Revolutionizing Online Debates: A Proposal for a More Organized and Informed Future

The current state of online discussions often results in a cacophony of voices with little to no structure or organization. In this digital era, we need a space where debates are not just noise, but substantive conversations that lead to deeper understanding and informed decisions. Here, we propose a revolutionary online debate format that could transform the way we engage with and understand various perspectives on any given issue.

Reducing Chaos in Online Discussions

Current online forums often descend into chaos due to their unstructured nature. Our proposed system would counter this by enabling users to categorize their comments as either reasons to agree or disagree with a particular issue, making discussions more orderly and less confusing.

Organizing Discussions for Deeper Understanding

Think of our proposed format as a structured debate, where every perspective is clearly articulated and organized. This structure allows for more meaningful conversations, enabling users to delve deeper into the nuances of the debate, fostering a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Quantifying Perspectives for Objectivity

Our system allows for arguments to be quantified, providing a more objective view of the debate. By counting the number of reasons for and against an issue, users can easily compare different perspectives, thereby forming more informed opinions.

Evaluating Quality for Compelling Arguments

We also propose ways to evaluate the quality of each argument, such as user feedback or upvotes. This ensures that compelling arguments rise to the top, making them more visible to participants, and promoting more informed discussions.

Integrating Statistical Analysis for Confidence

By integrating statistical analysis techniques, confidence intervals can be assigned based on the number and quality of reasons posted. This gives users a sense of the general consensus on the issue, further promoting informed decision-making.

Promoting Transparency for Better Understanding

Our system promotes transparency by using a list format for arguments. This makes the complexity of an issue visible and discourages glossing over important points, encouraging users to critically evaluate all aspects of the issue.

Providing a Unified Information Source

Our proposed system provides a single platform for all perspectives on an issue, making it easier for users to find and compare different viewpoints. This unified source of information results in more informed discussions and decisions.

Harnessing Technology for Substance

The focus of our system is on promoting meaningful discussions and informed decision-making, rather than merely disseminating information. It represents an effective use of technology where the emphasis is on substance, not volume.

Managing Content Efficiently

Organizing data by topic makes it easier to manage and navigate, reducing redundancy and repetition. This makes the information more accessible and user-friendly, enhancing the overall user experience.

Revolutionizing Online Debates

We believe this proposed system can revolutionize the way we debate and discuss issues online. By providing a structured, organized platform for discussions, we can pave the way for more meaningful, informed debates that lead to a better understanding and more informed decision-making.

In this digital era, it's high time we leverage technology to improve the way we discuss, debate, and make decisions. Our proposed system promises to bring about a revolution in online debates, ensuring they are not just noise, but platforms for informed understanding and decision-making. Join us in this revolution for a more organized and informed future.

The Power of Organized Debate: Why We Should Separate Reasons to Agree and Disagree

Today, I want to talk about an idea that I firmly believe in - organizing reasons to agree and disagree with concepts into two separate columns. This simple change could revolutionize the way we approach debates and discussions. Here's why:

1. Streamlining the Decision-Making Process

By separating reasons to agree and disagree, we can create a computer algorithm that assigns points to the main idea based on the number of reasons in each column. This would streamline our decision-making process and allow us to reach more balanced conclusions.

2. Creating a Clear Overview of Every Issue

Imagine if every issue had its own website with a comprehensive list of reasons to agree or disagree. It would make understanding complex topics much easier and encourage more informed discussions.

3. Prioritizing the Best Arguments

Separating reasons to agree and disagree also allows us to highlight the most compelling arguments. By placing the best reasons at the top of each column, we ensure that the strongest points get the attention they deserve.

4. Performing a 'Google Duel'

This format could even allow for a "Google duel" between all the items that agree and disagree. This duel could represent the overall strength of the idea, adding an interesting and dynamic element to our debates.

5. Allowing for User Ratings

We could also introduce a rating system where people rate the reasons to agree or disagree. The overall score of the reasons would contribute or detract from the main idea's score, providing an aggregate view of the debate.

6. Giving Voice to Our Ancestors

This format also allows us to incorporate wisdom from the past. As Abraham Lincoln said, it's important that we are on God's side, or in this context, on the side of truth. A truth-promoting forum like this is safe to investigate both sides of an issue, which is why we should not fear disagreement.

7. Thoroughly Investigating an Idea

One point usually won't convince someone they're wrong. Everyone needs to feel that they got all their reasons out on the table. We're not discounting people's beliefs; we're responding to them. We don't need to silence the other side; we just need to prove that they are wrong.

In conclusion, organizing reasons to agree and disagree into separate columns has the potential to transform our approach to debates and discussions. It encourages thorough investigation, prioritizes strong arguments, and promotes a balanced view of each issue.

Ready to dive into more details or interested in contributing? Explore our platform at Group Intel or check out our project on GitHub. Let's revolutionize the way we debate and discover the power of organized discussion together.

Building the Future of Ideas: An Internet Stock Market for Beliefs

Hey there! I'd love to share something my folks taught me when I was just a kid. Whenever I faced a decision, they encouraged me to make a list of reasons to agree or disagree with an idea. Looking back, it seems like this simple method laid the foundation for an exciting idea: what if we could collect all such lists ever made on the Internet and organize them on a single platform?

This concept became clearer as I delved into the world of stock market investing. The beauty of investing lies not just in the act of buying or selling shares but in the conviction behind these actions. When you put your money on a stock, you're essentially betting on an idea, a belief in the company's future success. This parallel between investing and belief system is fascinating, don't you think?

Imagine if we could create a 'stock market of ideas,' where people could invest in concepts and beliefs as they do in companies. This wouldn't just be a game-changer for scientific advancement, dispute resolution, or politics. It would motivate us to believe in "smarter" things, to question why we hold certain beliefs and whether they're worth "investing" in.

And just like in the stock market, where companies are evaluated and ranked, we could develop algorithms to assign a weighted rank to ideas. These rankings could be based on several factors, like the number of reasons to agree or disagree, and the certainty of the evaluator about the validity of their reasons.

Of course, there's always the risk of such a system being manipulated, just like any financial market. But if we design the platform to encourage not just the exchange of ideas but also in-depth research and discussion, we can mitigate these risks. We can make it a place where data supporting or discounting a position is readily available and easily accessible.

In the past, I've tried to put these ideas into action. I created a website where I outlined categories for people to submit their ideas. The site is no longer active, but thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can check out its architecture and an example of online debate that I proposed.

Now, I'm working on a new and improved platform at Group Intel and you can check out our project on GitHub. I'm excited about the potential of this idea and I'd love to hear your thoughts. Let's revolutionize the way we debate and invest in the power of our beliefs together.

Year 1

A Different Christmas Poem

A Different Christmas Poem   The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,  I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.   My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,  My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.  Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,  Transforming the yard to a winter delight.  The sparkling lights in the tree I believe,  Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.   My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,  Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.  In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,  So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.  The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't too near,  But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.   Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know, Then the  sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.  My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,  And I crept to the door just to see who was near.  Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,  A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.   A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,  Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.  Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,  Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.  "What are you doing?" I asked without fear,  "Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!   Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,  You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"  For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,  Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts..  To the window that danced with a warm fire's light  Then he sighed and he said "Its really all right,   I'm out here by choice. I'm here every night."  "It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,  That separates you from the darkest of times.  No one had to ask or beg or implore me,  I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.   My Gramps died at 'Pearl on a day in December,"  Then he sighed, "That's a Christmas 'Gram always remembers."  My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam',  And now it is my turn and so, here I am.  I've not seen my own son in more than a while,  But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile.   Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,  The red, white, and blue... an American flag.  I can live through the cold and the being alone,  Away from my family, my house and my home.  I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,  I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.   I can carry the weight of killing another,  Or lay down my life with my sister and brother..  Who stand at the front against any and all,  To ensure for all time that this flag will not fall."  "  So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,  Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."  "But isn't there something I can do, at the least,  "Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?  It seems all too little for all that you've done,   For being away from your wife and your son."  Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,  "Just tell us you love us, and never forget.   To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone,  To stand your own watch, no matter how long.  For when we come home, either standing or dead,  To know you remember we fought and we bled.  Is payment enough, and with that we will trust,   That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."  PLEASE, would you do me the kind favor of sending this to as many   people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to our  U.S service men and women for our being able to celebrate these  festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people   stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us.    LCDR Jeff Giles, SC, USN  30th Naval Construction Regiment  OIC, Logistics Cell One  Al Taqqadum, Iraq

A Landslide

Can supporters of same-sex marriage and those protesting the Mormon Church's involvement help me with something?

President-elect Barack Obama won the election by 6.5 percent nationwide. This is being described as a "landslide" and a "mandate" by the media, Obama supporters and other prominent democrats.

Conversely, the legality of same-sex marriage was on the ballot in three states, two of these states won by President-elect Obama. Of the nearly 20 million votes cast in these three states on the same-sex marriage issue, legal same-sex marriage was defeated by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent. An 8 percent margin of defeat, larger than Obama's margin of victory.

Should logic not command that this result be defined as a mandate against same-sex marriage? If not, why not?

And instead of blaming "confused" Black voters and the Mormon Church, why are supporters of same-sex marriage avoiding the real culprit? Barack Obama!

Yes, the head of your ticket, leader of your party, savior and generally recognized genius and messiah is an ardent and enthusiastic opponent of same-sex marriage. Always has been! And so are Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the majority of elected Democrats nationwide.

You can't convince Barack Obama and Joe Biden to support same-sex marriage and you blame the Mormon Church for your electoral failures? No disrespect, but that's pathetic.

As long as President-elect Obama and other prominent Democrats continue their adamant and enthusiatic opposition to same-sex marriage, the Mormon Church and "confused Black voters" are the least of your problems. - John Watson,Phoenix

JUST "SIN TAXES"

Whatever you tax, you punish. Why would you punish people for working
and making money?
Remember that I am not saying that the government should collect any
more money. Just that we should eliminate the income tax. In order to
replace the revenue loss each city, and state will have to decide
which usage fees, and "sin taxes" they will use to replace the income
tax.
Republicans have good principles, but they rarely follow them. One of
the good principals that republicans talk about, but never seem to
follow threw is the principle of rewarding good behavior and punishing
bad behavior. We should lose taxes that tax good behavior, like income
tax and increase sin vastly increase sin taxes.

The Republican Party is typically seen as your father's party. The
democrats are like your mom. They care about your feelings, but the
republicans have tough love, and tell you to stop feeling sorry for
yourself, and get to work. Parents tend to learn, that if you do stuff
for their kids all the time, the kid will never learn to act by
themselves. Sure, the government can help people who need help, but do
you really deserve help from the government if you skipped class,
didn't do your homework, and never graduated from high school? Our
compassionate side says yes, but our republican side says that to some
point help is a reward for bad behavior.

It should be self evident, and even democrats should realize that if
you reward bad behavior, you are going to get more of it. But what are
some practical ways that we can reward good behavior and punish bad
behavior? Can we really raise the cost of cigarettes and booze any
higher?

I think there are lots of "sins" that we could tax. But I don't want
people like me choosing those sins. I think economist should, or just
the city clerk should determine the true cost of government services.
This might not be a practical idea, but it is something we deal with
every day and serves as a good example : what if the garbage man
charged you buy how many bags of garbage you left? What if someone
walked around and charged every home $20 that didn't have a compost
pile? What if we replaced the income tax with increased energy taxes?
That would put steroids on any motivation there was to insulate your
home.

POSSIBLE "GREEN" SIN TAXES

No compost pile.
Too much pavement.
Too much garbage.
Not enough trees.
No solar panels.
No wind turbine.

POSSIBLE HEALTH SIN TAXES:

Smoking (charged per pack)
Drinking (charged per can)
Marijuana (charged per lb.)
Prostitution (you know how it is collected)
Being over weight

POSSIBLE EDUCATIONAL SIN TAXES

Not knowing geography
Not knowing math
Not knowing specifics about those running for office.
Not knowing a 2nd language
Not having a college degree

POSSIBLE FAMILY SIN TAXES

Not visiting your kids
Not paying child support
Your kids doing poorly in school

Obama is wrong to say that we should "slow development of Future Combat Systems."

Reasons to agree

1. We live in a world were millions of middle-age minded people would like to destroy America. We could throw away all our weapons, and fight them with bronze spears. However diverse modern populations, with equal rights for minorities, that promote civil rights, a free press, the rule of law, and invests in education, health-care, etcetera... these societies are going to have a technological advantage. Those societies that work hard, educate their public, that work efficiently, and allow their women to be productive members of society... those societies that embrace science, reason, law, and education... these societies are the best care-takers of the future. Human histories are full of war. We live in a time when dictators still build statues to themselves, and enslave their populations. Therefore it is important that modern societies have modern weapons. 
2. Societies that use irrational extremism to motivate their geneses to build weapons for them will never be as stable as multi-party democracies, with the rule of law. Hitler forced a lot of scientist to work for him, and they built some very cutting edge plains. They almost beat the free world to building the nuclear bomb. If they had succeeded, we would all have been speaking German. But in the long run, many of these scientist wore forced to work for Germany. Those that could escape to the west (like Einstein who fled Europe when he saw the Nazis come to power) fled to the free world. In the long run, good modern societies, are going to have smart people want to be a part of them. This is part of why our immigration policy should be used to recruit the brightest people from all over the planet, and try to get them to stay here in America. 
3. Patriotism, love of democracy, and the desire for peace are not the only things that would inspire smart people to build great weapons. Religious fanatism can also motivate smart people to build new weapons. Perceived injustices, nationalism, money, and misinformation perpetuated by a state-ran media, can all be used by power hungry governments to motivate their scientist. But scientist who are stupid enough to be manipulated will never build weapons that are as good as the scientist who are willing to work for the causes of freedom, democracy, equality, and a pursuit of rational justice. 
4. Evil people are going to develop future combat systems. If we enjoy life, and want our children to be free, we have to build better weapons. 
5. Evil people don't build weapons because good people do. But good people have to build weapons because evil people do.

Movies that disagree

1. Iron Man's main character, Tony Stark, closes his weapons business before he found out how evil that one guy was. 
2. Almost every movie today disagrees. The 2nd Batmat had an evil weapons dealer. Their was that movie "Lord of War", with a guy just like Tony Stark who was a weapons dealer. 

Obama is wrong to say that we should "slow development of Future Combat Systems."

Reasons to agree

1. We live in a world were millions of middle-age minded people would like to destroy America. We could throw away all our weapons, and fight them with bronze spears. However diverse modern populations, with equal rights for minorities, that promote civil rights, a free press, the rule of law, and invests in education, health-care, etcetera... these societies are going to have a technological advantage. Those societies that work hard, educate their public, that work efficiently, and allow their women to be productive members of society... those societies that embrace science, reason, law, and education... these societies are the best care-takers of the future. Human histories are full of war. We live in a time when dictators still build statues to themselves, and enslave their populations. Therefore it is important that modern societies have modern weapons. 



2. Societies that use irrational extremism to motivate their geneses to build weapons for them will never be as stable as multi-party democracies, with the rule of law. Hitler forced a lot of scientist to work for him, and they built some very cutting edge plains. They almost beat the free world to building the nuclear bomb. If they had succeeded, we would all have been speaking German. But in the long run, many of these scientist wore forced to work for Germany. Those that could escape to the west (like Einstein who fled Europe when he saw the Nazis come to power) fled to the free world. In the long run, good modern societies, are going to have smart people want to be a part of them. This is part of why our immigration policy should be used to recruit the brightest people from all over the planet, and try to get them to stay here in America. 


3. Patriotism, love of democracy, and the desire for peace are not the only things that would inspire smart people to build great weapons. Religious fanatism can also motivate smart people to build new weapons. Perceived injustices, nationalism, money, and misinformation perpetuated by a state-ran media, can all be used by power hungry governments to motivate their scientist. But scientist who are stupid enough to be manipulated will never build weapons that are as good as the scientist who are willing to work for the causes of freedom, democracy, equality, and a pursuit of rational justice. 


4. Evil people are going to develop future combat systems. If we enjoy life, and want our children to be free, we have to build better weapons. 


5. Evil people don't build weapons because good people do. But good people have to build weapons because evil people do.

Movies that disagree

1. Iron Man's main character, Tony Stark, closes his weapons business before he found out how evil that one guy was. 



2. Almost every movie today disagrees. The 2nd Batmat had an evil weapons dealer. Their was that movie "Lord of War", with a guy just like Tony Stark who was a weapons dealer. 

A great article from Michele Obama

This is a great article by Michele Obama.

It is unfortunate that we have a double standard. If a republican woman was to say something like that, they would be looked down upon. People would call them Stepford Wives. But it is great for Michele to say it.

Exit question: What would you say to someone that Michele Obama (a democrate) is a more devoted mom than Sarah Palin? Does it matter how much time Mr. Palin spends with the kids?

A great article from Michele Obama

This is a great article by Michele Obama.

It is unfortunate that we have a double standard. If a republican woman was to say something like that, they would be looked down upon. People would call them Stepford Wives. But it is great for Michele to say it.

Exit question: What would you say to someone that Michele Obama (a democrate) is a more devoted mom than Sarah Palin? Does it matter how much time Mr. Palin spends with the kids?

Sarah Palin is wrong to pit one part of the country against the other.

Reasons to agree We don't choose where we are born, so it is kind of silly to be proud of it. People aren't all that different, in different states.  Their are liberals in Alaska, and conservatives in New York. Sarah Palin accuses those who live in New York of being "elite", and then when asked what she means by "elite" she says people who think they are better than others. Sarah Palin seems to think she is better than New Yorkers because she is from Alaska.

A great read

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29105

Obama: "a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"?

"Finally, a gaffe that is far more worrisome than the others: According to Obama, the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set." He continued, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Whoa there, compadre! (That's a little Spanish there for the man who wants us all to learn it.) Will this "national security force" also wear brown shirts? Oddly enough, it seems that Obama's campaign realized that wouldn't fly—the line was stricken from the transcripts given to the media, though it is still in the video posted on YouTube."

"Obama's civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"

"Finally, a gaffe that is far more worrisome than the others: According to Obama, the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set." He continued, "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Whoa there, compadre! (That's a little Spanish there for the man who wants us all to learn it.) Will this "national security force" also wear brown shirts? Oddly enough, it seems that Obama's campaign realized that wouldn't fly—the line was stricken from the transcripts given to the media, though it is still in the video posted on YouTube."

A. Lincoln

Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damages morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, quickly tried and hanged!

Applauding the Supreme Court's Gun Ruling

Applauding the Supreme Court's Gun Ruling

 

The Supreme Court got it exactly right today in their decision affirming an individual right to bear arms.

 

What concerns me is that four members of the court dissented. The narrow 5-4 ruling is yet another reminder of the importance of appointing strict constructionist judges who will not read rights out of the Constitution but instead affirm the ones that are plainly stated there.

 

In striking down the DC ban on handgun ownership, the Court stood up for one of our most cherished freedoms, the freedom to defend our lives, our property and our liberty. This should put to rest once and for all the fanciful notion that gun ownership in America is tied to membership in a state militia.

 

added on 06/26/2008 by Mitt Romney

philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation

Ann Corkery, who directs philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation, introduced Governor Romney as he received the Canterbury Award from the Becket Fund.
"As it turned out, the governor's speech of December 6th last year was the high point of the entire primary season. It was one of those moments when a serious thought managed to break through the noise. What left an impression was not just the power of the words, but also the qualities of the man, and of the wife beside him.
"One quality of note is surely their forbearance, at that moment and throughout the campaign. If you wonder exactly what it was like for Catholics, in other places and other times, Mitt and Ann could share some details from their own experience. At every turn, they had to explain their faith — to defend the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church. They were constantly called to account, even by people not usually interested in spiritual matters … and by others with creeds and churches of their own, but a lot less to show for it than Mitt and Ann Romney.
"The reality is that when we meet people of their quality, the most relevant questions are the ones we ask ourselves — about our own beliefs … and whether we reflect nearly as well on our churches as they do on theirs. Yet somehow the governor always remained calm and patient. And this was not just a political instinct. It was the humility of the man, a trait that has somehow survived all his success. Listening to his remarks in College Station, Texas, it wasn't hard to picture the young missionary who years before has gone door to door in Paris, explaining his beliefs and offering the hope of a better way."

Religion and Freedom

Religion and Freedom

As prepared by Mitt Romney for delivery to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Dinner

May 8, 2008

Thank you.

It is an honor for Ann and me to be with you this evening. We have a lot of friends who work with the Becket Fund. As you can imagine, that makes your recognition even more meaningful.

Your mission – and my topic this evening – involve the intertwining of religion and government. It's not a new topic. It was in the 12th century that Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett famously refused to allow Henry II to control the Church of England. As you are well aware, his conviction came with a high price: he was killed by the king's soldiers in his own cathedral. 

Our religious liberty in America was bought in large measure by the sacrifice of men and women like Thomas Beckett.

The battle for religious freedom is not over, nor is it likely to ever be.  I appreciate the work you do to protect a fundamental human liberty and to defend those who are modern victims of religious intolerance and persecution.

As you know, I gave a speech about religious liberty during the height of my campaign.  This was not a speech I was forced to give, it was a speech I wanted to give. I felt that I had a unique opportunity to address in a very public way the role of faith in America.

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course.  It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest – unheard and unheeded. It also gave me the chance to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off – after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers – why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert the following: non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief – to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience – it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.

We are all in this together. Religious liberty and liberality of thought flow from the common conviction that it is freedom, not coercion, that exalts the individual just as it raises up the nation.

Perhaps the phrase which elicited the most comment – and controversy – was this: "[the Founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom…Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Looking back, do I still believe that religion requires freedom?

History abounds with examples where religion has been imposed by the state upon a people  – from the Greek city-state to the dictatorship of the Taliban. But that is not the faith of which I speak. True religious faith is a matter of conviction. It can only be discovered through personal communion with God, sought in the heart and in the heavens. And that path of personal discovery is of necessity free of constraint and censor. Yes, I believe religion requires freedom.

The more controversial assertion, however, was that freedom requires religion.

One critic dismissed this idea by pointing out that there are  countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But I was not speaking about Europe's recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive – over centuries – if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don't believe so.

This is hardly a novel view.

It was not lost on the Founders that rights that were recognized as having been gifted by God, not by kings, would defend individual freedom from tyrants and power-seekers of all kinds. "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure," Jefferson once asked, "when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?"

 John Adams offers an added perspective. Our constitution and freedom would only endure if the passions and destructive tendencies of man's nature were constrained by the bounds of religion: "Human passions unbridled by morality and religion" he said "…would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

Nor can we overlook the fact that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

"We and God have business with each other," William James once observed. "In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled." When a people's "deepest destiny" can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

We have recently been visited by Pope Benedict XVI. It was interesting to me that both he and Pope John Paul II, testified of the connection between freedom and truth. Pope Benedict quoted his predecessor: "in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation."  Calling those words "prophetic," he said they echo in some sense the conviction of George Washington's Farewell Address, that "religion and morality represent 'indispensable supports' of political prosperity." And then he added his own conviction: "Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation."

I love how plainly that thought was put by John Adams: "Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."

I don't mean to suggest that truth can only be found in religion or that morality exists only among believers. But I do believe, like Adams and Washington and Hamilton, that "national morality" as Hamilton put it, "require[s] the aid of…divinely authoritative religion." Or as Washington put it, morality cannot prevail "in exclusion of religious principle." I believe that religion is the most effective bulwark against moral relativism—which, as I have seen through my life, can be so malleable that it can label "evil good, and good evil;" in the words of Isaiah and "put darkness for light, and light for darkness."

I also believe that religion and the general precepts of morality defended by religion make us better men and women. And on the whole, I believe we are a stronger people and a stronger nation because of faith. Religion has taught us that there is something greater than ourselves, that we are equal in the eyes of God, that we are to care for those in need, that justice is a principle of salvation, and that marriage, children and family are a source of great joy. That last teaching alone may help us escape the demographic nightmare that is haunting Europe.

There is one more reason why I am convinced that our freedom requires religion.

One day as a boy when a sermon at church was unusually boring, I asked my Dad to give me a dollar bill so I could look at something more interesting.  On the back, there is a curious picture of a single eye surrounded by rays suspended over a pyramid—the great seal of the United States.  What's that, I asked?  My father explained that it was the eye of God, and that the Founders believed that He watched over the affairs of this nation. And I later learned that the words on the seal were from Virgil - Annuit Coeptis – "God has favored our undertakings."

This may not be at all compelling to the non-believer, but it has been compelling to every president who has led this nation at a time of peril. It is that God has blessed America. It is that God will bless America if we continue to deserve His blessing. Washington saw the hand of Providence in the nation's founding: "No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States."

As our soldiers prepared to ascend the beaches of Normandy, Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer: "we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph…with Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy." And triumph they did, through His blessing and through the holy sacrifice of young lives, now revered in beautiful cathedrals not of stone and stained glass but formed by row after row of simple, white crosses and stars of David.

God blesses America. Like millions of Americans, I believe that He has, that He does, and the He will, so long as we deserve His divine blessing.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless our great nation!

Obama says, “Yes we can”… Yes we can what?

Images are from : http://markcronan.livejournal.com/

From HotAir:

Beware the cult of personality in all its forms.

From Wikipedia:

A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships but can be found in some democracies as well.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of non-political leaders.

Background

Throughout history, monarchs were almost always held in enormous reverence. Through the principle of the divine right of kings, rulers were said to hold office by the will of God. Imperial China (see Mandate of Heaven), ancient Egypt, Japan, the Inca, the Aztecs, and the Roman Empire (see imperial cult) are especially noted for redefining monarchs as god-kings.

The resurgence of ancient Greek democratic ideas in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries made it increasingly difficult for monarchs to preserve this aura. However, the subsequent development of photography, sound recording, film and mass production, as well as public education and techniques used in commercial advertising, enabled political leaders to project a positive image like never before. It was with these circumstances in the 20th century that the best-known personality cults arose.

Purpose

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and he becomes treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as that of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

Not all dictatorships foster personality cults, however, and some leaders may actively seek to minimize their own public adulation. For example in Cuba public images of Fidel Castro are rare, and a personality cult around Castro is not encouraged officially, although images, posters, and billboards of Che Guevara abound. Even in the totalitarian regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia the image of Pol Pot himself was rarely seen, though in the latter's case this was merely to perpetuate the image of a faceless, invisible, omnipresent state leadership.^{[citation needed]}

Examples from totalitarian regimes

The criticism of personality cults often focuses on the regimes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Josip Broz Tito, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il. During the peak of their reigns, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, and artists and poets were instructed legally to produce only works that glorified the leader and their political movements. Other undemocratic leaders with such cults include leaders such as Eva Peron of Argentina and her husband Juan. The term cult of personality comes from Karl Marx's critique of the "cult of the individual" - expressed in a letter to German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss. In that, Marx states thus:

From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me… Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute.

Nikita Khrushchev recalled Marx's criticism in his 1956 "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin to the 20th Party Congress:

Comrades, the cult of the individual acquired such monstrous size chiefly because Stalin himself, using all conceivable methods, supported the glorification of his own person. . . . One of the most characteristic examples of Stalin's self-glorification and of his lack of even elementary modesty is the edition of his Short Biography, which was published in 1948.^[1].

This book is an expression of the most dissolute flattery, an example of making a man into a godhead, of transforming him into an infallible sage, "the greatest leader," "sublime strategist of all times and nations." Finally no other words could be found with which to lift Stalin up to the heavens.

We need not give here examples of the loathsome adulation filling this book. All we need to add is that they all were approved and edited by Stalin personally and some of them were added in his own handwriting to the draft text of the book.

Journalist Bradley Martin documented the personality cults of North Korea's father-son leadership, "Eternal (formerly Great) Leader" Kim Il-sung and "Great (formerly Dear) Leader" Kim Jong-il.^[2] While visiting North Korea in 1979 he noted that nearly all music, art, and sculpture that he observed glorified "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung, whose personality cult was then being extended to his son, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il.^[2] Kim Il-sung rejected the notion that he had created a cult around himself and accused those who suggested so of "factionalism."^[2] A US religious freedom investigation confirmed Martin's observation that North Korean schoolchildren learn to thank Kim Il-sung for all blessings as part of the cult.^[3]

Former President Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan is another oft-cited cultivator of a cult of personality.^[4][5][6] Niyazov simultaneously cut funding to and partially disassembled the education system in the name of 'reform,' while injecting ideological indoctrination into it by requiring all schools to take his own book, the Ruhnama, as its primary text.^[7][8] During Niyazov's rule there was no freedom of the press nor was there freedom of speech. This further meant that opposition to Niyazov was strictly forbidden and "major opposition figures have been imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or have fled the country, and their family members are routinely harassed by the authorities."^[9] Additionally, a silhouette of Niyazov was placed on the screen of all television broadcasts^[10] and statues and pictures of him were 'erected everywhere.'^[11]. For these, and other reasons, the US Government has gone on to claim that by the time he died, "Niyazov's personality cult…had reached the dimensions of a state-imposed religion."^[12].

University of Chicago professor Lisa Wedeen's book, "Ambiguities of Domination" documents the cult of personality which surrounded late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad. Numerous examples of his glorification are made throughout the book, such as displays of love and adoration for the "leader" put on at the opening ceremonies of the 1987 Mediterranean Games in Lattakia Syria.

References

 

1. ^ The Cult of the Individual. Retrieved on 2007-05-24.
2. ^ ^{a b c} Bradley K. Martin. Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. ISBN 0-312-32322-0
3. ^ Thank You Father Kim-Il-Sung. Retrieved on 2007-12-09.
4. ^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
5. ^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/
6. ^ Shikhmuradov, Boris. May 2002. Security and Conflict in Central Asia and the Caspian Region. International Security Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
7. ^ International Crisis Group. July 2003. Central Asia: Islam and the State. ICG Asia Report No. 59. Available on-line at http://www.crisisgroup.org/
8. ^ Soucek, Svat. 2000. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. ^ Government of the United States of America. March 2002. Report on Turkmenistan. Available on-line at http://www.ciaonet.org/
10. ^ Eurasianet. 2007. The Personality Cult Lives On, Residents Take It In Stride. Available on-line at http://www.eurasianet.org/
11. ^ BBC. December 2006. Obituary: Saparmurat Niyazov.Available on-line at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6199021.stm
12. ^ United States Commission on International Freedom. 2007. Turkmenistan: Ending the Personality Cult. Available on-line at http://www.uscirf.gov/mediaroom/press/2007/january/20070103Turkmenistan.html

See also

• Anax
• Apotheosis
• Big Brother
• Charisma
• Charismatic authority
• Cult of Personality (song)
• Dictator
• Emperor
• God-King
• High King
• King of Kings
• Monarch
• Propaganda

Jihadism, like the cult of personality that follows Barkak Obama, is a youth movement, that promises change from the existing world order. Change, in and of itself, is not good. Cobra Commander can promise change. Karl Marx wanted Change. There was a stalinist youth movement. All the "cool" kids liked Stalin. Hitler had a youth movement. Sexy actresses liked Hitler. People will distort what I am saying. Obama is nothing like Stalin. Obama is nothing like Hitler. Obama may be good for our country. Obama might take us down the right path. But being popular with young, attractive, popular people does not mean that his policies are good. What are my greatest fears with Obama? We have a good country, with a balance of powers. We have the Judicial, legislative, and executive branches. But the founding fathers were concerned with about passions of the moment.

Could we in America have an elected official have a "bad" cult of personality? I think we are drifting that way. President Washington didn't want anyone's face on our money, and we didn't put anyones face on our money, until the 1900s. Wouldn't that tick you off, if you were George Washington? He specifically asked us not to put anyones face on the money, and we go and put HIS face on our money! Then in 1913, we think we know better than the founding fathers how to elect people to congress, and we decide that both houses of congress will be "baby kissers".

We already have a cult of personality with the presidents on our money, two houses of baby kissers, MTV & "Rock-the-vote", celebrities who never graduated from high-school (let alone college) thinking that they should tell us how to vote…

I can see the cult-of personality when you can't criticize Obama without being called a racist. It's the dumbing down of our culture. It's symbolism over substance. "We have the opportunity to truly transcend color this year by treating Barack Obama exactly the same we treated Michael Dukakis."

Obama said he is a uniter, but he brought his daughters for 20 years to a church that damns the United States of KKK. He had the most liberal voting record in the senate. He was more liberal than Dennis Kucinich. It is scary to have a guy who is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich as president, whom you can't criticize without being called a racist. But you can critisize him with some people. Not everyone calls you a racist, but they do not treat him equally. For instance, Obama said he had been to all 57 states. If Bush had said that, it would have been on every news channel. But it is not "cool" to make fun of Obama. Until now. YES WE SHALL!