Assorted Hustlers

[Flanders]

For all practical purposes hustling preachers taken collectively are a single priesthood as dangerous as any traditional priesthood that would turn America, and the world, into a theocracy. THEOCRACY IS WHERE THE BIG MONEY AND THE POWER TO FORCIBLY IMPLEMENT BEHAVIOR RESIDES. Sad to say, America’s Founders left the back door open when they guarded against major religions.

Throughout history, priesthoods enriched themselves by saving the world with everybody else’s blood and sweat. Today’s preachers do it without belonging to a major religion like Roman Catholicism, or Islam, although hustling preachers disguise their lust for money, power, and debauchery behind the same messages every degenerate cleric spouted since time began.

Slavery

The greatest evil done by slavery to the country the Founders envisioned is only now surfacing. That evil is seen in the glorification of hustling preachers more than two centuries after the Constitution effectively dealt with the inherent dangers found in organized religions. Consider this: MLK’s message was rooted in slavery and built upon skin color even though the Civil War abolished slavery. With slavery gone 20th century hustlers discovered the mother lode —— civil Rights, equality, and entitlements.

NOTE: I’ve often said that government and organized religion will always plague mankind. America’s Founders minimized the inherent evil in both; limit the government’s powers and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

Today’s Americans must find a way to deal with hustling preachers as effectively as the Founding Fathers dealt with organized religion’s priesthoods.

I’m not joking when I say MLK Day should be called Preachers’ Day —— that federal holiday honors a specific group of bible-thumping con artists as much as it honors King. Put the “I have a dream. . . ” con job behind you and you’ll see that MLK’s deification legitimated every street hustling preacher that ever was or ever will be. That’s quite an accomplishment when you calculate how many centuries traditional priesthoods owned the hereafter market.

Consider President’s Day if you think I’m reaching too far on this.

President’s Day combines the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. To be accurate it should have been called Two Presidents Day. That’s another reason it’s absurd to give Martin Luther King a day of his own, while Washington and Lincoln share a day.

In reality, President’s Day morphed into a subtle celebration of every president’s birth. The very name —— President’s Day —— implies every president. How many people do you know say they are only honoring Washington and Lincoln? Even if every generation remembers that the third Monday in February honors two presidents only, I have no use for Lincoln; so why must I celebrate his birth along with Washington’s?

Note that Lincoln is the government’s favorite president, while Washington is the peoples president. For obvious reasons it is the education industry that always made the two equal in greatness.

President’s Day also solemnizes characters like Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, and Hussein along with Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.

My point: It’s not much of stretch to say that every hustling preacher is honored along with MLK.

And if you think street hustling preachers are less tyrannical than were priesthoods throughout history you are in for a rude awakening.

There is no constitutional prohibition against an individual representing the arts, science, engineering, finance, or the business world, being honored with a national holiday, yet in spite of the First Amendment’s prohibition a representative of religion is the only one that got a holiday:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,. . .

Finally, I do not know if anybody else noticed it, but nothing was more telling than Hussein —— himself a street hustling preacher —— delivering his second inaugural speech on Martin Luther King Day.

Should you disagree with my take on hustling preachers maybe T. J. can convince you:

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

 

[onecut39]

For all practical purposes hustling preachers taken collectively are a single priesthood as dangerous as any traditional priesthood that would turn America, and the world, into a theocracy. THEOCRACY IS WHERE THE BIG MONEY AND THE POWER TO FORCIBLY IMPLEMENT BEHAVIOR RESIDES. Sad to say, America’s Founders left the back door open when they guarded against major religions.

Throughout history, priesthoods enriched themselves by saving the world with everybody else’s blood and sweat. Today’s preachers do it without belonging to a major religion like Roman Catholicism, or Islam, although hustling preachers disguise their lust for money, power, and debauchery behind the same messages every degenerate cleric spouted since time began.

Slavery

The greatest evil done by slavery to the country the Founders envisioned is only now surfacing. That evil is seen in the glorification of hustling preachers more than two centuries after the Constitution effectively dealt with the inherent dangers found in organized religions. Consider this: MLK’s message was rooted in slavery and built upon skin color even though the Civil War abolished slavery. With slavery gone 20th century hustlers discovered the mother lode —— civil Rights, equality, and entitlements.

NOTE: I’ve often said that government and organized religion will always plague mankind. America’s Founders minimized the inherent evil in both; limit the government’s powers and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

Today’s Americans must find a way to deal with hustling preachers as effectively as the Founding Fathers dealt with organized religion’s priesthoods.

I’m not joking when I say MLK Day should be called Preachers’ Day —— that federal holiday honors a specific group of bible-thumping con artists as much as it honors King. Put the “I have a dream. . . ” con job behind you and you’ll see that MLK’s deification legitimated every street hustling preacher that ever was or ever will be. That’s quite an accomplishment when you calculate how many centuries traditional priesthoods owned the hereafter market.

Consider President’s Day if you think I’m reaching too far on this.

President’s Day combines the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. To be accurate it should have been called Two Presidents Day. That’s another reason it’s absurd to give Martin Luther King a day of his own, while Washington and Lincoln share a day.

In reality, President’s Day morphed into a subtle celebration of every president’s birth. The very name —— President’s Day —— implies every president. How many people do you know say they are only honoring Washington and Lincoln? Even if every generation remembers that the third Monday in February honors two presidents only, I have no use for Lincoln; so why must I celebrate his birth along with Washington’s?

Note that Lincoln is the government’s favorite president, while Washington is the peoples president. For obvious reasons it is the education industry that always made the two equal in greatness.

President’s Day also solemnizes characters like Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, and Hussein along with Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.

My point: It’s not much of stretch to say that every hustling preacher is honored along with MLK.

And if you think street hustling preachers are less tyrannical than were priesthoods throughout history you are in for a rude awakening.

There is no constitutional prohibition against an individual representing the arts, science, engineering, finance, or the business world, being honored with a national holiday, yet in spite of the First Amendment’s prohibition a representative of religion is the only one that got a holiday:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,. . .

Finally, I do not know if anybody else noticed it, but nothing was more telling than Hussein —— himself a street hustling preacher —— delivering his second inaugural speech on Martin Luther King Day.

Should you disagree with my take on hustling preachers maybe T. J. can convince you:

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

The above post gives the word dumb a whole new meaning.

 

[Flanders]

The above post gives the word dumb a whole new meaning.

To onecut39: Thank you. Whenever a half-wit takes the time to respond with nothing more than a personal attack always tells me that I hit too close to home.

 

[Cammmpbell]

For all practical purposes hustling preachers taken collectively are a single priesthood as dangerous as any traditional priesthood that would turn America, and the world, into a theocracy. THEOCRACY IS WHERE THE BIG MONEY AND THE POWER TO FORCIBLY IMPLEMENT BEHAVIOR RESIDES. Sad to say, America’s Founders left the back door open when they guarded against major religions.

Throughout history, priesthoods enriched themselves by saving the world with everybody else’s blood and sweat. Today’s preachers do it without belonging to a major religion like Roman Catholicism, or Islam, although hustling preachers disguise their lust for money, power, and debauchery behind the same messages every degenerate cleric spouted since time began.

Slavery

The greatest evil done by slavery to the country the Founders envisioned is only now surfacing. That evil is seen in the glorification of hustling preachers more than two centuries after the Constitution effectively dealt with the inherent dangers found in organized religions. Consider this: MLK’s message was rooted in slavery and built upon skin color even though the Civil War abolished slavery. With slavery gone 20th century hustlers discovered the mother lode —— civil Rights, equality, and entitlements.

NOTE: I’ve often said that government and organized religion will always plague mankind. America’s Founders minimized the inherent evil in both; limit the government’s powers and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

Today’s Americans must find a way to deal with hustling preachers as effectively as the Founding Fathers dealt with organized religion’s priesthoods.

I’m not joking when I say MLK Day should be called Preachers’ Day —— that federal holiday honors a specific group of bible-thumping con artists as much as it honors King. Put the “I have a dream. . . ” con job behind you and you’ll see that MLK’s deification legitimated every street hustling preacher that ever was or ever will be. That’s quite an accomplishment when you calculate how many centuries traditional priesthoods owned the hereafter market.

Consider President’s Day if you think I’m reaching too far on this.

President’s Day combines the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. To be accurate it should have been called Two Presidents Day. That’s another reason it’s absurd to give Martin Luther King a day of his own, while Washington and Lincoln share a day.

In reality, President’s Day morphed into a subtle celebration of every president’s birth. The very name —— President’s Day —— implies every president. How many people do you know say they are only honoring Washington and Lincoln? Even if every generation remembers that the third Monday in February honors two presidents only, I have no use for Lincoln; so why must I celebrate his birth along with Washington’s?

Note that Lincoln is the government’s favorite president, while Washington is the peoples president. For obvious reasons it is the education industry that always made the two equal in greatness.

President’s Day also solemnizes characters like Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, and Hussein along with Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.

My point: It’s not much of stretch to say that every hustling preacher is honored along with MLK.

And if you think street hustling preachers are less tyrannical than were priesthoods throughout history you are in for a rude awakening.

There is no constitutional prohibition against an individual representing the arts, science, engineering, finance, or the business world, being honored with a national holiday, yet in spite of the First Amendment’s prohibition a representative of religion is the only one that got a holiday:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,. . .

Finally, I do not know if anybody else noticed it, but nothing was more telling than Hussein —— himself a street hustling preacher —— delivering his second inaugural speech on Martin Luther King Day.

Should you disagree with my take on hustling preachers maybe T. J. can convince you:

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

LMAO!! Hustling preachers. Blaming preachers for religious activity would be like blaming someone who designed a roller coaster with fifty deaths which happened when one of them failed because fittings had not been greased properly. It's the stupid bible we should be discussing.

I do not believe that any of the writings by men are inspired by a creator. I do not believe that the wanderings of early, half civilized mankind and their new and developing imagination is anything more than their dreams and yes...outright hallucinations. Anybody who studies Revelations should quickly figure out that John was exiled, ill and delusional. Do you realize that none of the new testament was written till about 40-50 years after Jesus died? Do you realize that the six known historians who were alive while Jesus was doing his thing never mentioned the first miracle? Do you realize that it was nearly a thousand years after the new testament was written that most of mankind stopped defecating on the ground and wiping himself on his hand? The men who wrote the bible thought the earth was flat and the universe revolved around it. They knew no more about a star in the sky than my dog. They had no idea of what a germ or bacteria were and consequently believed that illness was a punishment by god. They believed in miracles, magic, ghosts, witchcraft, demon possession, exorcism, healing, resurrection, slavery and the subjugation of women.
Some religions believe they will join their honorable ancestors if they live a good life. Some believe they will live multiple lives on this planet...gradually ascending to a perfect state of being. Some believe they will return as a snake or bird. Some believe they will have special rewards in the hereafter like virgins assigned to them for all eternity. Some believe they will join god on gossimer wings and pass through pearly gates and walk streets paved with gold while those who disagree with their faith will be burning in a lake of fire and brimstone for all eternity...in my opinion the most arrogant religious belief of all.

There are more than 4,000 documented ways to believe in a supreme being and not a way to prove one. If you take one of those 4,000 and investigate it, Christianity, there are more than 44,000 denominations, sects, clans etc. If it's so important, why is it so complicated and confusing? In my opinion religion is divisive and as long as different cultures believe "God Is On Their Side" there will always be wars and terrorism and hatred among mankind when they should be getting treatment to the diseased and food to the starving.

I studied the new testament for most of my life and was baptized when when I was 22 years old. I lived in the ways of the church for almost forty years. I made an honest effort to believe the bible and if I live to 100 there's no way I ever could. It's not in me. I'm an analyst. As soon as someone tells me something I immediately begin to run all the possibilities through my mind to determine if it sounds like a truth which can be proven. If it doesn't sound reasonable...I investigate it and if is in fact unreasonable I put it on the back burner. In my lifetime I have never seen or heard of anything which actually happened which could not be proven by circumstances, calculation, extrapolation and/or reasoning using mathmatics, chemistry...all the physical laws, axioms, postulates, etc. which have always been there but were discovered at various times in the past by mankind. I do not believe in devine intervention at any level. As I've said repeatedly I am what's commonly known as an agnostic. Lately I've become a militant agnostic. When I can't even attend a NASCAR race without some half educated bible thumper standing up and asking god to bless the drivers and crews...Duh!!Those people are making millions of dollars a year while there are over 900,000,000 people starving to death or suffering from the complications of malnutirtion...by default nearly all of the starving are children.

I do not believe in virgin birth, healing leprosy by touching, walking on water, turning water into fine wine, raising from the dead, resurrection and I for sure do not believe that 5000 hungry men, plus women and children who also ate, were fed with two fish and five loaves then 12 baskets of leftovers were gathered.

 

[Flanders]

Cammmpbell;6703038

Blaming preachers for religious activity would be like blaming someone who designed a roller coaster with fifty deaths which happened when one of them failed because fittings had not been greased properly.

To Cammmbell: Either show me a quote where I blamed preachers for religious activity, or devote some time to improving your reading comprehension skills.

Cammmpbell;6703038

It's the stupid bible we should be discussing.

To Cammmbell: You got in your objections to the Bible. Don’t expect me to discuss them. When I want to discuss the Bible I will post a message about the Bible.

 

[PratchettFan]

For all practical purposes hustling preachers taken collectively are a single priesthood as dangerous as any traditional priesthood that would turn America, and the world, into a theocracy. THEOCRACY IS WHERE THE BIG MONEY AND THE POWER TO FORCIBLY IMPLEMENT BEHAVIOR RESIDES. Sad to say, America’s Founders left the back door open when they guarded against major religions.

Throughout history, priesthoods enriched themselves by saving the world with everybody else’s blood and sweat. Today’s preachers do it without belonging to a major religion like Roman Catholicism, or Islam, although hustling preachers disguise their lust for money, power, and debauchery behind the same messages every degenerate cleric spouted since time began.

Slavery

The greatest evil done by slavery to the country the Founders envisioned is only now surfacing. That evil is seen in the glorification of hustling preachers more than two centuries after the Constitution effectively dealt with the inherent dangers found in organized religions. Consider this: MLK’s message was rooted in slavery and built upon skin color even though the Civil War abolished slavery. With slavery gone 20th century hustlers discovered the mother lode —— civil Rights, equality, and entitlements.

NOTE: I’ve often said that government and organized religion will always plague mankind. America’s Founders minimized the inherent evil in both; limit the government’s powers and keep organized religion voluntary. Give either one too much power and freedom dies.

Today’s Americans must find a way to deal with hustling preachers as effectively as the Founding Fathers dealt with organized religion’s priesthoods.

I’m not joking when I say MLK Day should be called Preachers’ Day —— that federal holiday honors a specific group of bible-thumping con artists as much as it honors King. Put the “I have a dream. . . ” con job behind you and you’ll see that MLK’s deification legitimated every street hustling preacher that ever was or ever will be. That’s quite an accomplishment when you calculate how many centuries traditional priesthoods owned the hereafter market.

Consider President’s Day if you think I’m reaching too far on this.

President’s Day combines the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. To be accurate it should have been called Two Presidents Day. That’s another reason it’s absurd to give Martin Luther King a day of his own, while Washington and Lincoln share a day.

In reality, President’s Day morphed into a subtle celebration of every president’s birth. The very name —— President’s Day —— implies every president. How many people do you know say they are only honoring Washington and Lincoln? Even if every generation remembers that the third Monday in February honors two presidents only, I have no use for Lincoln; so why must I celebrate his birth along with Washington’s?

Note that Lincoln is the government’s favorite president, while Washington is the peoples president. For obvious reasons it is the education industry that always made the two equal in greatness.

President’s Day also solemnizes characters like Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, and Hussein along with Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.

My point: It’s not much of stretch to say that every hustling preacher is honored along with MLK.

And if you think street hustling preachers are less tyrannical than were priesthoods throughout history you are in for a rude awakening.

There is no constitutional prohibition against an individual representing the arts, science, engineering, finance, or the business world, being honored with a national holiday, yet in spite of the First Amendment’s prohibition a representative of religion is the only one that got a holiday:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,. . .

Finally, I do not know if anybody else noticed it, but nothing was more telling than Hussein —— himself a street hustling preacher —— delivering his second inaugural speech on Martin Luther King Day.

Should you disagree with my take on hustling preachers maybe T. J. can convince you:

In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty. Thomas Jefferson

I think you miss the obvious point on the economics of religion. There is more money to be had with multiple religions than there is in a theocracy. For a theocracy to work, you would need to establish a specific heirarchy under a single religion, which would cut out a lot of very lucrative operations. It isn't going to happen.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Cammmpbell;6703038

Blaming preachers for religious activity would be like blaming someone who designed a roller coaster with fifty deaths which happened when one of them failed because fittings had not been greased properly.

To Cammmbell: Either show me a quote where I blamed preachers for religious activity, or devote some time to improving your reading comprehension skills.

Cammmpbell;6703038

It's the stupid bible we should be discussing.

To Cammmbell: You got in your objections to the Bible. Don’t expect me to discuss them. When I want to discuss the Bible I will post a message about the Bible.

ROTFLMAO!!!

"For all practical purposes hustling preachers taken collectively are a single priesthood as dangerous as any traditional priesthood that would turn America, and the world, into a theocracy."

Since four of every five on the streets of America call themselves Christians I assume a theocracy in this nation would have something to do with the bible.

Who is it now who needs to improve their english composition?

 

[whitehall]

It sure is strange that some Americans would feign concern about Christian fundamentalists when it's barely a decade since Islamic fundamentalists killed 3,000 people on a pretty day in September 2000 in the name of Allah.

 

[Cammmpbell]

It sure is strange that some Americans would feign concern about Christian fundamentalists when it's barely a decade since Islamic fundamentalists killed 3,000 people on a pretty day in September 2000 in the name of Allah.

That's alright....it gave George Bush a chance to attack Iraq. A sovereign nation which had never harmed the United States. All the administration had to do was tell 935 lies about non-existent Weapons Of Mass Destruction then all hell broke loose. Over 4400 young Americans lost their lives, about 35,000 more were seriously wounded, conservative estimates are that between 150,000 and 200,000 innocent Iraqis were killed and approximately 2,000,000 fled their homes into Syria or Jordon. Now there's a cowboy who can really fuck things up...and he said god told him to do it.

 

[whitehall]

It sure is strange that some Americans would feign concern about Christian fundamentalists when it's barely a decade since Islamic fundamentalists killed 3,000 people on a pretty day in September 2000 in the name of Allah.

That's alright....it gave George Bush a chance to attack Iraq. A sovereign nation which had never harmed the United States. All the administration had to do was tell 935 lies about non-existent Weapons Of Mass Destruction then all hell broke loose. Over 4400 young Americans lost their lives, about 35,000 more were seriously wounded, conservative estimates are that between 150,000 and 200,000 innocent Iraqis were killed and approximately 2,000,000 fled their homes into Syria or Jordon. Now there's a cowboy who can really fuck things up...and he said god told him to do it.

The jihad bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 during the Clinton administration and Bubba Bill took time to come out from under the desk with Monica and call the jihad "stupid people" and then went back to sodomy in the Oval Office. When the sleaze bag was caught in the act, he bombed a sovereign nation in Europe without permission from congress.. Democrats authorized president Bush to use the US Military to enforce UN sanctions against Saddam and then they spent the next couple of years undermining the mission and the Military.

 

[Flanders]

I think you miss the obvious point on the economics of religion. There is more money to be had with multiple religions than there is in a theocracy. For a theocracy to work, you would need to establish a specific heirarchy under a single religion, which would cut out a lot of very lucrative operations. It isn't going to happen.

To PratchettFan: Your economic theory totally ignores the two reasons for cabals and monopolies:

1. CONSPIRE TO CONTROL THE PRODUCT.

2. ELIMINATE THE COMPETITION.

Bottom line: The same economic rules govern the business of religion, and the business of businesses.

Also note that laissez faire economics cannot be applied to religion.

laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Who ever heard of a preacher or a priesthood advocating noninterference!

ROTFLMAO!!!

"For all practical purposes hustling preachers taken collectively are a single priesthood as dangerous as any traditional priesthood that would turn America, and the world, into a theocracy."

Since four of every five on the streets of America call themselves Christians I assume a theocracy in this nation would have something to do with the bible.

Who is it now who needs to improve their english composition?

To Cammmpbell: You’re reaching. I’ll chalk it up to your lack of reading comprehension skills.

The premise in the OP looks at a priesthood acquiring political power for their own aggrandizement as opposed to the religious activities of the faithful. Read it again and again until you get it.

 

[Cammmpbell]

It sure is strange that some Americans would feign concern about Christian fundamentalists when it's barely a decade since Islamic fundamentalists killed 3,000 people on a pretty day in September 2000 in the name of Allah.

That's alright....it gave George Bush a chance to attack Iraq. A sovereign nation which had never harmed the United States. All the administration had to do was tell 935 lies about non-existent Weapons Of Mass Destruction then all hell broke loose. Over 4400 young Americans lost their lives, about 35,000 more were seriously wounded, conservative estimates are that between 150,000 and 200,000 innocent Iraqis were killed and approximately 2,000,000 fled their homes into Syria or Jordon. Now there's a cowboy who can really fuck things up...and he said god told him to do it.

The jihad bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 during the Clinton administration and Bubba Bill took time to come out from under the desk with Monica and call the jihad "stupid people" and then went back to sodomy in the Oval Office. When the sleaze bag was caught in the act, he bombed a sovereign nation in Europe without permission from congress.. Democrats authorized president Bush to use the US Military to enforce UN sanctions against Saddam and then they spent the next couple of years undermining the mission and the Military.

As far as Bush...he and his adminstration told exactly 935 bold faced lies about Saddam Hussein and WMD's. It's documented...every word:



In 1983 the Hezbollah dynamited the barracks in Beiruit Lebanon and killed 241 of our marines, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II...and even after our forces handed Reagan the exact coordinates where they were holed up Reagan withdrew all our troops from the country. The chances are good that if we had done some major ass kicking right then terrorism against the United States would have died on the vine.

Did you know that all the folks who struck the WTC in 1993 were prosecuted in our courts and not the first American soldier lost their life over it? "When Clinton Lied No Soldier Died." I might also mention that after the Republicans spent eight years and $100 million trying to remove him from office he retired with an approval rating in the 60's.

 

[Avatar4321]

The thread reminds me of the saying "When you bold everything, you bold nothing". I don't want to read bold text. It's not easy on the eyes. Which would certainly help since it's not really coherent either.

However, it seems the clear idea is that those who preach for fame and money are problems in society. Priestcraft has always been a problem. Especially when people confused those practicing priestcraft with the geniune preachers of righteousness.

There is a God in Heaven. And Jesus Christ is His Son. Some may try to use that to scam people. But God the Father is still there. and so is Jesus.

Remember that in order to be a priest and teacher in the Kingdom, we have to be called of God as Aaron was. Oddly enough few people bother asking how Aaron was called. He just didn't wake up one day with the impression that he should be a priest. God told Moses to calll him, set him apart and present him to the people so there could be no confusion.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think you miss the obvious point on the economics of religion. There is more money to be had with multiple religions than there is in a theocracy. For a theocracy to work, you would need to establish a specific heirarchy under a single religion, which would cut out a lot of very lucrative operations. It isn't going to happen.

To PratchettFan: Your economic theory totally ignores the two reasons for cabals and monopolies:

1. CONSPIRE TO CONTROL THE PRODUCT.

2. ELIMINATE THE COMPETITION.

Bottom line: The same economic rules govern the business of religion, and the business of businesses.

Also note that laissez faire economics cannot be applied to religion.

laissez faire also laisser faire (noun)

1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.

2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

Who ever heard of a preacher or a priesthood advocating noninterference!

I beg to differ. If there is one area where laissez faire economics applies it is definitely religion. A product which cannot be seen or tested, pay now and collect after death? "Hey folks! We've never had anyone ask for their money back so they must be satisfied!" A product protected by the government. I don't think you can find much more laissez faire than that no matter how hard you might try.

Do you really think the Catholic Church would be willing to subjugate itself to Pat Robertson? Do you think Pat Robertson would be willing to subjugate himself to the Pope? Nonsense. Certainly priests are all for interfering in the lives of others. However, the one thing they will not put up with is interfering of their own lives. Never going to happen.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The thread reminds me of the saying "When you bold everything, you bold nothing". I don't want to read bold text. It's not easy on the eyes. Which would certainly help since it's not really coherent either.

However, it seems the clear idea is that those who preach for fame and money are problems in society. Priestcraft has always been a problem. Especially when people confused those practicing priestcraft with the geniune preachers of righteousness.

There is a God in Heaven. And Jesus Christ is His Son. Some may try to use that to scam people. But God the Father is still there. and so is Jesus.

Remember that in order to be a priest and teacher in the Kingdom, we have to be called of God as Aaron was. Oddly enough few people bother asking how Aaron was called. He just didn't wake up one day with the impression that he should be a priest. God told Moses to calll him, set him apart and present him to the people so there could be no confusion.

If there was any place you could prove that except the bible you might be onto something. At the time Jesus was supposed to have a virgin mother, be walking on water, feeding thousands with two fish and five loaves, healing leprosy by his touch and experiencing resurrection there were six known historians alive in the world. Not a one of them mentioned the first miracle. The bible is bullshit.

 

[Flanders]

PratchettFan;6706951

I beg to differ. If there is one area where laissez faire economics applies it is definitely religion. A product which cannot be seen or tested, pay now and collect after death? "Hey folks! We've never had anyone ask for their money back so they must be satisfied!"

To PratchettFan: Now you’re jumping to advertising and sales technique.

PratchettFan;6706951

A product protected by the government. I don't think you can find much more laissez faire than that no matter how hard you might try.

To PratchettFan: How in hell did you conclude that a product protected by the government is laissez faire economics? No matter. Our first Amendment does not protect organized religion —— it separates it from government making it possible for religions to compete, and impossible for a theocracy to emerge. At least that was the intent until Socialists found a way to circumvent the First Amendment. They succeeded by keeping their religion from being identified as a religion.

Note that Socialists/Communists are determined to destroy competing religions especially Christianity. That’s called ELIMINATING THE COMPETITION. Total success is essential in order to impose the tax collector’s morality on everyone just as every priesthood would impose its morality on the world.

PratchettFan;6706951

Do you really think the Catholic Church would be willing to subjugate itself to Pat Robertson? Do you think Pat Robertson would be willing to subjugate himself to the Pope? Nonsense.

To PratchettFan: That’s the competition the First Amendment set in motion. My case is proved by one simple observation: No such competition is permitted under Sharia law.

PratchettFan;6706951

Certainly priests are all for interfering in the lives of others. However, the one thing they will not put up with is interfering of their own lives. Never going to happen.

To PratchettFan: And for obvious reasons. Every priest, rabbi, minister, mullah, guru, etc. is certain he is right and everybody else is wrong. Fanatics are fanatics because they are convinced they are entitled to the money not because they believe in God. Except for the God part government officials are not much different when it comes to the dough.

Finally, you might get a better idea of my position from this excerpt taken from a previous thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/251202-the-man-with-the-gun.html

Since the day organized religion was invented every priesthood worked to make their religion the one true religion. That never-ending “competition” put the human race on a fast track to hell the day the one God notion ejaculated organized religion as it is practiced today. From the beginning the elimination of every other religion took priority over forcing everybody to believe in God. Basically, religious fanatics hate alien religious fanatics more than they hate atheists. In today’s world Muslims and Communists are the only priesthoods who proselytize with guns.

Incidentally, people who believe in God, but not religion, do not give a rat’s ass what others believe. Did you ever hear of an individual who believed in God beating up someone because they adhered to a religion? How many times has the world seen fanatical believers in one religion trying to wipe out, or convert by force, believers in another religion.

Today’s Muslims reaffirm my long-held view. Individuals were spiritually better-off when there were a bunch of gods; each one specializing in a different realm of piety —— the same as specialists in medicine and law. There are more benefits to be realized from tolerating a plethora of gods as opposed to putting all of our nuts in one squirrel cage.

Assuming the tools for self-defense, rapid communications, etc., would be in the same place today had the one God idea been completed rejected down through the ages, I wonder what the world would be like in the 21st century?

One thing cannot be denied. Societal insistence on a belief in one God rewarded ambition and ambitious government since its inception. In the modern world ambition replaced achievement. More importantly, a one government world is the evolutionary consequence of a one God universe.

The major problem with a one government world is that it will probably be a Socialist/Communist totalitarian government, or an equally totalitarian Supreme Deity theocracy. Until then, freedom-loving people still have the option of calling upon the much praised, always ignored, wisdom of the ancients who had a top God right along with a bunch of lesser gods. That’s probably the model for our own president and members of Congress.

NOTE: Hinduism teaches a belief in a Supreme Being of many forms and natures, but it falls short of endorsing the ancient belief in numerous gods who spent all of their time aggravating the boss if I remember Roman and Greek mythology accurately.

Alas, the one God crowd controlling governments won’t hear of multiple gods. It’s all or nothing for them, and what is worse from their point of view is that the multiple-god system of religion would most certainly unleash the forces of cynicism. God forbid a cynical distrust of priests and politicians be encouraged.

Let’s say there really are supernatural forces concerned with the individual’s spiritual well-being in the next world. A quick look at the past two thousand years should tell everyone the workload is just too much for one God. I know this is so because even the Pope has trouble getting through to the boss. For as long as I can remember, every time it was reported “Pope Prays For Peace” I knew a lot of people were about to die somewhere in the world.

On the other hand, Muslim extremists bent on killing infidels appear to have a direct line to their guy —— they thank Allah for answering their prayers after every successful act of terrorism. (I have to admit God is Good —— to terrorists.)

Roman Catholicism does have saints on the payroll to handle minor requests, but if it’s a serious matter you have to get in touch with God. At least with an army of equal gods on call there is a good chance your special favorite will be available to hear your request in times of personal distress.

As it stands now, if you want your prayers to be heard where it counts you are expected to go through a middleman to reach God’s ear before your petition is considered. God’s earthly gatekeepers will never admit it at a prayer meeting, but they frown upon direct personal contact with the CEO whenever that contact is too far removed from the collection plate.

Of course, the salespeople merchandising assorted gods would still expect a small donation. Nevertheless, a bit of healthy competition in the hereafter marketplace should keep donations, and political power, at reasonably low levels; benefits not to be taken lightly.

The ideal is for every god to stay out of government altogether; however, being part realist and part cynic the best I can expect is severely restricted religious participation in the mundane affairs of severely limited government. A thousand or so full-fledged gods cutting up the take doesn’t leave much room for mischief caused by the one God sharpshooters splitting the pot, and the soul pool, among themselves.

Even though I have a hankering for more gods, I’m convinced that all of those one God religions is a negative thing. The followers of every supreme God always end up trying to assert their own guy’s Right to occupy the apex unchallenged. And now we have to contend with the Socialist priesthood pushing their God of economic morality in addition to the zealots of every other one and only True God strangling mankind. God! —— Will humanity never see an end to religious meddling?

Having said the above, I have to admit it is possible for every person in the world to belong to one of the traditional organized religions. Every religion except socialism would gladly embrace everyone. However, socialism’s true believers must feed on the labors of others without giving anything of value in return; so there must always be a large percentage of the population excluded from joining the congregation.

Throughout history, the hierarchies of organized religion took all the best of it because they, too, lived on the labors of their flocks. In return for a church’s riches priesthoods offered the laity God, and a better life in the hereafter. As socialism gains political influence through taxation its liberal priests must finally be exposed as the frauds they are because they cannot offer eternal life to the people who do the work. Indeed, Socialists dare not bestow church membership on the working class because it is absolutely impossible for everyone to live well on tax dollars. Somebody has to do the work and that somebody is NOT going to be a Socialist priest.

Of course, socialism’s advocates try to cover all bases by claiming:

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."

Or so the Socialist B.S. goes. The precise translation of that little gem means if you are a tax dollar rich Socialist you are entitled to all you can get, but if you work your ass off struggling to remain one jump ahead of abject poverty and the man with the gun that’s all you need.

In truth, one God religions sell eternal salvation to the workers while socialism promotes tax slavery without offering any spiritual reward; leading to the obvious conclusion —— socialism is one sorry-ass religion when you get right down to it.

 

[Flanders]

If there was any place you could prove that except the bible you might be onto something. At the time Jesus was supposed to have a virgin mother, be walking on water, feeding thousands with two fish and five loaves, healing leprosy by his touch and experiencing resurrection there were six known historians alive in the world. Not a one of them mentioned the first miracle. The bible is bullshit.

To Cammmpbell: How does it hurt you if others believe in the Bible?

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry. Thomas Jefferson

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan;6706951

I beg to differ. If there is one area where laissez faire economics applies it is definitely religion. A product which cannot be seen or tested, pay now and collect after death? "Hey folks! We've never had anyone ask for their money back so they must be satisfied!"

To PratchettFan: Now you’re jumping to advertising and sales technique.

Advertising and sales is economics. It's about money.

PratchettFan;6706951

A product protected by the government. I don't think you can find much more laissez faire than that no matter how hard you might try.

To PratchettFan: How in hell did you conclude that a product protected by the government is laissez faire economics? No matter. Our first Amendment does not protect organized religion —— it separates it from government making it possible for religions to compete, and impossible for a theocracy to emerge. At least that was the intent until Socialists found a way to circumvent the First Amendment. They succeeded by keeping their religion from being identified as a religion.

Note that Socialists/Communists are determined to destroy competing religions especially Christianity. That’s called ELIMINATING THE COMPETITION. Total success is essential in order to impose the tax collector’s morality on everyone just as every priesthood would impose its morality on the world.

I wrote an entire paragraph about this, not just the government piece. The first amendment has nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the economics of religion, not the Constitution. The government always supports religion because religion always supports the government. They go hand in hand.B]


To PratchettFan: That’s the competition the First Amendment set in motion. My case is proved by one simple observation: No such competition is permitted under Sharia law.

But are the Mullahs making any money, as compared to someone like Pat Robertson?

To PratchettFan: And for obvious reasons. Every priest, rabbi, minister, mullah, guru, etc. is certain he is right and everybody else is wrong. Fanatics are fanatics because they are convinced they are entitled to the money not because they believe in God. Except for the God part government officials are not much different when it comes to the dough.

Finally, you might get a better idea of my position from this excerpt taken from a previous thread:

Fanatics are useful, but they are seldom given any power. The title of this thread is about the hustlers, not the rubes.

I understand your position. You're just wrong. Both economically and sociologically. Religion is simply another aspect of human interaction. As in all human interaction, there are going to be those who use it to attain money and power. It is not some evil movement created by a grand conspiracy. It is just people doing what people do.

 

[Flanders]

The first amendment has nothing to do with this discussion. We are talking about the economics of religion, not the Constitution.

To PratchettFan: We are talking about whatever I want to talk about. It’s my thread.

Excerpt from OP:

There is no constitutional prohibition against an individual representing the arts, science, engineering, finance, or the business world, being honored with a national holiday, yet in spite of the First Amendment’s prohibition a representative of religion is the only one that got a holiday:

As for the rest of your merry-go-round, say what you will. I’m getting off:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=player_detailpage]Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame]​