Debra K posted this msg which I thought brought up enough points to start a new thread
-------------
Yes, the point is to PREVENT the beliefs of one or a few to impose on the public as a whole.
This is already happening. My point is to address it so people take responsibility for their beliefs
as an individual or as a group, and don't impose the cost or consequences on others for their beliefs.
EXACTLY.
My question to you and also others
is what in my language is making you fear that defending the belief of one person means infringing or imposing on others?
Is it because of the past problems with religious fundamentalists, who although only representing a small faction, get such a massive image or dominance in the media that we FEAR this is going to impose on everyone else?
And also, are you going to falsely attack and accuse me of this, because of the problems with other people. Is that fair, to assume that I would abuse govt to impose the belief of a minority on everyone else, if you fear OTHER PEOPLE have done this is the past or threatened to. When this is the VERY issue my whole POINT is to prevent and address. To STOP this type of imposition by separating these beliefs from govt and not allowing a minority interest to impose their beliefs on everyone else by fear driven politics.
That is a separate issue.
Debra K can you answer both
A. do we AGREE we are saying similar, we don't want beliefs by a person or group imposed on the rest.
B. we don't want govt abused to allow or enable this
C. the FEAR of groups doing this is also being associated with me for trying to address the problem,
even though I am trying to explain I believe in consensus not coercion, there is still FEAR that such a consensus process WILL be abused by these religious bigots and fundamentalists to overrule consent of others. This appears to be a separate issue. But if this fear is so prevalent, then it is blocking the consensus process from even being tried for FEAR that mediation will be hijacked and abused anyway
by religious fundamentalists who will still use it to push their beliefs on everyone else.
And you are including and associating me with people pushing and coercing others, and not forming real consensus by free choice as I believe in, but by political or social pressure but calling it democratic.
Dear Debra K
you bring up two or three areas we can address one by one
1. one is what if someone is legally or mentally incompetent, what about coercion or consent in the case of personal safety or public health and security
2. govt and securing peace - we can discuss where people's consent and participation
meets govt, and the relationship between people and govt that not all people frame the same way
3. what if someone's beliefs harm others, how do we balance liberty/religious freedom
with protecting the general welfare
1. To address issues of legal or mental competence, including mental illness criminal sickness, and what causes crime and abuses, I would require research and knowledge of spiritual healing that distinguishes the difference between what can be changed, prevented or cured, and what cannot, and also what cases are so dangerous the people need to be detained or supervised and not able to act as equal citizens.
We would have to establish this scientifically so we do not become like "minority report" and convict people on belief that they are dangerous. We won't have the legal games going on now, if we can perfect the process of diagnosis, treatment and cure. What I learned from people in the spiritual healing process, is that even if they aren't fully cured physically yet of their diseases or criminal/abusive disorders,
if they are healed in spirit first, then they will self-report when they are in danger or crisis and ask for help.
So this at least changes their situation where they are willing to seek and comply with authorities instead of being so criminally sick and self-destructive that they run from help or self-sabotage it or destroy themselves and others. At the very least, the spiritual healing methods recover their minds where they seek help and try to work through their problems instead of denying rebelling and making them worse.
This whole process is faith based right now, and needs to be medically researched, documented case by case, to establish the process of diagnosing which people are dangerous, or what stage of recovery or relapse they are in. The people healed spiritually can self-report, but the ones in denial require assistance.
This is a whole level of law that isn't even established yet, because there hasn't been concerted effort to research and develop the methods of spiritual healing that have worked to diagnose, treat and/or cure this level of mental and criminal illness. But the same methods have healed people of abusive or addictive disorders, both the offenders and the victims, so they break the cycle of mental and social disorder.
the way spiritual healing applies to the consensus process
is that the same therapy based on forgiveness and opening up to natural healing
also heals Relationships around the person.
So this includes political relations and conflicts that can be healed and resolved
by applying the same methods to the people and parties involved.
that is also faith based and would require studies to show how this works.
And even if there is proof that it works statistically, it remains faith based
where people still must choose the path of forgiveness and healing relations for it to work.
it can never be forced on people. it only works by free will because the changes are internal.
they cannot be coerced or decided from outside in, but must be made by the person by their free will.
2. the difference I find between people taking a conservative approach
and people taking a liberal approach to govt, is
the conservatives focus on people claiming their own authority and responsibility first,
so what they depend on through govt is kept to a minimal. the concept is rewarding citizens
with liberty, tax breaks, etc for investing in solutions and services through private sector programs.
they trust people to work things out by their free will and free market,
and want to keep govt for just the extreme issues of national security, and policing for crimes,
but not regulating social programs and finances for citizens who ought to learn to manage themselves.
I believe there should be tracks and access to credit and mentorships
in order to expect people to grow to that level of self govt and financial/political self-reliance,
but I do agree it should be the goal for everyone to have equal respect and support to develop to that level.
the liberals tend to focus on the people left out of the current system
where other people may have access to building their own businesses and enjoying
all the liberties and resources available, but not all people, not the poor and underserved
at the bottom of the social classes who deserve equal help and protection as those with more resources.
The problem I see is that instead of building schools and business/charity systems to help more people move up out of poverty, the shortcut is to turn to govt to create or mandate a program.
Why not create an educational system, and/or microlending system that works first,
and then model govt after what is proven to work. Instead we have people experimenting
with govt to provide "temporary" social security, benefits, welfare, etc. but this punishes
people for trying to become independent and rewards people whose financial needs are greater
than their means. It isn't a perfect system, and it gets abused by people not looking to become independent but who continue to depend on it.
Same with the problem of abusing tax breaks or deregulation, and instead of taking responsibility off govt, too many corporate interests take advantage instead, and cause damage to people or environment without check, in the name of freedom and profit, without counting the social or environmental costs in that equation.
Both ways can lead to abuses of govt protected liberty.
What I propose is to form an agreement among citizens and corporations to enforce the same Constitutional standards as govt, but by free choice, by the natural law of the Golden Rule,
that if we want these liberties, freedoms, peace and security protected for us, we must respect the same of others; equal due process, right to petition to redress grievances, equal protection of the laws.
and consent of the governed, so if people consent or dissent, have objections or contest something as unfair or against their interests or beliefs, then we would agree to a mediation or facilitation process to cite the problem or complaint, and work to redress that grievance until a satisfactory resolution is reached.
I am looking for ways to meet the standards of both
liberals who want to promote the general welfare and provide equal access and opportunities
for all and
conservatives who want this through the free market and private sector and not
dependent or micromanaged by govt
3. to address and prevent the beliefs of one individual or group from infringing on others
I would require that any organization, whether business religious nonprofit or political,
that registers for license to operate through the state as an entity
have means or access to protect due process of individuals to redress grievances
in order to prevent abuse or oppression by "collective" authority, resources or influence.
We could set up commissions to address complaints of political, religious or corporate abuses
or "conflict of interests and beliefs"
where the process is not punitive but corrective. where parties are rewarded for correcting problems
instead of our current system that is so adversarial that even charging someone with complaints
cast negative blame and assumption of guilt on one side or the other.
by focusing on the conflicts as between the two sides, not blaming one or the other,
we have a better chance of resolving these instead of getting emotional and political about them.
4. Lastly what I really hope to address is how
political beliefs cross the line between religious beliefs in private
and the role of govt and equal right to participation and protection regardless of creed.
If two groups have conflicting beliefs on how govt should be used or not used,
then both are going to impose on each other unless the policy or program is decided by consensus
and both beliefs are equally satisfied without favoring one more than the other.
Because this causes conflicts between religious freedom and the equal protections of others,
I don't see how we can continue to operate WITHOUT address political beliefs that cross the line.
that is why I suggest addressing and resolving as many such areas by party,
and to AGREE what policies or solutions to pass through govt AFTER hashing them out
where the different parties AGREE in advance so that all beliefs are included and represented equally.
So Debra K about beliefs, there are different levels of beliefs,
and by organizing around the main issues (like abortion and health care, gun rights and controls, voting rights, gay marriage and managing benefits, immigration and prison reforms)
we will NATURALLY organize people by like beliefs and streamline people into groups.
It won't be so chaotic, or a competition for one person or group to defend or dominate against others,
if we set up the environment to be based on REAL consensus, not the political coercion it is feared to be.
The Greens have a record of using the consensus building process, that is only derailed when people don't seek to resolve objections, so I would define the different roles so everyone can participate but the facilitators are separate from the people giving input, and the ones voicing objections only and not offering solutions. The process should be structured to accommodate the four different styles of responding to conflict (competitive, avoidance, collaborative, and accommodating) to make sure all people's interests are protected, regardless of their style of leadership, so there isn't bullying or coercion.
5. for JakeStarkey I will add that this process of consensus building
DOES NOT SUPERCEDE OR REPLACE THE CURRENT GOVT PROCESSES
This is like a marriage counselor working out issues with the families
BEFORE the couple gets married. Not marrying and then fighting over the issues,
that could be resolved and written up in a prenuptial agreement BEFORE hand so it AVOIDS fights
after the fact.
JakeStarkey for the two parties to agree to marital counseling
and a prenup in advance does NOT supercede or replace marriage,
but helps the marriage work better by addressing and resolving issues in advance.
6. as for the process of going through parties to organize and form a consensus on
issues of political beliefs, I cannot dictate what people need to make that work, but
I would guess it will take organizing by precinct chair/district for each party that has
democratically elected reps, going through public radio TV and online, community
centers and public schools in each district that wants to participate, and teaching
the basic principles and policies and offering assistance in facilitation and mediation
to resolve conflicts, so people feel comfortable having a group to go to address complaints.
-------------
Debra K said:
Yes, the point is to PREVENT the beliefs of one or a few to impose on the public as a whole.
This is already happening. My point is to address it so people take responsibility for their beliefs
as an individual or as a group, and don't impose the cost or consequences on others for their beliefs.
EXACTLY.
My question to you and also others
is what in my language is making you fear that defending the belief of one person means infringing or imposing on others?
Is it because of the past problems with religious fundamentalists, who although only representing a small faction, get such a massive image or dominance in the media that we FEAR this is going to impose on everyone else?
And also, are you going to falsely attack and accuse me of this, because of the problems with other people. Is that fair, to assume that I would abuse govt to impose the belief of a minority on everyone else, if you fear OTHER PEOPLE have done this is the past or threatened to. When this is the VERY issue my whole POINT is to prevent and address. To STOP this type of imposition by separating these beliefs from govt and not allowing a minority interest to impose their beliefs on everyone else by fear driven politics.
That is a separate issue.
Debra K can you answer both
A. do we AGREE we are saying similar, we don't want beliefs by a person or group imposed on the rest.
B. we don't want govt abused to allow or enable this
C. the FEAR of groups doing this is also being associated with me for trying to address the problem,
even though I am trying to explain I believe in consensus not coercion, there is still FEAR that such a consensus process WILL be abused by these religious bigots and fundamentalists to overrule consent of others. This appears to be a separate issue. But if this fear is so prevalent, then it is blocking the consensus process from even being tried for FEAR that mediation will be hijacked and abused anyway
by religious fundamentalists who will still use it to push their beliefs on everyone else.
And you are including and associating me with people pushing and coercing others, and not forming real consensus by free choice as I believe in, but by political or social pressure but calling it democratic.
Debra K said:
Dear Debra K
you bring up two or three areas we can address one by one
1. one is what if someone is legally or mentally incompetent, what about coercion or consent in the case of personal safety or public health and security
2. govt and securing peace - we can discuss where people's consent and participation
meets govt, and the relationship between people and govt that not all people frame the same way
3. what if someone's beliefs harm others, how do we balance liberty/religious freedom
with protecting the general welfare
1. To address issues of legal or mental competence, including mental illness criminal sickness, and what causes crime and abuses, I would require research and knowledge of spiritual healing that distinguishes the difference between what can be changed, prevented or cured, and what cannot, and also what cases are so dangerous the people need to be detained or supervised and not able to act as equal citizens.
We would have to establish this scientifically so we do not become like "minority report" and convict people on belief that they are dangerous. We won't have the legal games going on now, if we can perfect the process of diagnosis, treatment and cure. What I learned from people in the spiritual healing process, is that even if they aren't fully cured physically yet of their diseases or criminal/abusive disorders,
if they are healed in spirit first, then they will self-report when they are in danger or crisis and ask for help.
So this at least changes their situation where they are willing to seek and comply with authorities instead of being so criminally sick and self-destructive that they run from help or self-sabotage it or destroy themselves and others. At the very least, the spiritual healing methods recover their minds where they seek help and try to work through their problems instead of denying rebelling and making them worse.
This whole process is faith based right now, and needs to be medically researched, documented case by case, to establish the process of diagnosing which people are dangerous, or what stage of recovery or relapse they are in. The people healed spiritually can self-report, but the ones in denial require assistance.
This is a whole level of law that isn't even established yet, because there hasn't been concerted effort to research and develop the methods of spiritual healing that have worked to diagnose, treat and/or cure this level of mental and criminal illness. But the same methods have healed people of abusive or addictive disorders, both the offenders and the victims, so they break the cycle of mental and social disorder.
the way spiritual healing applies to the consensus process
is that the same therapy based on forgiveness and opening up to natural healing
also heals Relationships around the person.
So this includes political relations and conflicts that can be healed and resolved
by applying the same methods to the people and parties involved.
that is also faith based and would require studies to show how this works.
And even if there is proof that it works statistically, it remains faith based
where people still must choose the path of forgiveness and healing relations for it to work.
it can never be forced on people. it only works by free will because the changes are internal.
they cannot be coerced or decided from outside in, but must be made by the person by their free will.
2. the difference I find between people taking a conservative approach
and people taking a liberal approach to govt, is
the conservatives focus on people claiming their own authority and responsibility first,
so what they depend on through govt is kept to a minimal. the concept is rewarding citizens
with liberty, tax breaks, etc for investing in solutions and services through private sector programs.
they trust people to work things out by their free will and free market,
and want to keep govt for just the extreme issues of national security, and policing for crimes,
but not regulating social programs and finances for citizens who ought to learn to manage themselves.
I believe there should be tracks and access to credit and mentorships
in order to expect people to grow to that level of self govt and financial/political self-reliance,
but I do agree it should be the goal for everyone to have equal respect and support to develop to that level.
the liberals tend to focus on the people left out of the current system
where other people may have access to building their own businesses and enjoying
all the liberties and resources available, but not all people, not the poor and underserved
at the bottom of the social classes who deserve equal help and protection as those with more resources.
The problem I see is that instead of building schools and business/charity systems to help more people move up out of poverty, the shortcut is to turn to govt to create or mandate a program.
Why not create an educational system, and/or microlending system that works first,
and then model govt after what is proven to work. Instead we have people experimenting
with govt to provide "temporary" social security, benefits, welfare, etc. but this punishes
people for trying to become independent and rewards people whose financial needs are greater
than their means. It isn't a perfect system, and it gets abused by people not looking to become independent but who continue to depend on it.
Same with the problem of abusing tax breaks or deregulation, and instead of taking responsibility off govt, too many corporate interests take advantage instead, and cause damage to people or environment without check, in the name of freedom and profit, without counting the social or environmental costs in that equation.
Both ways can lead to abuses of govt protected liberty.
What I propose is to form an agreement among citizens and corporations to enforce the same Constitutional standards as govt, but by free choice, by the natural law of the Golden Rule,
that if we want these liberties, freedoms, peace and security protected for us, we must respect the same of others; equal due process, right to petition to redress grievances, equal protection of the laws.
and consent of the governed, so if people consent or dissent, have objections or contest something as unfair or against their interests or beliefs, then we would agree to a mediation or facilitation process to cite the problem or complaint, and work to redress that grievance until a satisfactory resolution is reached.
I am looking for ways to meet the standards of both
liberals who want to promote the general welfare and provide equal access and opportunities
for all and
conservatives who want this through the free market and private sector and not
dependent or micromanaged by govt
3. to address and prevent the beliefs of one individual or group from infringing on others
I would require that any organization, whether business religious nonprofit or political,
that registers for license to operate through the state as an entity
have means or access to protect due process of individuals to redress grievances
in order to prevent abuse or oppression by "collective" authority, resources or influence.
We could set up commissions to address complaints of political, religious or corporate abuses
or "conflict of interests and beliefs"
where the process is not punitive but corrective. where parties are rewarded for correcting problems
instead of our current system that is so adversarial that even charging someone with complaints
cast negative blame and assumption of guilt on one side or the other.
by focusing on the conflicts as between the two sides, not blaming one or the other,
we have a better chance of resolving these instead of getting emotional and political about them.
4. Lastly what I really hope to address is how
political beliefs cross the line between religious beliefs in private
and the role of govt and equal right to participation and protection regardless of creed.
If two groups have conflicting beliefs on how govt should be used or not used,
then both are going to impose on each other unless the policy or program is decided by consensus
and both beliefs are equally satisfied without favoring one more than the other.
Because this causes conflicts between religious freedom and the equal protections of others,
I don't see how we can continue to operate WITHOUT address political beliefs that cross the line.
that is why I suggest addressing and resolving as many such areas by party,
and to AGREE what policies or solutions to pass through govt AFTER hashing them out
where the different parties AGREE in advance so that all beliefs are included and represented equally.
So Debra K about beliefs, there are different levels of beliefs,
and by organizing around the main issues (like abortion and health care, gun rights and controls, voting rights, gay marriage and managing benefits, immigration and prison reforms)
we will NATURALLY organize people by like beliefs and streamline people into groups.
It won't be so chaotic, or a competition for one person or group to defend or dominate against others,
if we set up the environment to be based on REAL consensus, not the political coercion it is feared to be.
The Greens have a record of using the consensus building process, that is only derailed when people don't seek to resolve objections, so I would define the different roles so everyone can participate but the facilitators are separate from the people giving input, and the ones voicing objections only and not offering solutions. The process should be structured to accommodate the four different styles of responding to conflict (competitive, avoidance, collaborative, and accommodating) to make sure all people's interests are protected, regardless of their style of leadership, so there isn't bullying or coercion.
5. for JakeStarkey I will add that this process of consensus building
DOES NOT SUPERCEDE OR REPLACE THE CURRENT GOVT PROCESSES
This is like a marriage counselor working out issues with the families
BEFORE the couple gets married. Not marrying and then fighting over the issues,
that could be resolved and written up in a prenuptial agreement BEFORE hand so it AVOIDS fights
after the fact.
JakeStarkey for the two parties to agree to marital counseling
and a prenup in advance does NOT supercede or replace marriage,
but helps the marriage work better by addressing and resolving issues in advance.
6. as for the process of going through parties to organize and form a consensus on
issues of political beliefs, I cannot dictate what people need to make that work, but
I would guess it will take organizing by precinct chair/district for each party that has
democratically elected reps, going through public radio TV and online, community
centers and public schools in each district that wants to participate, and teaching
the basic principles and policies and offering assistance in facilitation and mediation
to resolve conflicts, so people feel comfortable having a group to go to address complaints.
