Agenda 21

At a time when even bankers are hoarding food, it’s clear many are worried. Easy enough to be worried about the visible things – harder to be worried about the obscure and concealed.

At the beginning of OoL, I ran a post on the World Core Curriculum and was horrified that Mueller’s ideas were taken so seriously, had been adopted and that it had gone so far worldwide.

Over the past few years, I’ve been applying for various overseas educational posts and have occasionally reached interview.  What has come through strongly is the ideas permeating this world curriculum, inc the IB and this is reflected in the names, e.g. World College, Kuala Lumpur, International College, Shanghai – even Russian universities are changing their names to include “of the Humanities” which, when explored, means the teaching of Humanism.

Whatever your views on Humanism, it is being pushed openly in schools via curricula, along with all the environmental claptrap.  Apart from this immense push to educate all the world’s children, with UNESCO facilitation, there is Agenda 21:

And of course, they have their summits and check that the agenda is being implemented:

The upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development will aim to answer the following questions, among others: What has been accomplished since 1992? What have the participating countries done so far to implement Agenda 21? Have they adopted the National Sustainable Development Strategies as they agreed they would by 2002? Have they ratified the conventions that aim to prevent loss of biodiversity or ensure women’s rights as they agreed to do in 1992?

The field is so vast and the folder is bulging, so much so that I don’t even know where to start on this topic. It’s horrifying what really is being done to education and how propagandist it has really become. The basics are secondary to the message. It would take a dissertation to put all this material across but American Thinker touches on it here:

A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: “smart growth.” The United Nations Millennium Papers – Issue 2(page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:

Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.

So this is a UN driven conglomeration of all the loony gaia/NWO/sustainable development/Monsanto/earth day stuff meets micro-control, salami slice by salami slice, supported by PCism, all fed into the K-12 school curriculum, not to mention the respective attitudes to evolution and G-d. It’s producing the new godless, dumb, non critically thinking, state-educated child of the C21st, so beloved of Them:

Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, “the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programmes as Goals 2000 and School to Work” (emphasis added).

The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women, NGOs, and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that:

“At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue.”

The State Department also told the UN:

“The U.S. has been involved in several awareness raising programmes and activities aimmed at the population at large (Earth Day, industry supported campaigns, Ad Council, Program KAB, Arbor Day, GLOBE Program, Discovery Channel, National Geographic programmes, CNN, ZooQ, As it Happens, and water clean-up programmes.” 

Naturally, as the second last quote points out, it’s going to provoke hostility in UN watchers and anyone who wakes up to what is really going on – that’s factored in and people producing posts such as this one now are marginalized by the simple expedient of labelling them the loons and dismissing them as conspiracy theorists.

There is no theory in this – read the curricula for yourselves – satisfy yourselves as to what is being taught. And golly-gosh, guess what one of the main targets is? Who’dathunkit?

This agenda for the 21st Century was signed by 179 nations at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the state of the planet. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), this GBA armed UN leaders with the “information” and “science” they needed to validate their global management system.

Its doomsday predictions were designed to excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements.

The GBA concluded on page 763 that “the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources.” The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter 12.2.3 states that-

“This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.

“Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”

They just had to add that finishing touch to it, didn’t they, which gives the game away. They already had people in the palms of their hands – just look at Longrider’s post and comments, the N1 post at OoL:

and you’ll see what I mean. People were already heavily into denial of any benefits the Judaeo-Christian traditions had brought them, as opposed to posts by a minority pointing out that LR and the rest of us only have that freedom to believe because of those very traditions in the first place.

So here now is the GBA stating precisely who the target is, why and what the intention is … and they swan along, unfettered, putting it in place because people are either blissfully unaware or heavily into denial: “It’s just not happening, nothing to see here, move along.”.

Why are Them devoting such time to eradicating the JCT? Because the JCT is a major obstacle to this world agenda, in their eyes. Do your own research and see how they appear to be quite fixated with the need for this eradication.

20 comments for “Agenda 21

  1. john in cheshire
    December 19, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    I’ve seen some of the agenda21 stuff before and I thought I was in a minority for giving credence to what is being pushed into the government agenda. There is for sure a concerted effort by malign forces against the Judeo-Christian legacy that all Western countries have inherited. I just can’t understand why anyone who advocates any other religion, doesn’t see the facts on the ground. Go to India and see Hinduism or Sikhism, or any of the other strands of Eastern religion and compare them and the country to what we have achieved in the West. islam is a religion based on hatred for just about everything and everyone. Humanists, socialists and atheists can’t abide living amongst people who have a deeper spiritual view of their lives. All of these Others benefit from what the Judeo-Christian religious basis has provided, but like children, they just have to rebel against it. What they are crying out for, in my opinion, is a firm smack across the legs to bring them back to reality. What we, the normal people here in the West, are waiting for is a set of leaders who will administer that smack.

    • December 19, 2011 at 7:35 pm

      As an atheist, I can assure you I do not need a smack across the legs – least of all do I need any lectures from our leaders on anything, frankly. Religion is not a necessary component of the belief in personal liberty or personal responsibility.

      The predominant religion in Japan is not Judeo Christian and I’d say they’ve done pretty well for themselves. I stand firmly behind what I said before – without wishing to rake it all over again.

      I believe strongly in both the freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I don’t need bronze age scriptures to tell me the difference between right and wrong, nor do I need belief in a mythical deity. I am sentient enough to be able to work it out for myself. If you, James and other Christians wish to follow your chosen religion, then you do so with my blessing and active support. Do not, however, presume that my failure to follow you means that I am in some sort of denial or am incapable of a moral code without the JCT – this is simply untrue.

      If that makes me a rebel, then so be it.

      • December 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm

        Forgive me. 🙂 I just like to give credit where it’s due, without getting all religious about it. And you think Japan is doing well? Interesting.

    • Edgar
      December 20, 2011 at 12:41 am

      “Humanists, socialists and atheists can’t abide living amongst people who have a deeper spiritual view of their lives.” It is precisely this kind of chauvinism that makes Christians so despicable and ridiculous. As much as I hate the United Nations and what it appears to be trying to achieve, if it succeeds in exterminating Christianity, it will have served at least one useful purpose.

      • December 20, 2011 at 8:49 am

        “Humanists, socialists and atheists can’t abide living amongst people who have a deeper spiritual view of their lives.”

        Yup, it’s bollocks on stilts.

        Note to all, can we stop the insults, please. I am happy enough to not only tolerate your belief systems even though I don’t share them, but will actively support your right to practice freely. Please extend the same courtesy to those of us who do not share your beliefs.

    • sovereigntea
      December 20, 2011 at 1:02 am

      Dear john in cheshire or perhaps a location a tad warmer ?

      Globally controlling resources including the human kind via Agenda21 is of course the work of the bankers and their Fabianistic friends. Yet another chess move in the scheme to implement a global centrally planned Marxist dystopia and it includes a Malthusian depopulation scheme to boot.

      @john I must point out that the main protagonists are likely to belong to the the Judeo-Christian demographic who you paint as the victims.

      You then proceed to present this as some sort of conflict of faiths, perhaps a battle against east and west. In the current context whose agenda might that serve ?

      “islam is a religion based on hatred for just about everything and everyone.”

      Now where have I heard that before ? and I’m awfully sorry old chap but its just not true. Attempting to determine the relative merits of any supposed group based on religious or other labels is a failed philosophy based on either genuine or wilful ignorance. Historically such a methodology unfounded fears and superstitions have been frequently used to divide populations for manipulative purposes. Nazi Germany for instance.

      I note that you capitalise Judeo-Christian but not Islam. Yet the spellchecker highlights this.

      “waiting for leaders” Submission and deference to some supposed higher authority and hoping that “a set of leaders” will emerge to save you.

      Quality idea mate lets just sit around, lambs to the slaughter and await our dictated fate. After all speaking up might make one appear abnormal to ones peers what on Earth would people think.

      Given the current financial/political status quo and even the most cursory knowledge of Agenda21 and its policy implications, that makes you knaive and lacking in the most basic of instincts. That of preservation of ones self and ones family.

      Methinks you are quite possibly an agitator/ a propagandist working to a politically motivated script.

      If I am wrong I apologise but dear john what say you ?

  2. janet
    December 19, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    I have no idea whether this is so, but my brain just made a connection between destruction of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the consequent destruction of British society (amongst others), and the support of apparently the vast majority of western politicians for the destruction of Israel as fervently preached and desired by both Islamic countries and the multitude of cultural enrichers who have migrated into Europe and elsewhere. Is this where the Guardian’s constant anti-Semitism/support of Palestine comes from? And many other examples of the same thing?

  3. johnnyrvf
    December 19, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Ultimately if someone refuses to accept that there is a Spiritual perspective to Human existance they will not begin to understand the real agenda of the people pushing in this obscene attempt to enslave humankind; nor will they seriously consider that the ‘architects’ of this sad denial of the Whole Truth do believe in ‘super natural’ entities albeit in a grossly distorted and extremely negative form; unfortunately any positive learning of a spiritual path is fraught with difficulties and requires a dimension of humility, something that has been ( deliberately) abandoned in modern day teaching. Self depreciation is something of which these people are seriously lacking and their pride is an excellent vehicle for them to be seduced down a negative path. Humanism is just another guise of the occult, although the devout will scream out in incandescent rage at anyone who dares to lift the veil of their concept of moral ‘truth’ to reveal what really lies behind. Because they have not the means to perceive what is spiritual reality and revert to yet another peurile form of Paganism they are mere pawns in a much bigger reality hidden from those who deliberatly do not wish to see or are being blinded by their own prostitution of their spiritual entities. Those who think that religions are just ‘sky faries’ are the most coveted victims of this NWO agenda; who will win? Not those who believe that their plans for Human kind are infallible.

    • Edgar
      December 20, 2011 at 12:50 am

      Man! I wish I had a pound for every time I’ve seen or heard a Christian, Orthodox Jew, or a Muslim fail to manifest “a dimension of humility”. Surely, those cults are the ones with the most egregious arrogance and self-righteousness?

      • December 20, 2011 at 8:52 am

        And I cringe when anyone talks of “The Truth”. Such are the words of the zealot. Far too many have been slaughtered over the centuries in the name of “The Truth”.

        While I have a degree of respect for those who can have faith, painting those of us who do not have it as villains who are in denial or have been duped by the occult is rampant cockwaffle. Enough already.

  4. December 20, 2011 at 3:50 am

    “Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions” Good company we keep in our wickedness.

  5. December 20, 2011 at 4:30 am

    People were already heavily into denial of any benefits the Judaeo-Christian traditions had brought them, as opposed to posts by a minority pointing out that LR and the rest of us only have that freedom to believe because of those very traditions in the first place.

    James, without wishing to offend your personal beliefs, Judaeo-Christian traditions – more specifically the Christian part – are the main reason I don’t consider myself free and remain deeply pessimistic that I will be before I snuff it. I wouldn’t say that Judaeo-Christian tradition has brought me no benefits at all, but certainly they’ve done more to restrict me than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism and all forms of animism combined, and it seems to me that what’s in the credit side of the ledger is balanced by the debit side. The nanny state is deeply rooted in religious belief – Christian religious belief at that – and while the current generation of wowsers are as often secular as they are Christian . Thanks primarily to the disapproval of various Christians I cannot buy certain videogames, I can’t drink alcohol in certain places, and there are plans to restrict my internet use so I don’t see anything upsetting or corrupting (whether that’s porn or news reports about paedophile priests I won’t know, because of course I won’t be allowed to see what I’m not allowed to see). I mightn’t want to do all or any of those things they don’t want me to do, but because of these vocal groups and their honest but unwanted concern for an immortal soul I very much doubt any of us have I don’t have a choice in the matter.

    I’d even go so far as to say that the Judaeo-Christian tradition has a few commonalities with socialism, in particular the tendency toward coerced charity. Seriously, I don’t see the intent behind “pay up or you’ll go to hell” as being all that much better than “submit to wealth redistribution via tax or go to prison”. That’s not to say the socialists wouldn’t have come up with the idea independently, just as many atheists conclude that murder is immoral for logical reasons rather than because they think a 14 billion year old superbeing says so, but if religious enthusiasts are determined to credit their faith with good stuff like religious freedom and murder being a crime then why not claim that we have it to thank for taxation as well? And I’m far from sold on the notion that we have freedom to believe what we will (or to believe nothing at all) thanks only to a religion whose most infamous set of rules include the command “You shall have no other gods but me” and which has a long history of setting fire to anyone who says otherwise to the extent of persecuting even members of other sects. In fact it feels rather as if much of the good stuff it’s brought was intended to keep the believers believing and to elbow out the competition. You get a damn fine education at many religious schools, but you do tend to get indoctrinated and programmed as well. Just because that ‘Give me the child “til the age of seven and I’ll give you the man” isn’t real whack-job Heaven’s Gate level indoctrination and is largely harmless doesn’t mean it isn’t still indoctrination.

    That’s not to say I’m a Humanist or an Atheist, at least not in their capitalised forms. I’m certainly an atheist and I suppose humanist isn’t all that far off either, but I think there’s a distinction between humanism and Humanism. Whenever something like this gets capitalised it generally means it’s nothing more than secular religion, or worse a political religion. They’ve usually got most or all the bad features of religious belief – the dogma, the rituals, the utter conviction, the attacks on unbelievers and heretics, and their version of the godhead (Gaia, the Communist Party, Marxism/Leninism, Kim-Jong-Terminally-Ill, whatever) but typically in the worst examples few or none of its moderating influences. Again, just because there isn’t a God-y type god doesn’t mean it isn’t doesn’t come from the same source and pushes the same buttons in its adherents as religion does among its adherents. It’s still all about belief and it makes me think that perhaps as a species we’re inclined to believe in things that are either impossible to prove or highly unlikely or both, whether it’s wood spirits or Gaia or horoscopes or the Christian god or even the new god on the block, the capitalised S Science. As someone who practises an absence of belief in anything I’m roughly as wary of all of them, but I’ll give any of them their due whether it’s bad or good.

    • johnnyrvf
      December 20, 2011 at 5:19 am

      The problem with the VAST ‘teaching’ of the Judaeo-Christianity is that it comes in the form of the POST state adopted version, the very early pre Roman Constantine understanding of Christianity is more closely allied to the actual teachings of Christ. I absolutely agree as to how one is entrapped by the doctrines that emphasise guilt rather than tolerance thrust dogmatically down the throats of the gulible by people who choose to be ‘preachers’ for all the wrong reasons, a very difficult and contentious subject in which the only way I have kept my sanity is by acknowleging I am for from perfect but still reason I can live in harmony with others accepting that the theory of trust should be very carefully applied at all times E.G. never trust an agent of the state to have my interests at heart.

  6. johnnyrvf
    December 20, 2011 at 5:00 am

    @ edgar. Man, I wish I had a pound for everytime I read a predictable comment like yours, I would be one of the NWO elite drinking Chateaux Rosthchild while languidly ignoring your anger at how unjust everything had become. Where did I mention Christianity, Judaism or Islam? However since you have I will contend that; Islam is a cult, the other two are religions, this is an important distiction, there is a very long and valid scholarly tradition that explains why, and how the Religions have had huge and very important influences on human behavior and society whether empirical or philosophical and have been the basis of Western civilisations concept of Justice for the last two millenia and therefore are real and important and affect everybody; should you choose not to accept this, you leave yourself open to making unqualified opinions of zero relevance. To be able to see the whole complex mechanism of Human existance requires a grasp of all the factors. Many many people ‘ adopt ‘ or are forced into ‘organized religion’ in which they have no intention or capacity to comprehend what is being for the most not being freely, honestly imparted or taught but actually indoctrinated into them, which makes for angry and embittered people who then act badly in the name of ……..; quite apart from the fragmented facets of each creed which apart from Islam has been deliberately mis interperted and mis represented almost since the beginning of their existance. In my above comment I was making the point that the elites believe in a spiritual dimension, but lack an important quality which discerns which way there beliefs are utilised and in an increasingly secular western world which refuses to comtemplate anything other than the material and the self above all, dismissing that they believe in a negative spiritual ethos allows them to implement their enslavement un noticed and un opposed readily aided and abetted by scornful attitudes such as you express.

  7. December 20, 2011 at 8:17 am

    The only thing I would add, not wishing to attempt to refute either side in these comments but to let them stand for others to judge, is that a comment within the post about the JCTs was a politically motivated comment – i.e., the society which has been produced as a result of those traditions and yes, it was a dig at my fellow admin [smiles].

    Longrider mentioned Japan. OK, let’s look at Japan. Feudal, unfree, people at the mercy of the ruling class. Had lain there on its own for millennia. People’s lives not worth a yen in the eyes of the rulers. Along comes the U.S.A. and hey presto, what happens? They become the technological powerhouse of the world for some time. From what tradition does the U.S.A. come?

    Actually, it’s a trick question because the answer is a mix of the JCT and that of Masonry and Them. This interweaving is the thing so many still can’t get their minds round. The latter certainly blazed new trails but they also took all their baggage with them.

    I do believe Christianity is essentially correct, for my own reasons and I’m not a religious person – it never comes into conversation in RL, my family were just the average bourgeois family. Strangely, I’ve mentioned Christianity more on the blogs than I have in my entire life outside the blogs. That does puzzle me but perhaps it is because I see the attacks by Them for what they are.

    My beef is political – Them, the EU, the UN, any attack on freedom and it’s clear that these bstds are also targetting Christianity. Just why puzzled me for a long while but then it became clearer as the agenda became clearer. From their own literature, they speak of “this superstition” which has to be wiped off the face of the earth.

    This “superstition”, speaking politically and not religiously, is one of the main obstacles to Them achieving what they want. I for one do not go along with Edgar in conceding a socialist superstate is preferable to a free society where Christians can continue to annoy him with their views. If your wish, Edgar, comes true, then there ain’t gonna be no room to move for any of us.

    The reason I say that is that I lived 12 years in Russia and as you can imagine, spoke with many, as well as saw the vestiges of communism. You simply do not want to have that imposed on you – we see the beginnings of it in the EUSSR. That is the end of hope, the end of joy.

    It’s time non-Christians gave credit where it is due and realize that this tradition of ours is a bulwark. If it were not so, then Them would not be expending such resources and effort to eliminate it.

    Never forget Niemoeller.

    • December 20, 2011 at 9:34 am

      I don’t forget Niemöller, though I’m all for Christians being free to practise their religion (in my more cynical moments I’d say some of them need to get better at it anyway 😉 ) anyway. And sure, it may well be a bulwark against something worse but if so then socialism could make the same claim, and I’m not about to credit that with much other than giving us a fucking receipt for all the money it’s demanded. I’d be more interested to know whether on balance the JCT has been a net positive or a net negative. Never mind all the wars and the Inquisition that atheists, or more usually Atheists, tend to bring up at this point, just the current obsession with nannying and controlling what we read, eat, smoke, drink, watch etc having its earliest beginnings in Christianity is enough to leave me doubting that it’s been a net positive. All this talk of freedoms coming from the JCT and I can’t help but wonder if those freedoms are because of it or in spite of it. And a bulwark against world socialism and statism? Christ (forgive the expression), it’s been giving the bloody socialists and statists and authoritarians some of their worst ideas. And since the JCT is, like any other religious system including the modern secular and political ones, essentially authoritarian that shouldn’t be a big surprise.

      None of which means I’m opposed to it or wish it would end. Not a bit of it. But then I don’t mind socialists and communists doing their thing either, I just object to them making me take part against my will. If the JCT deserves credit for anything it’s that it’s largely grown out of that habit.

      • December 20, 2011 at 10:02 am

        just the current obsession with nannying and controlling what we read, eat, smoke, drink, watch etc having its earliest beginnings in Christianity

        There’s the error – right there. On what basis do you ascribe those to Christianity? These are pure Them – the federally minded, oligarchical mindset which believes it knows better than anyone. Christianity is the gospels and in there it lays down the wisdom [if you see it as such] through the Logos.

        All the rest of it, from the fire and brimstone preachers to the inquisitions and crusades, are the product of men who saw an opportunity for control and were part of the State. The people themselves who read their bibles were no more oppressive of others than a newt.

        Most people were never religious per se – they had a vague background of love thy neighbour, do unto others etc. and knew the various bible stories from their early days. This is what Christianity produced – tolerance and freedom to do as you will within normal limits – classic liberalism.

        It was the ones in power, the ones who took something not exclusively theirs and made it exclusively theirs, the attempt to turn it into the gnostic levels of understanding with only the adepts at the top capable of imparting it – that was the crime in every pulpit and it was a product of the other side, the mystery religion.

        Always the other side and Them have been interwoven throughout. Christianity as a way to live, a way to go, is an entirely different thing to fundamentalist humans who wish to impose it on you. I resist the latter just as much as anyone.

        • December 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm

          On what basis do you ascribe those to Christianity?

          Well, primarily because they came largely from Christians. As I just said to johnnyrvf, the only thing bigger than sobriety for Temperance Movement was God, and going from memory the Presbyterian Church (and I think others) were deeply involved. You can still see the Christian influence in Anything Anonymous today – almost every other step of the twelve step program refers to God either directly or obliquely.

          These are pure Them – the federally minded, oligarchical mindset which believes it knows better than anyone.

          James, doesn’t this Them sound at all religious to you? Come on, not even a little bit? Not sure what you mean by federally minded because there’s nothing inherently wrong with a federation and whether it’s good or bad depends pretty much just on how it’s run. But an oligarchy that thinks it knows best? Mate, that’s normal for religions and for most of the last 2,000 years I’d say that describes at least the major Christian sects down to a tee. Kings and potentates have done as they’ve been told in this world in the hope of preferential treatment in the next. For most of the last 2,000 years Christianity has been the Them, and to whatever extent there’s still a Them at the moment I’m sure it’s still a player.

          Christianity is the gospels …

          Okay, that wasn’t that well worded and needs some expansion. I was referring to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, specifically that of telling people how to live, and speaking of Christians who were doing exactly that (and the WCTU weren’t Them). As you’ve defined it there I can see why you think Christianity is an inappropriate term, but it’s not all hints and advice and suggestions in the gospels and NT, is it? There’s some pretty explicit instruction about how to live your life in there too, and this is what I’m getting at.

          The people themselves who read their bibles were no more oppressive of others than a newt.

          Never said they were. It’s the churches to which they belong that give me the shits. These days I’d hope that almost all of them would refuse if told to come and burn me alive, but the sad reality is that a very large number of them will listen if told to vote for a politician who is going to restrict someone else’s liberty. As individuals, yes, mostly nice people, but as a voting bloc they’ve had a hand in some pretty illiberal stuff. Still do down here, though that’s ameliorated by that federal thing – if they wanted to turn South Australia into a Christian theocratic I’d be fine with it because I’d still be free to live in a bit of Oz that isn’t.

          This is what Christianity produced – tolerance and freedom to do as you will within normal limits – classic liberalism.

          Ye-e-e-s, but it was Christians defining what was within normal limits, wasn’t it? So in the past it was tolerance and freedom to do what you will if Christians were okay with it, and now it’s tolerance and freedom to do what you will if various statists are okay with it, some of whom are still Christians. Liberalism with a rather narrow view of liberty, I feel.

          Christianity as a way to live, a way to go, is an entirely different thing to fundamentalist humans who wish to impose it on you. I resist the latter just as much as anyone.

          Indeed, and I’m sure it’s the same as the difference between capital and lower case humanism/atheism/science etc. I know it’s bad grammar but I’d think of that as small C christianity, encompassing everything from the quiet believer who rarely if ever goes to church but has never stopped believing for a waking moment to the crazy but harmless ones with the Revelation fixation who stand outside shopping centres with battery operated speakers. Still, there’s still that issue of a potential voting bloc, and that can still come into play if there’s an important election issue on which the Bible is very specific.

      • johnnyrvf
        December 20, 2011 at 10:24 am

        Christianity has never been against alchohol, Christs first miracle was to turn 600 GALLONS of water into wine…….It is the deliberate mis-interpretation of successive schisms from the original Church of the Apostles that ushered in all the prohibitions, not to mention the abuses of power and authority from the Church of Rome. As to being authoritarian, again this is because it was hi-jacked by kings and states to subdue the peasantry, many teachings are either taken out of context or forgotten entirely.

        • December 20, 2011 at 11:32 am

          Christianity has never been against alchohol…

          Historically, no, and not so much the Church of Rome (with which I have entirely different beefs, some of which you’ve just touched on) although maybe in these ne-puritan days you would get told to say a few Hail Marys for going to pub. But the Temperance Movement came very much from various Protestant sects, especially the Presbyterians if I recall. How much of it was due to the belief in immortal souls and therefore a need to control anything that corrupts them and how much to misinterpretation and projecting one’s own traditions of being a bloody misery is speculation, but if nobody else believed in immortal souls and heaven and God I reckon it’d still consist largely of a few dozen women with disapproving faces.

          As to being authoritarian, again this is because it was hi-jacked by kings and states to subdue the peasantry…

          Sorry, I should have been clearer that I was talking about a [looks up] higher authority. 🙂 All religions are inherently authoritarian to a greater or lesser extent. I’d say the Abrahamic ones are more so than some others, though I don’t think I’ve come across anything that isn’t at least a bit authoritarian. Even if you leave the deities out of it there’s a hierarchy with power concentrated at the top in the hands of people very much prepared to tell other people how to live their lives. I don’t particularly have a problem with that because it wouldn’t be much of a religion if it didn’t work that way. You’d end up with commandments like: “Thou shalt play the field, but you know, only if you want to, not on our account or anything.” and “Thou shalt believe in what you think best because to be really honest we’re not all that sure.”

Comments are closed.