• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will people ever truly unite?

FlappyTheKinkajou said:
First of all, you said yourself that there would be "very little tolerance," and because you are advertising a Utopian ideal, that tips me off, along with my own thought processes, that there will be no tolerance. Second of all, there will be no freedom due to a combination of the fact that freedom cannot exist without tolerance, unitizing ideals imply no freedom, and creating a commune situation through involuntary methods starts without freedom by definition and allows further demonstrations of freedom to be destroyed.
Click to expand...

There is very little tolerance in this society Flappy that is what I said. Not in the society that I am talking about. The only thing that we do not allow for, is religious freedom in our commune. That is a n=known quantity going in. If someone does not like that they are free to wait at the door. So you misunderstand what I stated.
 
FlappyTheKinkajou said:
Yes, a religious group was the OBJECT of aggression, not the PERPETRATORS of aggression. 6 million Jews died, and 5 million others died.
Click to expand...

The Nazi's did consider themselves followers of the Christ. Those comments were made even during the meeting in Wannsee it was said that the Jews rejected the Christ.
 
Inferno said:
I can see getting clubed like a harp seal for this response.

We can unite but some ideas need to be discarded with first.

1. Religion needs to go.
2. Private property needs to go.
3. Nations and references to national pride need to go.
4. Borders need to fade.
5. Universal money........if any
6. universal language would have to be in the works.
7. The UN or a group like that would have to take change.

Individual nation states could no longer exist.

IMO religion is the biggest barrier to unity.
Click to expand...

Good, no a great post; but I disagree that religion must go...
Perhaps in another 1,000 years, man will properly discover God, and a one true religion....even if I hold that religion is not necessary.
 
earthworm said:
Good, no a great post; but I disagree that religion must go...
Perhaps in another 1,000 years, man will properly discover God, and a one true religion....even if I hold that religion is not necessary.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your positive look at this post.

A universal religion is a perhaps. The divisions from this faith to that faith are the dividers. It separates people more than anything I can think of. Even within a faith there is decent.
 
Inferno said:
I can see getting clubed like a harp seal for this response.

We can unite but some ideas need to be discarded with first.

1. Religion needs to go.
2. Private propertty needs to go.
3. Nations and references to national pride need to go.
4. Borders need to fade.
5. Universal money.
6. universal language would have to be in the works.
7. The UN or a group like that would have to take change.

Individual nation states could no longer exist.

IMO religion is the biggest barrier to unity.
Click to expand...

I'll be nice. ;)

You do realize that most of this list is highly improbable? That realistically, the only way you'd get 90% of humanity to accept these terms would be to kill half of them and threaten the other half with like treatment? Because many of us would consider this tyranny of the worst sort.

Now, I'm beginning to know you a little bit, so I figure your hope is that the world would accept these principles voluntarily, to be "enlightened" as it were.

IMO, that just isn't ever going to happen.

Addressing the religion issue specifically:

Here in the USA, while Christianity may be the majority, there are a VAST number of religions. My Quicky-mart guy is a Pakistani Muslim; my best buddy is an Agnostic; some of my friends are Pagans, another is Jewish. We even discuss religion fairly often; yet no one has killed anyone, or even punched anyone.
This is a microcosm of the USA. Here in the US it is very rare that anyone kills over religion, yet we debate it vociferously.

I submit that it is not religion, itself, that needs to go, but the willingness to kill over religion. (Which willingness, just to note, seems to be most common in the Mideast these days.)

I think it's obvious by now that I take my beliefs very seriously, yet I have no desire to force my agnostic friend to become Christian through legislation or force. My beliefs do not permit "forced conversions" because my beliefs require conversion to be a choice. Force negates choice.

G.
 
Nope. However, they will unite against each other.
 
Goshin said:
I'll be nice. ;)

You do realize that most of this list is highly improbable? That realistically, the only way you'd get 90% of humanity to accept these terms would be to kill half of them and threaten the other half with like treatment? Because many of us would consider this tyranny of the worst sort.

Now, I'm beginning to know you a little bit, so I figure your hope is that the world would accept these principles voluntarily, to be "enlightened" as it were.

IMO, that just isn't ever going to happen.

Addressing the religion issue specifically:

Here in the USA, while Christianity may be the majority, there are a VAST number of religions. My Quicky-mart guy is a Pakistani Muslim; my best buddy is an Agnostic; some of my friends are Pagans, another is Jewish. We even discuss religion fairly often; yet no one has killed anyone, or even punched anyone.
This is a microcosm of the USA. Here in the US it is very rare that anyone kills over religion, yet we debate it vociferously.

I submit that it is not religion, itself, that needs to go, but the willingness to kill over religion. (Which willingness, just to note, seems to be most common in the Mideast these days.)

I think it's obvious by now that I take my beliefs very seriously, yet I have no desire to force my agnostic friend to become Christian through legislation or force. My beliefs do not permit "forced conversions" because my beliefs require conversion to be a choice. Force negates choice.

G.
Click to expand...

Another fine post. I have a set of political beliefs and principles that run directly in line with the truth of a Utopian Socialism. I don't mind that I am in the minority.

It would not work for me or any other to inflict these standards on anyone else. What is required is a radical change in the thinking of people. I don't expect to see that in my lifetime. I do intend to live my ideals now on a small scale that has been growing now for years.

I can agree with what you are saying with regard to religion. That is true. The difficulty with that in a society is that many people think that their religion is the only right one and want to push that on everyone else.

Religion in the context that you speak of it is not a problem. It is when Muslims are killing Jews because they are Jews. It was when Christians hate Muslims because of their faith. It is when Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and the rest war over the idea of religion. When people are trying to govern the state by their very specific religious view that they become unwieldy in a society that I describe.

I understand that you are a man that takes faith seriously and that is great. It is also good that you can have yours and respect others as well.
 
Inferno said:
Don't they do that already. Are you perfectly happy with the status quo.
Click to expand...

There are parts of the status quo that I am acceptable of, and ther eare parts of the status quo that I want to change in the opposite direction that you do.
 
Inferno said:
Don't they do that already. Are you perfectly happy with the status quo.
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly happy acknowledging our reality without insisting on fantasies and dreams to make myself feel better about it. And besides...war is job security for me.
 
Baralis said:
Do you believe we will ever achieve total acceptance of other ethnicities or religions?
.
Click to expand...

As for the thread title "Will people ever truly unite. No because there will always be differences. If you tossed out religion, skin color people will always find differneces. For example look at everyone who opposes illegal immigration,some are conservative some are liberal.
 
No. Whether you listen to gay activists or white supremacists there are too many people who believe that by the genetics of their birth they are superior to or sexually and relationship excluded from others to instead promote seperate-but-equal segregation. As long as there are large and vocal groups of people who can round up followers on their racial/genetic bigotry message that people are foremost defined at birth by their dna in terms of being exclusive of other people by virtue of their birth and by there dna people can never have harmony.
 
Inferno said:
I can see getting clubed like a harp seal for this response.

We can unite but some ideas need to be discarded with first.

1. Religion needs to go.
2. Private propertty needs to go.
3. Nations and references to national pride need to go.
4. Borders need to fade.
5. Universal money.
6. universal language would have to be in the works.
7. The UN or a group like that would have to take change.

Individual nation states could no longer exist.

IMO religion is the biggest barrier to unity.
Click to expand...

Yes. And along with all of that goes any meaningful self-determination.
 
Inferno said:
What is required is a radical change in the thinking of people.
Click to expand...

You are pretty much saying that your way of thinking -- your views, including religion -- is the correct way, and everyone else is wrong.

If you weren't, then you wouldn't say that people's thinking needs to change.

Therefore, you are exactly what you claim to be against.

Not that it makes you in any way unique, mind you.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes. And along with all of that goes any meaningful self-determination.
Click to expand...

For some but not everyone. I have thought about this alot over the past few days and have come to the opinion that I fully support this type of community if it is a voluntary endeavour. But like everything else I would be against a government forcing it on anyone. I fully believe that the government has no right to decide our actions as long as it is in no way harmful to others.
 
Harshaw said:
You are pretty much saying that your way of thinking -- your views, including religion -- is the correct way, and everyone else is wrong.

If you weren't, then you wouldn't say that people's thinking needs to change.

Therefore, you are exactly what you claim to be against.

Not that it makes you in any way unique, mind you.
Click to expand...

The views that I have on religion are mine and they are the views of the commune to which i do belong. They like all of the planks of our specific constitution are always open to be revised. If there seems to be a need to open a new dialogue than it will be done. For now this is the rule that we have. Nothing is etched in stone.

As we move into the rural community and open a school that will be open to any child within the larger community we may have to reconsider the rules. The natural community is religious. There are a lot of people that have approached us on having their children attend a free private school in the area where no busing would be needed. If the kids come we will open the doors.
 
Harshaw said:
Yes. And along with all of that goes any meaningful self-determination.
Click to expand...

No true. If you want to be part of what we are doing than you already agree. If you don't agree then you have self determined not to come along.
 
Baralis said:
For some but not everyone. I have thought about this alot over the past few days and have come to the opinion that I fully support this type of community if it is a voluntary endeavour. But like everything else I would be against a government forcing it on anyone. I fully believe that the government has no right to decide our actions as long as it is in no way harmful to others.
Click to expand...

If that's how people want to go off and live in their little corner, that's fine with me.

But the context of the post to which I responded contemplated a worldwide implementation.
 
Inferno said:
No true. If you want to be part of what we are doing than you already agree. If you don't agree then you have self determined not to come along.
Click to expand...

You're talking about getting rid of private property, of nation-states, of all sorts of things which indicate you mean for everyone to live that way.
 
I like to think i do get on with people of different races just as well as with my own.Religions are different because at a fundamentalist level they contradict each other.
 
Harshaw said:
You're talking about getting rid of private property, of nation-states, of all sorts of things which indicate you mean for everyone to live that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah i think it would be nice. But it would have to be done nation by nation. It would be an evolutionary process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom