbook example is 
chilling. But other examples are all over the place.And higher education is 
increasingly highly dependent on research grants  -- and endowments -- which 
grow by contributors that have a high vested interest the status quo.  

I tend to think that we are all responsible for seeking out what is really 
happening -- and not dependent on the news media. As we are responsible, as all 
students are, for our own education. 


>

[FairfieldLife] Re: India 'issues' zero rupee banknotes

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:30 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote:
> 
> > I find it amusing that the man who royally fucked up India's economy for 50
> > years -- Mahatma Gandhi -- graces the zero rupee note.
> >
> > That's what his economic policies are worth.
> >
> > I saw the movie "Gandhi" about a year or two after visiting that hell-hole
> > known as India for a TM course.  I was the only one in the theatre cheering
> > for the British.

You cheer for one of the most wicked, blood-sucking, evil, violent, inhumane, 
blood-chillingly cruel, imperialistic empires of all times? 


> >
> >
> >
> I cheer for the British everytime I have to watch the DVD of Ghandi.  At
> least the British were civilized and white.   Hold on.  Those two are
> synonymous.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given  the Nobel Peace
> Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the
> White House based on:
> the same credentials."
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
 
> I separate the God hypothesis and the Reincarnation hypothesis. Why would one 
> have to exist with the other? (I ask myself, not challenging your direction.) 
> Populations continue through patterns and forces of biology and evolution. A 
> anthropomorphic god is not necessary to explain that. Why would a god be 
> necessary to explain a continuation of inner life if it exists)? 

Well, I have heard people here express the view, that upon death, it all goes 
blank.  That to me is a radical notion.  Says to me, no such thing as a subtle 
body, or in a more religious context, a "soul".  If there is an afterlife of 
some sort, doesn't that presume some sort of organizing power?  I'm just 
asking.  I don't know.
> 
> There is a tendency to lump things together and then say that because one of 
> the things is bad or false, all the other stuff must be also. Like a recent 
> post linking karma and caste systems at the hip. I see no reason to link the 
> two. Karma (we all have different definitions perhaps) certainly is not 
> dependent on some  archaic feudal social organization.  Nor do I see god as a 
> prerequisite for a hypothesis of karma. 

Right, I think you can decouple karma and caste, maybe a little easier than you 
can decouple God and an afterlife of some sort.

More later.  I'm off to see "Hurt Locker" with my wife and son. (-:


> Cultures and societies generally have much longer lives than humans. So, 
> while continuity of individual life through reincarnation may be dicey to 
> prove, its clearer to see how the actions of one generation can affect future 
> ones (though far from crystal clear.) 
> 
> Odd example perhaps, but one I was thinking of earlier. Japan has suffered a 
> 20 year deflation and their economy has gone sideways over those years. Did 
> their aggression during the 30's and 40's set up chains of events that led to 
> the 20 year slackness of their economy?  Maybe thats too far of a stretch. 
> But their economic policies of the 70's and 80's surely had its effects on 
> their 20 years in the desert.  
> 
> And digressing onto even further tangents, I try to look at history outside 
> the conventional "truth" of my society. Many examples of conventional wisdom 
> that as sacred cows yet quite suspect in their validity. This is a point AI 
> was trying to make in an earlier post I made on one of Curtis's points of the 
> sacred cows of religious beliefs. I think such sacred cows extend far wider 
> than just religion. What American doesn't look at Pearl Harbor with disgust 
> and feel all out war on Japan and massive bombing civilian populations (not 
> just the two a bombs, but over 100 cities were incinerated -- not industrial 
> targets, entire cities and their civilians) was justified  because - hey out 
> of the blue they hit us. To express a divergent view, in public, usually does 
> not meet with much careful consideration -- but rather knee-jerk (a bit 
> jingoistic) reactions -- and echoes perhaps Obama's comments in his Nobel 
> Price speech -- sometimes there is evil that must be fought.  
> 
> But if evil exists and must be fought, then why did we not go to war against 
> Britain, France and other major colonial Empires that for 100's of years 
> invaded, overran, exploited and treated the locals viscously and harshly? 
> Japan, it can be argued, while vicious in its aggression of the 30s through 
> Asia, was simply replacing older colonial empires with a new one -- an Asian 
> one which is perhaps a step better than European ones. But discussing the 
> reality of geopolitics, past and present, is difficult due to the prevalence 
> of secular many sacred cows. The US initiated a steel and oil embargo on 
> Japan because Japan overthrew part of the French colonial regime in Viet-Nam. 
> The  horror. Kicking an exploitive colonial imperialistic power on its ass. 
> The poor imperial French. The meanie Japanese. And the embargo directly led 
> to the Japanese attack on the Philippines and Hawaii six months later.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Do the enlightened benefit the world?" - A Call For Opinions

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> TurquoiseB:
> > "Do you personally believe that someone who is
> > enlightened intrinsically has any more positive
> > effect on the world around them than someone
> > who is not enlightened?"...
> >
> It is impossible to answer this question because
> it has not been established what the term 
> 'enlightenment' means. So, without an appeal to 
> authority, (verbal testimony) there's no way 
> anyone would know what it is Turq is asking.
>

Okay, by experience let's take this one as fact of experience.  It's a good one 
by experience that way.  It's poetic, generalized but particular from 
experience.  I'd agree with it.  Not Turq's evidently.  The real deal:

"...Like a lotus turned downwards is the heart,
a span below the neck and a span above the navel.
Know that heart to be the abode of God.
Surrounded by nerves, it hangs down like a lotus bud.
At its end is a subtle nerve,
in which is established the Being, who is everything.
A great fire is at its center, which has
flames all around, spreading in all directions.
It is the first partaker, the ageless knower,
who digests and circulates food.
Above and below are its spreading flames.
It keeps its body hot from head to feet.
At its core lies a flame, tapering finely upwards,
like the awn of corn, yellow, bright and subtle,
flashing like a lightening in the heart of a dark cloud.
At the center of this flame is installed the Supreme Being.
He is Brahman. He is Siva. He is Indra.
He is the indestructible Supreme Being, the lord Himself." 
- excerpts from the Taittariya Aranyaka III.13

-Buck

 
> Apparently Turq thinks the term means a 'force',
> external to or beyond human physiology, that
> enters into and causes physical change. 
> 
> The term is an undefined term, not a scientific 
> or measurable term at all. The term implies that 
> Turq has a religious belief in a dualistic 
> 'soul-monad' type of metaphysical theory.
> 
> The real question is, 'do mental thoughts entail 
> a moral reciprocity - that is, 'karma', a type
> of 'spiritual' retribution on a idealistic level.
> 
> The problem with this is that if karma is real,
> then 'good' acts should be rewarded with good;
> 'bad' acts should be rewarded with bad. But, we
> know that physics doesn't work like that: bad
> things happen to good people all the time, and
> sometimes good things happen to bad people.
> 
> So, we are left to go figure.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Today, a Yagya for wisdom and balance.

[Joe]

Hey Buck, is TM a religion?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> FW;
> Dear friends and devotees,
> 
> At 1:30 pm Saturday, March 13),at Shri Devi Mandir in FF 
> Pundit Sarathi performs a special Yagya (Puja and Homa) 
> for the Grahas Sukra (Venus) and Budha (Mercury).
>  
> Both of these planets will be in extreme conditions:
> Sukra will be exalted, and Budha will be debilitated (on March 14). 
> This Yagya also includes all 9 grahas, and Durga, the Goddess 
> who can destroy all our vices and less positive tendencies.
> 
> This is a very good time to propitiate these two grahas. 
> The Vedic New Year is March 16 - it is good to start the year on a strong 
> footing. 
> Sukra is (among other things): desires, harmony, balance, creative power, and 
> beauty.
> Budha is communication, intelligence, discrimination, shrewdness and defines 
> our 
> ability to play. At this moment in time, we all need these qualities to be in 
> balance. 
>  
> When Budha is debilitated and Sukra is exalted, they are in the same 
> sign of the zodiac Meena or Pisces, so they are fully influencing each other. 
> The condition of these Grahas at the beginning of the year can color how the 
> world 
> behaves for the rest of the year. So, rather than exaggerated desires, and 
> lack of 
> balance, harmony and discrimination, not to mention debilitated communication 
> and intelligence, we would like to bring these qualities into equilibrium and 
> stability.
> 
> 
> All temple events are free and open to the public.
>

[FairfieldLife] Post Count

[FFL PostCount]

Fairfield Life Post Counter
===
Start Date (UTC): Sat Mar 13 00:00:00 2010
End Date (UTC): Sat Mar 20 00:00:00 2010
67 messages as of (UTC) Sun Mar 14 00:14:36 2010

16 authfriend 
 9 lurkernomore20002000 
 7 tartbrain 
 5 TurquoiseB 
 4 ShempMcGurk 
 4 Joe 
 4 "do.rflex" 
 3 off_world_beings 
 2 shukra69 
 2 Mike Dixon 
 2 Buck 
 2 Bhairitu 
 1 merlin 
 1 guyfawkes91 
 1 curtisdeltablues 
 1 WillyTex 
 1 Vaj 
 1 Sal Sunshine 
 1 Rick Archer 

Posters: 19
Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times
=
Daylight Saving Time (Summer):
US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM
Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM
Standard Time (Winter):
US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM
Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM
For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com 

[FairfieldLife] Canadians Win Gold in Synchronized Peeing

[tartbrain]

http://deadspin.com/5488435/canadians-also-win-gold-for-synchronized-peeing

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[Joe]

Is that really accurate Judy? 3 million?

I had no idea.fascinating. (And kind of a relief!)

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again. It's hard to believe that they can get away with
> > > > this, without being castagated across the board, but maybe
> > > > I'm just that naive about it.
> > >
> > > They *did* get castigated for the Steinberg and
> > > Reddcliffe photo alterations, at least across the lefty
> > > blogosphere, as well as politically neutral blogs like
> > > Editor and Publisher (and PhotoShop News!); and it was
> > > reported by UPI.
> >
> > I think I do remeber it now.  I guess they play us,
> > fellow Americans, as such fools, that they can foist almost 
> > anything on us, and we will accept it.  And maybe we do to a
> > certain extent.  I am sure you read the piece in the NYT
> > about a month ago about Roger Ailes. No one appears to be
> > his peer in putting forth a product to promote a certain
> > agenda like he does.
> 
> The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> channels, but it's still not all that significant
> overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> than it really is.
> 
> What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
> news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
> much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
> way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
> being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
> direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!
>

[FairfieldLife] Is TM a religion (?)

[Buck]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
>
> Hey Buck, is TM a religion?

Proly not as it is taught by the David Lynch Foundation.

Evidently yes as it is taught by the TMorg Global Country.

Take a look at these for religious test:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, in at least one context, that
religions or religious beliefs are those that "are based upon a power or
being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which
all else is ultimately dependent." United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S.
163, 176 (1965); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339-40
(1970). One commonly accepted re-phrasing of this test breaks it into
three questions:

1. Does the practice or belief in question "address[]
fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and
imponderable matters"?

2. Is the practice or belief in question "comprehensive
in nature"? Does it "consist[] of a belief-system as opposed to an
isolated teaching"?

3. Does the practice or belief in question have
"certain formal and external signs," such as "formal services,
ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and
organization, efforts at propagation, observance of holidays and other
similar manifestations associated with traditional religion"? Africa v.
Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1032, 1035 (3d Cir. 1981).

If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, the practice
in question is not a religion. The third question serves as a helpful
guidepost, but religions and non-religions alike may answer yes to it.
In this way, if a certain belief serves to answer "ultimate questions"
dealing with topics such as "life and death, right and wrong, and good
and evil," it may be a religion. Id. at 1033. But even if the practice
does ask and/or answer those ultimate questions, it must also do so in a
comprehensive manner. "A religion is not generally confined to one
question or one moral teaching; it has a broader scope. It lays claim to
an ultimate and comprehensive 'truth,'" Id. at 1035 (quotation marks
omitted)."

Jai Adi Shankara,
-Buck



> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> >
> > FW;
> > Dear friends and devotees,
> > 
> > At 1:30 pm Saturday, March 13),at Shri Devi Mandir in FF 
> > Pundit Sarathi performs a special Yagya (Puja and Homa) 
> > for the Grahas Sukra (Venus) and Budha (Mercury).
> >  
> > Both of these planets will be in extreme conditions:
> > Sukra will be exalted, and Budha will be debilitated (on March 14). 
> > This Yagya also includes all 9 grahas, and Durga, the Goddess 
> > who can destroy all our vices and less positive tendencies.
> > 
> > This is a very good time to propitiate these two grahas. 
> > The Vedic New Year is March 16 - it is good to start the year on a strong 
> > footing. 
> > Sukra is (among other things): desires, harmony, balance, creative power, 
> > and beauty.
> > Budha is communication, intelligence, discrimination, shrewdness and 
> > defines our 
> > ability to play. At this moment in time, we all need these qualities to be 
> > in balance. 
> >  
> > When Budha is debilitated and Sukra is exalted, they are in the same 
> > sign of the zodiac Meena or Pisces, so they are fully influencing each 
> > other. 
> > The condition of these Grahas at the beginning of the year can color how 
> > the world 
> > behaves for the rest of the year. So, rather than exaggerated desires, and 
> > lack of 
> > balance, harmony and discrimination, not to mention debilitated 
> > communication 
> > and intelligence, we would like to bring these qualities into equilibrium 
> > and stability.
> > 
> > 
> > All temple events are free and open to the public.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Do the enlightened benefit the world?" - A Call For Opinions

[yifuxero]

Pure Consciousness is only an indirect cause, not "In-Itself". What changes the 
world is Shakti.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > TurquoiseB:
> > > "Do you personally believe that someone who is
> > > enlightened intrinsically has any more positive
> > > effect on the world around them than someone
> > > who is not enlightened?"...
> > >
> > It is impossible to answer this question because
> > it has not been established what the term 
> > 'enlightenment' means. So, without an appeal to 
> > authority, (verbal testimony) there's no way 
> > anyone would know what it is Turq is asking.
> >
> 
> Okay, by experience let's take this one as fact of experience.  It's a good 
> one by experience that way.  It's poetic, generalized but particular from 
> experience.  I'd agree with it.  Not Turq's evidently.  The real deal:
> 
> "...Like a lotus turned downwards is the heart,
> a span below the neck and a span above the navel.
> Know that heart to be the abode of God.
> Surrounded by nerves, it hangs down like a lotus bud.
> At its end is a subtle nerve,
> in which is established the Being, who is everything.
> A great fire is at its center, which has
> flames all around, spreading in all directions.
> It is the first partaker, the ageless knower,
> who digests and circulates food.
> Above and below are its spreading flames.
> It keeps its body hot from head to feet.
> At its core lies a flame, tapering finely upwards,
> like the awn of corn, yellow, bright and subtle,
> flashing like a lightening in the heart of a dark cloud.
> At the center of this flame is installed the Supreme Being.
> He is Brahman. He is Siva. He is Indra.
> He is the indestructible Supreme Being, the lord Himself." 
> - excerpts from the Taittariya Aranyaka III.13
> 
> -Buck
> 
>  
> > Apparently Turq thinks the term means a 'force',
> > external to or beyond human physiology, that
> > enters into and causes physical change. 
> > 
> > The term is an undefined term, not a scientific 
> > or measurable term at all. The term implies that 
> > Turq has a religious belief in a dualistic 
> > 'soul-monad' type of metaphysical theory.
> > 
> > The real question is, 'do mental thoughts entail 
> > a moral reciprocity - that is, 'karma', a type
> > of 'spiritual' retribution on a idealistic level.
> > 
> > The problem with this is that if karma is real,
> > then 'good' acts should be rewarded with good;
> > 'bad' acts should be rewarded with bad. But, we
> > know that physics doesn't work like that: bad
> > things happen to good people all the time, and
> > sometimes good things happen to bad people.
> > 
> > So, we are left to go figure.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a religion (?)

[tartbrain]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > Hey Buck, is TM a religion?
> 
> Proly not as it is taught by the David Lynch Foundation.
> 
> Evidently yes as it is taught by the TMorg Global Country.
> 
> Take a look at these for religious test:
> 
> "The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, in at least one context, that
> religions or religious beliefs are those that "are based upon a power or
> being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which
> all else is ultimately dependent." United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S.
> 163, 176 (1965); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339-40
> (1970). One commonly accepted re-phrasing of this test breaks it into
> three questions:
> 
> 1. Does the practice or belief in question "address[]
> fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and
> imponderable matters"?
> 
> 2. Is the practice or belief in question "comprehensive
> in nature"? Does it "consist[] of a belief-system as opposed to an
> isolated teaching"?
> 
> 3. Does the practice or belief in question have
> "certain formal and external signs," such as "formal services,
> ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and
> organization, efforts at propagation, observance of holidays and other
> similar manifestations associated with traditional religion"? Africa v.
> Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1032, 1035 (3d Cir. 1981).
> 
> If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, the practice
> in question is not a religion.

Thus, if the first two answers are yes it is a religion, yes? Then string 
theory is a religion. 

The practice address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep 
and imponderable matters. And it is "comprehensive
in nature. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Canadians Win Gold in Synchronized Peeing

[It's just a ride]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 8:21 PM, tartbrain  wrote:

>
> http://deadspin.com/5488435/canadians-also-win-gold-for-synchronized-peeing
>
>

This is a well known phenomena.  Water companies, cell phone companies,
electric companies prepare for this sort of thing.  Cell phone companies
bring special portable towers (called pigs) around a football (American or
pansy) stadium to handle the high volume of calls during half time.  Cell
phone companies have schedules of holidays, the Farmers Almanac, ball games,
concerts, everything possible that can affect traffic patterns on their
network.  They provision around these projected increases in call traffic.

-- 
My late grandfather told me that if I ate a meatball every day for a hundred
years, I would live to a ripe old age.

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:

  > Odd example perhaps, but one I was thinking of earlier. Japan has
suffered a 20 year deflation and their economy has gone sideways over
those years. Did their aggression during the 30's and 40's set up chains
of events that led to the 20 year slackness of their economy? Maybe
thats too far of a stretch. But their economic policies of the 70's and
80's surely had its effects on their 20 years in the desert.


>From what I have read, the banks were reluctant to write off bad loans,
and just kept them as non performing assets on the books.  Also, for
cultural reasons they did not seem willing  to let businesses fail.

> But if evil exists and must be fought, then why did we not go to war
against Britain, France and other major colonial Empires that for 100's
of years invaded, overran, exploited and treated the locals viscously
and harshly? Japan, it can be argued, while vicious in its aggression of
the 30s through Asia, was simply replacing older colonial empires with a
new one -- an Asian one which is perhaps a step better than European
ones. But discussing the reality of geopolitics, past and present, is
difficult due to the prevalence of secular many sacred cows. The US
initiated a steel and oil embargo on Japan because Japan overthrew part
of the French colonial regime in Viet-Nam. The horror. Kicking an
exploitive colonial imperialistic power on its ass. The poor imperial
French. The meanie Japanese. And the embargo directly led to the
Japanese attack on the Philippines and Hawaii six months later.
>

Interesting points.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Farakahn or Obama

[lurkernomore20002000]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:

> The one saving grace of Fox News is that only a tiny
> percentage of people watch it, 3-something million at
> most. Of course, that's more than the other cable news
> channels, but it's still not all that significant
> overall. News and political junkies tend to forget that
> and talk about it as if it's a lot more influential
> than it really is.


In our household Fox news is on periodically.  On the rare occasions
when I watch, or have the remote, I will see what is on CNN, and
typically I'm not too impressed.  There is something about Wolf Blitzer
I cannot stomach. I really don't know any of the other CNN
personalities. On rarer occassions I may catch Rachael Maddow, or Keith
Oberman, but  I don't find too much of interest there either.   But it
is the conservatives shows that are winning the ratings on both radio
and TV, but I guess, as you say, put in perspective, it is not as
significant as it might seem to be.

> What's a lot more significant is how the *rest* of the
> news media are falling down on the job. They aren't so
> much deliberately promoting an agenda, at least not the
> way Fox does; but they're terrified of being accused of
> being too liberal, so they tend to bend in the other
> direction. And they DON'T TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: India 'issues' zero rupee banknotes

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:30 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > 
> > > I find it amusing that the man who royally fucked up India's economy for 
> > > 50
> > > years -- Mahatma Gandhi -- graces the zero rupee note.
> > >
> > > That's what his economic policies are worth.
> > >
> > > I saw the movie "Gandhi" about a year or two after visiting that hell-hole
> > > known as India for a TM course.  I was the only one in the theatre 
> > > cheering
> > > for the British.
> 
> You cheer for one of the most wicked, blood-sucking, evil, violent, inhumane, 
> blood-chillingly cruel, imperialistic empires of all times? 
> 


Yes, proudly.

Britain and its common law brought freedom to corners of the world that had 
never seen it.

Britain was largely responsible for ending the practise of slavery throughout 
the world in which it was practised by many cultures.

You've been listening to Lyndon Larouche a wee bit too much.




> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I cheer for the British everytime I have to watch the DVD of Ghandi.  At
> > least the British were civilized and white.   Hold on.  Those two are
> > synonymous.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given  the Nobel Peace
> > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the
> > White House based on:
> > the same credentials."
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Revisting- Re: Did you have this experience in India ?

[lurkernomore20002000]

Ok Sal, I'm going to give it right back to you.   I remember when the
John Edwards mistress, love child story broke. You totally ridiculed me
for buying into it, because the story was broken by, OMG, "The National
Enquirer". As a courtesy to you, because you seemed to be so undone by
it, I conceded that perhaps the mistress part was true, but not the love
child. Of course I was 90% sure that the love child was true too, but I
thought I would let it play out.  And of course it all turned out to be
true, and in true fashion, you never had the courage to own up to it. 
Care to bring up the posts?  I didn't think so.  At the risk of name
calling, I would have to say you have the most unabashed liberal agenda
here, and you take great exception when facts get in the way.  I'm not
sure what has caused you to be this way, but at the risk of becoming the
butt of some of your ridicule, I have often thought to myself that in a
previous life you were Ethel Rosenberg or some similiar personality.

You can pooh pooh reincarnation, but it is pretty evident that you
haven't looked at any of the evidence.  And further, I think you get
called on this same flaw by Judy on a regular basis i.e making
statements without looking a facts, getting called out, and then not
responding.  On the other hand, it is kind of a time honored practice
here.

Why don't you examine why you appear to be so threatened by the concept.
But often it is easier just to hold on to just what we feel comfortable
with.







- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine 
wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2010, at 5:04 PM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
>
> > There are many instances of detailed past lives memories, even in
lives of ordinary people.
>
> Of course there are--there's also many instances of people
> flying and turning invisible too. The problem is, this never
> seems to happen when impartial observers are around.
>
> > One I recently overheard on TV involved the child of a down to earth
American couple where the child recalled his life as a WW2 pilot
involved in dog fights. (I think I have that straight)
>
> And this sounds legit to you because...?
>
> > There has always been plenty of evidence to support the reality of
past lives,
>
> Really. Plenty of good, solid evidence based
> on actual proof?
>
> > but it seems to be something that upsets the status quo, so it
generally goes no where, and really I don't think it even matters.
>
> I just think most people consider it bullshit.
> But if it makes you feel better to say people
> are "upset" by it, lurk--as if they just *knew*
> it was reality but couldn't bring themselves to
> admit it--why, go right ahead.:)
>
> Tell me, is the idea of just losing consciousness
> and going back into the great beyond *so*
> terrifying that these fairy stories are really
> necessary? Not that there's anything wrong
> with them, of course...
>
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Is TM a religion (?)

[guyfawkes91]

 
> Thus, if the first two answers are yes it is a religion, yes? Then string 
> theory is a religion. 
> 
> The practice address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with 
> deep and imponderable matters. And it is "comprehensive
> in nature.

The real difference isn't the holidays, funny hats or dietary restrictions it's 
how people deal with information that conflicts with their beliefs. If string 
theory were a religion, and the LHC found evidence against it, then string 
theorists would ignore the evidence. In fact if the LHC does find evidence 
against string theory people will simply abandon string theory. What makes TM a 
religion isn't the funny hats, dietary restrictions or ceremonies, it's the 
fact that evidence against perceived wisdom is ignored or reinterpreted to 
support the received ideas. E.g. the collapse of the markets during the IAA.
 

[FairfieldLife] Is the country of Columbia Dangerous?

[John]

Here's the answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gmk58rvqO0&feature=related