The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Mark A. Baker]

The popular group called Christianity is being heavily discriminated against, not even being able to have a microscopic cross continue to appear on the L.A. County Seal as it has since time immemorial.

In the u.s., government, being secular, has absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER including any religious symbols, doctrines, customs, or beliefs in ANY of the laws, expenses, symbols, or signs of the government. This is true no matter what the "customs of the people" may or may not be.

The fact that many people in the u.s. self-identify as christians does not make this a christian nation or even a monotheistic one. And government must assiduously avoid anything which suggests the contrary.

The fact is under the law of the land the u.s. is NOT a christian nation. Thank God for that.

Try and say Merry Christmas at Christmas time ...

Wouldn't dream of it. Frankly, I resent the hubris of those christians who undertake such a presumption. It's as bad as having them bleating "i'll pray for you" as some sort of sign of their religious charity. The fact of their annoyance at having their public displays of "christian love & charity" rejected is a further sign of the martyr complex which underlies paul of tarsus' bastardization of the religion of the hebrews.

Did they genuinely love their creator they would observe it in their deeds and behavior among themselves and others and not by their words and expectations. Of course that ain't gonna happen.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The ACLU is founded on good principles and at the beginning of their movement they did good things and even now occasionally do something worthwhile but for the most part it is an agenda driven far left leaning group which has an agenda it is promoting in which civil liberties occupy a minor role and their agenda occupies the major role.

Lakey

That's your take. The fact is that political liberals are by nature pre-eminently concerned with the LIBERTIES of individuals. They are accordingly less concerned with questions relating to rights of PROPERTY or TRADITION as are often the focus of much greater concern among conservatives. Such a disparity of interest naturally accounts for a difference in relative focus of efforts.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ted]

In the u.s., government, being secular, has absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER including any religious symbols, doctrines, customs, or beliefs in ANY of the laws, expenses, symbols, or signs of the government. This is true no matter what the "customs of the people" may or may not be.

The fact that many people in the u.s. self-identify as christians does not make this a christian nation or even a monotheistic one. And government must assiduously avoid anything which suggests the contrary.

The fact is under the law of the land the u.s. is NOT a christian nation. Thank God for that.





Wouldn't dream of it. Frankly, I resent the hubris of those christians who undertake such a presumption. It's as bad as having them bleating "i'll pray for you" as some sort of sign of their religious charity. The fact of their annoyance at having their public displays of "christian love & charity" rejected is a further sign of the martyr complex which underlies paul of tarsus' bastardization of the religion of the hebrews.

Did they genuinely love their creator they would observe it in their deeds and behavior among themselves and others and not by their words and expectations. Of course that ain't gonna happen.


Mark A. Baker

Holy shit!

Hot topics?

 

[lkwdblds]

The liberties are supposed to reside in our Constitution

That's your take. The fact is that political liberals are by nature pre-eminently concerned with the LIBERTIES of individuals. They are accordingly less concerned with questions relating to rights of PROPERTY or TRADITION as are often the focus of much greater concern among conservatives. Such a disparity of interest naturally accounts for a difference in relative focus of efforts.


Mark A. Baker

The liberties of the individuals they purport to be concerned with are supposed to be liberties given by the US Constitution, not just wily-nily liberties. They seem to choose wily-nily which liberties they want to enforce and they choose whom they want to help and whom they don't want to bother with. This is not all bad, they only have a certain amount of resources to apply and they must pick and choose which causes they want to get involved with. My main beef is just that I do not like their choices. I think they are promoting downstats and ignore upstanding law abiding people often only because they are white or they are conservative in their politics.
Yes, these are just my opinions, no more and no less.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

You are not sticking to your own issues.

In the u.s., government, being secular, has absolutely NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER including any religious symbols, doctrines, customs, or beliefs in ANY of the laws, expenses, symbols, or signs of the government. This is true no matter what the "customs of the people" may or may not be.

The fact that many people in the u.s. self-identify as christians does not make this a christian nation or even a monotheistic one. And government must assiduously avoid anything which suggests the contrary.

The fact is under the law of the land the u.s. is NOT a christian nation. Thank God for that.

Of course, I agree with what you say above! That is a no brainer. The only reason I brought Christianity up is because you state that the ACLU does not tend to take on case of popular majority groups because those groups are not discriminated against. You then whistle in mock amazement. I just gave you a couple of counter examples where majority groups are discrimated against and do need the ACLU's help but that help was never and will never be forthcoming because the ACLU cherry picks who they want to help and their agenda is not to help Christians. I do not know why this is so but only that it is true. Your long discourse about how the US is not a Christian nation is true but it is a non sequitor response to what I said.


Wouldn't dream of it. Frankly, I resent the hubris of those christians who undertake such a presumption. It's as bad as having them bleating "i'll pray for you" as some sort of sign of their religious charity. The fact of their annoyance at having their public displays of "christian love & charity" rejected is a further sign of the martyr complex which underlies paul of tarsus' bastardization of the religion of the hebrews.

Did they genuinely love their creator they would observe it in their deeds and behavior among themselves and others and not by their words and expectations. Of course that ain't gonna happen.

I'm not Christian but the Christians are large in numbers. Its just a personal thing but I enjoy saying Merry Christmas to people at Christmas time. It is a pleasant custom that has virtually nothing to do with one's religion in my opinion. If you are not comfortable using this term do not use it. I just don't see why the majority religion can not use their greeting out in public for fear of offending someone. Its not a big major point but there must be bigger games available to play than to be offended about someone using the greeting Merry Christmas if you are not a Christian.


Mark A. Baker

I am not nor have I ever been a Christian. I agree with nearly everything you say above. One area where I give Christians a lot of credit is that most of our Founders were Christian and they fashioned a Government where all faiths and even aetheists have equal religious rights to what the founding Christian had for themselves. I think that they were the fist major government in history to create itself in this manner, giving religious freedom to all and forbidding a state sponsored religion.

For doing this, they need some acknowledgment and occasionally some support when they are discriminated against. The ACLU should give them help once in a while when they are under fire but they choose not do so. How about commenting on this topic instead of some other aspect of Christianity which is not being contested.

I've said my full on this topic, if you want, I'll give you the last word. I am moving on to something else. This topic is interesting but is not all consuming to me.
Lakey

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Holy shit!

Hot topics?

Let's just say, I've never been a much of a fan of organized religion generally. This innate scepticism was useful in keeping me from "drinking the koolaid" while involved as public & on staff with the Co$.

In particular, I've had far too much exposure to ignorant christians to allow me to suffer them with anything remotely resembling forbearance. It has been my unfortunate experience among the MANY MANY soi dissant christians I have known, and with REMARKABLY FEW exceptions, to find that they are amazingly ignorant of the entire history & religious basis of their peculiar cult. Ignorance is bliss, or at least is widely perceived as assuring it.

My main beef is just that I do not like their choices.

Start your own.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

One area where I give Christians a lot of credit is that most of our Founders were Christian ...

Quite a few weren't. This is especially notable among the brighter & better educated leaders of the group.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Vin - I find your post interesting....

Thank you for the welcome.

I am studying Buddha's teachings of anatta (no-soul) these days.

I find Scientology to be just the opposite of Buddhism in that it puts individuality (self) way above nirvana (detachment from the impermanent self).

My recent posts have been devoted to the thread WHAT BUDDHA TAUGHT on "The Scientology Forum."

http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&goto=13181&S=d91d2fb38b130b00f4dfb5124bf256f7#msg_13181


Here are a couple of them.







I find Roger to be an interesting "self" (ego) to study. It is a nice product of Scientology. Knowledgism has the same goals as Scientology by the way.

Hubbard had a big ego. So did Alan Walters. And so does Roger.

It is fun to watch Roger's antics. All his actions are driven by a craving for admiration.

.

Vin, I find your post interesting! I was wondering what you were doing these days. I will check out the links which you put on this post and try and study them and get the feel of them a bit. It is good to hear from you again. After I read up on what you say, I may have some questions or comments and if I do, I will, as always, state them on this thread, and then hope you will be kind enough as to clarify things for me and the other readers of this thread. Here is to more dialogue's with you!
Lakey

 

[Enthetan]

That's your take. The fact is that political liberals are by nature pre-eminently concerned with the LIBERTIES of individuals. They are accordingly less concerned with questions relating to rights of PROPERTY or TRADITION as are often the focus of much greater concern among conservatives. Such a disparity of interest naturally accounts for a difference in relative focus of efforts.


Mark A. Baker

The ACLU is very notably absent from cases where the individual liberty being protected is the individual's Second Amendment rights.

 

[RogerB]

It seems from some of the comments above that some on this board do not care about, or are oblivious to, what we are dealing with on the other side of the world.

It is to be noted that these same some have not posted on nor contributed in public to the dealings in Oz . . . . gives one an idea of their considerations of relative importance

But of course they are strong on negative opinions . . . .

And then, of course there is the expert on the subject of "ego," our Vin, who could not answer the simple question of "What is ego?" when asked of him Heh.

I came on the board just now after an afternoon of research and writing relative to the subject of the Ozzie Senate inquiry to collide with Vin crawling out of the woodwork with some insults . . . he seems to have missed my compliment of him earlier on the thread a page or so back.

And these characters wonder why I place a relatively low priority on dealing with such nonsense

Wake up! There are more important things going on in the world than your personal "egos" . . . .

Some of us a working our bollocks off doing some good.

RogerB

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The ACLU is very notably absent from cases where the individual liberty being protected is the individual's Second Amendment rights.

Plenty of others, arguably TOO many, are more than willing to finance and pursue such cases, often to ridiculous excess. When resources are limited you pick the fights you can win and/or that are on principle GENUINELY IMPORTANT.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It seems from some of the comments above that some on this board do not care about, or are oblivious to, what we are dealing with on the other side of the world.

It is to be noted that these same some have not posted on nor contributed in public to the dealings in Oz . . . . gives one an idea of their considerations of relative importance

Not all of us are in a position to offer personal testimony directly relevant to the purposes of the inquiry, R. Nor are we necessarily able to help out on the ground or otherwise. As such, the less we muck up the lines of the worker bees the better for all.

I agree with your comments as regards neighsaying. Those working towards making this inquiry fruitful deserve our support.


Mark A. Baker

 

[RogerB]

Not all of us are in a position to offer personal testimony directly relevant to the purposes of the inquiry, R. Nor are we necessarily able to help out on the ground or otherwise. As such, the less we muck up the lines of the worker bees the better for all.

I agree with your comments as regards neighsaying. Those working towards making this inquiry fruitful deserve our support.


Mark A. Baker

The issue I am pointing out is the criticism of me in not responding to someone's idea of what's important to them as compared to what else is obviously going on in the world and on this board.

They are not expected to contribute where they cannot . . . though many who can't at least acknowledged those who are doing the work, and thus post support.

But at least good sense dictates observing what else I am (and others are) posting on and writing publicly on the board (which is a fraction of the behind the scenes traffic) and respecting my statement that I am busy with it and will give other traffic the respectful reply it merits when I am able . . . but what do I get in return? Bloody insults!

So, how much respect does that sort of stuff merit? Heh!

R

 

[Mark A. Baker]

. . . but what do I get in return? Bloody insults!

So, how much respect does that sort of stuff merit? Heh!

R

Something less than they give.



Mark A. Baker

 

[Leon]

Oh Roger Roger Roger ! ! ! !

Please don't take such umbrage over so small a matter.

My comment of "I've heard that before" relates to nothing more than the fact that over the last many months you have more than once stated that a reply to me needs to be thought about and prepared etc etc befoere you can post it, And then you never post the reply. It certainly seems to me that you rather hope that the question would just go away without having to be answered.

I know I pose challenging questions to you. You deserve them. Do you want to spend your entire chat time with trivia - such as about your moustache etc - and not get to any real meat? I post very little. Much less that many others. I like the board only for the meaty stuff, not for the popcorn, and you occassionally have shown yourself to be capable of meaty stuff.

However, I have also noted (with both you and Alan, in the past) that Knowledgism is a subject you prefer to have accepted without question or comment; a subject you don't like to be called upon to defend. Well that ain't going to happen here. You choose to post things about it on this board and, as far as I'm concerned, that is an invitation for robust discussion and comment. It is not a criticism of you as a person in any way.

That you live a busy life is expected - I wouldn't imagine your life to be anything else. My life is busy too. In and among that busyness of yours, a considered reply and discussion from you would be appreciated.

 

[Vinaire]

Oh Roger Roger Roger ! ! ! !

Please don't take such umbrage over so small a matter.

My comment of "I've heard that before" relates to nothing more than the fact that over the last many months you have more than once stated that a reply to me needs to be thought about and prepared etc etc befoere you can post it, And then you never post the reply. It certainly seems to me that you rather hope that the question would just go away without having to be answered.

I know I pose challenging questions to you. You deserve them. Do you want to spend your entire chat time with trivia - such as about your moustache etc - and not get to any real meat? I post very little. Much less that many others. I like the board only for the meaty stuff, not for the popcorn, and you occassionally have shown yourself to be capable of meaty stuff.

However, I have also noted (with both you and Alan, in the past) that Knowledgism is a subject you prefer to have accepted without question or comment; a subject you don't like to be called upon to defend. Well that ain't going to happen here. You choose to post things about it on this board and, as far as I'm concerned, that is an invitation for robust discussion and comment. It is not a criticism of you as a person in any way.

That you live a busy life is expected - I wouldn't imagine your life to be anything else. My life is busy too. In and among that busyness of yours, a considered reply and discussion from you would be appreciated.

Good point!

A busy person would spend more time on meaty stuff and little time on trivia.

So, there is definitely a contradiction where Roger is concerned. This contradiction is very well explained by "self-importance". And "self-importance" is the heart of ego.

There is a good reason why Roger cannot see that I have answered his question about "What is ego?" many many times. A person with humongous ego simply cannot appreciate it.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Vin, I find your post interesting! I was wondering what you were doing these days. I will check out the links which you put on this post and try and study them and get the feel of them a bit. It is good to hear from you again. After I read up on what you say, I may have some questions or comments and if I do, I will, as always, state them on this thread, and then hope you will be kind enough as to clarify things for me and the other readers of this thread. Here is to more dialogue's with you!
Lakey

If you really want to know what I have been up to these days then read the four KHTK issues linked in my signature.

.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

The New Christy Minstrels

Back in simpler times. Barry McGuire's tremendous voice in the second song. Gene Clark (later of The Byrds) was there, Karen Black used to be a member.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97q9rPktuGo&feature=related

 

[lkwdblds]

It seems like WWE before a title match!

Leon and Vin,

It is interesting to hear your points of view on Roger's activities and priorities. I like the meaty stuff too but I know nothing about Knowledgism at all and in Vedic religions, I am also a neophyte. Most of what I know, I learned on Vin's Oh!God!! thread although I did meditate regularly for 3 years from ages 27 to 30 after I took a UCLA Evening Extension Class in Buddhism.

In Scientology training, I know that Leon is much more highly trained than I am although I am a Class IV Auditor, uninterned and an Interned NED auditor. I admire both of you guys and Roger as well. I wish I could get in there and mix it up with you guys but I don't have the background to do so. I don't want to do what my old friend Finishedman did on Vin's thread and that was to pretend great knowledge when he knew almost nothing and just made a fool out of himself.

Just one more point to Vin since he is new on this thread. The thread just started out as a story of my experience on the Apollo and earlier at CCLA as a Sea Org Member. The Apollo story ran in February and March of 2009 and the CCLA story ran in October and Nevember. The Apollo story got 2200 hits and ended and the CCLA story got 4500 more and ended. I was going to close up shop right there when I was encouraged to go on by Sweetness and Light. She said I had more to say and was still evolving as a being. I kept going for a couple of weeks when Carmelo showed up and he and I dialogued and decided a premium type of thread where intelligent topics were discussed without a lot of bashing and name calling was needed and we should produce such a thread. We have done everything on this thread, everything except talk much about life on the Apollo in 1973, the title of the thread.

Face rectified that irregularity and returned discussions to Hubbard and life on the Apollo in the old days. In the meantime we have discussed about everyting under the Sun and done so in a very professional manner. We have some very gifted writers posting on this thread. Nothing is off bounds as far as I am concerned as long as it is in good taste.

Some creatiion of the Universe theories led to me and Face to having a dialogue on Mike Goldstein's Idenics thread a few days ago and I decided to bring the topic over to this thread. I am glad I did, first Roger, Leon, Face and I were dialoging and now Vinaire is weighing in. We can keep this topic going and should do so because the topic is one things which all spiritual beings have in common. It concerns us all.

In the meantime, I would like Face to keep doing his fascinating Reader's Digest type of reporting on Hubbard and Mary Sue and company and Carmelo should do his type of reporting in his very distinct and high tech style. We have the readers and posters to keep more than one major topic going at the same time.

A note to Roger - I would like to find out more about what is going on down in Oz with Nick Xenophon's investigation. I just know there is an investigation going on and Xenophon is going after C of S for human rights abuses. I know some ESMB members are helping out by testifying, etc. That is all I know but it would be good to be referred to where to learn more or to even discuss it here.

With all that said, it is now midnight in California and I'm am going to hit the sack.
Lakey

 

[Sharone Stainforth]

Lakey wrote;

We have done everything on this thread, everything except talk much about life on the Apollo in 1973, the title of the thread.

That about sums it up.

I wasn't on the Apollo in 1973, so I can't really talk about it from my own experience.

Maybe,we need a new thread, the Apollo in 1967?

You sure have covered a lot of stuff, and I have enjoyed reading most of it.