The Internet: The Voice of the People

[chockfull]

You might want to check out this article from Declan McCullagh / CNET, before assuming anything. The text of S.773 (referenced in the article) is here.

Just did. Here's some of the text from the article:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response."

This is a bill highlighting wartime procedures w/r to US assets on the Internet.

To interpret it as a government takeover of the Internet is not accurate. But it may be appealing to conspiracy theory buffs, of which a number of TWI or ex-TWI individuals might fit the bill.

[markomalley]

Just did. Here's some of the text from the article:

"The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response."

This is a bill highlighting wartime procedures w/r to US assets on the Internet.

To interpret it as a government takeover of the Internet is not accurate. But it may be appealing to conspiracy theory buffs, of which a number of TWI or ex-TWI individuals might fit the bill.

Unfortunately, what you excerpted was not a quote from the author, it was a quote from Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee. Her boss is Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of that committee. Sort of puts the expert in context a bit, doesn't it?

Had you read the text of the bill, which I took the time to link, you would find the following in it:

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

By the way, you may have noticed a term "cybersecurity emergency" and the term "United States critical infrastructure information systems."

The term "cybersecurity emergency" is not defined in this bill, so if the bill becomes law as is, that means that the President, through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (part of the Department of Commerce) will have to define it for you. However, the term "United States critical infrastructure information systems" is defined as follows (Section 23):

(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--

(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and

(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

So what does all of this mean:

1) The President can declare any information system and network in the United States to be a critical infrastructure system and network. (Section 23(3)(B) ). This could include Citibank's information systems, Boeing's information systems, Qwest's network, Verizon's network, thePlanet.com hosting service, or even AOL. It's not defined in law; therefore, it may be defined through regulation or through executive order.

2) The President may declare a "cybersecurity emergency" at his discretion (there are no limitations as to when he may do this or not in the bill) and may order the limitation or disconnection of any Internet traffic to or from any network he defines as "critical" in 1) above.

3) The President is directed to map the topology of any network or information system defined as "critical" above.

4) The President does not even require a "cybersecurity emergency" to disconnect a network or information system declared as such in 1) above. He can do so at his sole discretion for national security purposes. What is a "national security purpose?" The President determines that.

Chances are that major Internet backbone providers, major financial houses, major chemical / petroleum processors, and major defense contractors' networks will be those that are identified as "critical." But here's a key concept to wrap your arms around: the term "critical infrastructure" is not defined in law. It is defined by a Presidential Decision Directive (the current definition is in PDD-63, signed in 1998, by B.J. Clinton). The term can thus be redefined by the President at his convenience. Chances are it wouldn't be, but it could be.

I am one who opposed the creation of DHS. I also opposed the creation of the position of Director of National Intelligence (with budgetary authority over all intelligence agencies in the government). These were both created during the Bush administration. I also opposed the passage of the Patriot Act, when it was passed as a permanent measure.

The reason why is that it concentrated too much power in one spot -- power that could be gravely abused.

I take it, since the ONE quote you decided to pull from that article was a quote from the deputy communications director for the person who introduced the bill, I will assume that you have no problem with giving Mr. Obama that amount of power.

But let me ask you: would you have wanted Richard Nixon to have that amount of power? Or if Tricky Dicky is before your time, would you feel totally comfortable giving Dick Cheney that much power?

If your answer is anything but an enthusiastic "yes," then I'd submit that this is a bad piece of law. Because your guy will not always be in office. That might make me a conspiracy buff. Or it might make me somebody who actually reads the law.

FWIW/YMMV

[Broken Arrow]

Unfortunately, what you excerpted was not a quote from the author, it was a quote from Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee. Her boss is Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of that committee. Sort of puts the expert in context a bit, doesn't it?

Had you read the text of the bill, which I took the time to link, you would find the following in it:

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

By the way, you may have noticed a term "cybersecurity emergency" and the term "United States critical infrastructure information systems."

The term "cybersecurity emergency" is not defined in this bill, so if the bill becomes law as is, that means that the President, through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (part of the Department of Commerce) will have to define it for you. However, the term "United States critical infrastructure information systems" is defined as follows (Section 23):

(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--

(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and

(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

So what does all of this mean:

1) The President can declare any information system and network in the United States to be a critical infrastructure system and network. (Section 23(3)(B) ). This could include Citibank's information systems, Boeing's information systems, Qwest's network, Verizon's network, thePlanet.com hosting service, or even AOL. It's not defined in law; therefore, it may be defined through regulation or through executive order.

2) The President may declare a "cybersecurity emergency" at his discretion (there are no limitations as to when he may do this or not in the bill) and may order the limitation or disconnection of any Internet traffic to or from any network he defines as "critical" in 1) above.

3) The President is directed to map the topology of any network or information system defined as "critical" above.

4) The President does not even require a "cybersecurity emergency" to disconnect a network or information system declared as such in 1) above. He can do so at his sole discretion for national security purposes. What is a "national security purpose?" The President determines that.

Chances are that major Internet backbone providers, major financial houses, major chemical / petroleum processors, and major defense contractors' networks will be those that are identified as "critical." But here's a key concept to wrap your arms around: the term "critical infrastructure" is not defined in law. It is defined by a Presidential Decision Directive (the current definition is in PDD-63, signed in 1998, by B.J. Clinton). The term can thus be redefined by the President at his convenience. Chances are it wouldn't be, but it could be.

I am one who opposed the creation of DHS. I also opposed the creation of the position of Director of National Intelligence (with budgetary authority over all intelligence agencies in the government). These were both created during the Bush administration. I also opposed the passage of the Patriot Act, when it was passed as a permanent measure.

The reason why is that it concentrated too much power in one spot -- power that could be gravely abused.

I take it, since the ONE quote you decided to pull from that article was a quote from the deputy communications director for the person who introduced the bill, I will assume that you have no problem with giving Mr. Obama that amount of power.

But let me ask you: would you have wanted Richard Nixon to have that amount of power? Or if Tricky Dicky is before your time, would you feel totally comfortable giving Dick Cheney that much power?

If your answer is anything but an enthusiastic "yes," then I'd submit that this is a bad piece of law. Because your guy will not always be in office. That might make me a conspiracy buff. Or it might make me somebody who actually reads the law.

FWIW/YMMV

VAT A COUNTRY!! Land of the free and home of the attorneys!! In the words of Steve Miller..."somebody give me a cheeseburger!"

[skyrider]

The reason why is that it concentrated too much power in one spot -- power that could be gravely abused.

I take it, since the ONE quote you decided to pull from that article was a quote from the deputy communications director for the person who introduced the bill, I will assume that you have no problem with giving Mr. Obama that amount of power.

But let me ask you: would you have wanted Richard Nixon to have that amount of power? Or if Tricky Dicky is before your time, would you feel totally comfortable giving Dick Cheney that much power?

If your answer is anything but an enthusiastic "yes," then I'd submit that this is a bad piece of law. Because your guy will not always be in office. That might make me a conspiracy buff. Or it might make me somebody who actually reads the law.

FWIW/YMMV

If Craig Martindale could have pulled the switch to shut down the internet TEN YEARS AGO.....he would have.

Waydale, and now Greasespot, have exposed twi and its splinter groups from pea soup to beer nuts.

Do all forms of religion and government want to suppress dissenting information????

<_<

[chockfull]

Mark,

I read the language of the bill. The quote I pulled was from someone in office explaining the intent of the bill to the press. That's an example of representative democracy, as neither you nor I have any idea of the events, facts, and discussion in Congress that led up to this bill being introduced.

That said, it doesn't look like the bill has enough support to pass, and that is probably because of the vagueness in language that you are pointing out that upsets the checks and balances.

Overall, this bill is a wartime measure, and to me it's unlikely that any sitting President would commandeer major Internet resources that are so intricately involved in our economy without adequate justification. To do so would invite impeachment, and those checks and balances are very much still in place.

[markomalley]

Mark,

I read the language of the bill. The quote I pulled was from someone in office explaining the intent of the bill to the press. That's an example of representative democracy, as neither you nor I have any idea of the events, facts, and discussion in Congress that led up to this bill being introduced.

That said, it doesn't look like the bill has enough support to pass, and that is probably because of the vagueness in language that you are pointing out that upsets the checks and balances.

Overall, this bill is a wartime measure, and to me it's unlikely that any sitting President would commandeer major Internet resources that are so intricately involved in our economy without adequate justification. To do so would invite impeachment, and those checks and balances are very much still in place.

You may be right about it not going anywhere, but I question it.

The bill was introduced by the chairman of the committee that will have to do the bill's markup. I think that the staff is currently doing background research on it. See here. Also see the following releases from the chairman on this bill: here here.

While the bill doesn't have the visibility of Health Care Reform, it does address an administration priority.

Hopefully in the markup process, they make it significantly more concrete.

[skyrider]

If Craig Martindale could have pulled the switch to shut down the internet TEN YEARS AGO.....he would have.

Waydale, and now Greasespot, have exposed twi and its splinter groups from pea soup to beer nuts.

Do all forms of religion and government want to suppress dissenting information????

<_<

When I think of censorship, two things come to mind:

1) The weekly corps meetings that I participated in from 1991-1998 were corps exclusive meetings....and I understand why they set it up that way. But what I found to be troubling......EVERY WEEK when J0e C0ulter called he had these questions:

.....J0e: Hello skyrider :blink:. How many corps are present?

.....Me: 4

.....J0e: And, you are not recording is that correct?

.....Me: That is correct.

.....J0e: OK....I'll connect you now.

.....Me: Thank you.

EVERY WEEK........WEEK AFTER WEEK, THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED. :blink:

2) In thinking about censorship of speech.....twi did it repeatedly. Twi was oppressive. Twi was elitist.

Remember........in the document section, martindale is on record for those homosexual statements like ...."You should be thankful you're not in the Old Testament times, because there are some of us who would gladly execute you." - L. Craig Martindale

[chockfull]

When I think of censorship, two things come to mind:

1) The weekly corps meetings that I participated in from 1991-1998 were corps exclusive meetings....and I understand why they set it up that way. But what I found to be troubling......EVERY WEEK when J0e C0ulter called he had these questions...

Yeah, no shizzle skyrider. How many Corps are present? Only Corps are present, correct? Not recording, correct?

I was always tempted to respond, "well, I did find this homeless guy outside....." But C0ult3r and a sense of humor were usually never in the same location.

[markomalley]

Reminds me of how glad I am I got out before then...

[waysider]

Of course, if it was never actually documented on an official, TWI sanctioned tape or preserved for posterity in printed form, it never really happened.

[skyrider]

Yeah, no shizzle skyrider. How many Corps are present? Only Corps are present, correct? Not recording, correct?

I was always tempted to respond, "well, I did find this homeless guy outside....." But C0ult3r and a sense of humor were usually never in the same location.

chockfull.......exactly!!!

These weekly phone hook-ups for all corps.....J0e C0ulter asked the SAME questions. Clearly, twi was paranoid and was "covering its bases" IN CASE SOMEONE TAPED CRAIG MARTINDALE AND TOOK HIM/TWI TO COURT.

The corps never knew when the next tirade or individual confrontation from martindale would surface. More and more, the legalism and lockstep mentality was incorporated into this fear environment. Corps started ratting out corps. It was like...you couldn't trust your "corps brother" because he might tell martindale if you were murmurring or dissenting in a conversation. Soon, no way could you get any momentum to ask a volley of questions.

Is that censorship or "smart business?" Whatever.........it was definitely another red flag amongst many. Twi would only allow THEIR SIDE to be heard.

So yeah.......I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW CENSORSHIP IS MARSHALLED.

And, as we speak.......there is a growing concern that our country's media....ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times.....are only reporting ONE SIDE of the story, the accepted-sanitized version.

Free Speech..........is the cornerstone of FREEDOM.

[waysider]

More and more, the legalism and lockstep mentality was incorporated into this fear environment. Corps started ratting out corps. It was like...you couldn't trust your "corps brother" because he might tell martindale if you were murmurring or dissenting in a conversation. Soon, no way could you get any momentum to ask a volley of questions.

Slight derail---

I think this aspect of "leadership programs" is what people sometimes fail to recognize when they say things like, "Why didn't you just question that decision/action?"

[skyrider]

Slight derail---

I think this aspect of "leadership programs" is what people sometimes fail to recognize when they say things like, "Why didn't you just question that decision/action?"

So many things.........

When I was younger....I was intimidated to ask questions, nor did I really know what to ask or question. I grew up trusting people -- taking them at face-value and trusting their words. I had never run across a snake-oil salesman.

Therefore, in going way corps......I was young and naive, like so many others. The corps program was bait-n-switch and in the 1970s it was hard to detect. Besides, one gets intermeshed with some fun times, "friends" and this mystique about spirituality and the "man of god." Sure, wierwille encountered his dissenters......several of the 4th, 5th and 6th corps were falling away, but that was near 1979, 1980 and wierwille was retiring in 1982. So, the time frame of this dissention doesn't spotlight wierwille.........it spotlights martindale.

In general terms, when corps in their mid-30s (with wife, kids) STARTED QUESTIONING WIERWILLE/TWI......by then, wierwille was stepping down. Therefore, most attribute the problems to martindale.........BUT DISSENT WAS ALREADY MOVING IN THE LATTER DAYS OF WIERWILLE. Some even "thank cgeer for exposing it".....but I say, it was already in progress. Cgeer's paper and pontificating only validated it from main stage.

When one is faced with life, reality, bills, children, career, etc........IT BECAME APPARENT THAT TWI'S DEMANDS FOR LOCKSTEP LOYALTY WERE ASSININE. But, some of us were so embedded in responsibilities and "fighting to keep the integrity of the word"....what ever that means.....to step back and ask the hard questions and re-evaluate all things twi from the ground up. To this day, some are STILL WAYBRAINED.....and don't know it.

Thanks to the internet, we can actually have this conversation. Thanks to free speech....we don't have someone legislating our dissenting statements toward twi.

Coming out of the "censored camps of twi.....I shall always remember the suppression of thought and speech.

Freedom of speech.......I shall treasure it all the days of my life.

[skyrider]

Yeah, no shizzle skyrider. How many Corps are present? Only Corps are present, correct? Not recording, correct?

I was always tempted to respond, "well, I did find this homeless guy outside....." But C0ult3r and a sense of humor were usually never in the same location.

Yeah........THREE QUESTIONS, asked each week that twi wanted to know.

1) How many corps are present?

....Obviously, twi knew how many corps were in each area, each state. This question MONITORED the corps attendance roll.....like an electronic ankle device. If that corps person was in the corps meeting weekly, THEN HE WAS WEEKLY BEING INDOCTRINATED TO TWI PROPAGANDA.

2) Only corps are present?

....Clearly, these phone hook-ups for corps grads or interim corps, but it also fed the elitism and inner-circle mentality that existed. No infiltration into the inner-sanctum was allowed.....and corps policed themselves. Thus, the "eyes and ears" of trustees was "keeping zion safe" from infiltration, from any and all attacks. It has a way of deepening loyalties and advancing radical extremes.

3) And, you're not recording -- correct?

....J0e C0ulter was the main a/v guy. J0e is the one who got Craig M. into "the word." Twi had every intention of guarding itself against martindale's tirades and character assassinations. At times, those corps meetings were spent on trashing some person who spoke out against twi policy, dissenting from the lockstep mentality. Questions on life, careers, rearing children, retirement concerns.....would be addressed, out of context, to trash ONE individual. In retrospect, it was major suppression.

So, yeah.....after, at least, 12 years of suppression of thought, questioning and censorship ---- I SMELL CENSORSHIP A MILE AWAY.

AND NOW I SMELL IT......COMING FROM OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

Nothing new, I know.....BUT THE ODOR IS INCREASING.

:blink:

[chockfull]

So yeah.......I'VE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW CENSORSHIP IS MARSHALLED.

...

Free Speech..........is the cornerstone of FREEDOM.

TWI is a pristine example of how censorship is marshalled. I remember how in the Adv. Class they brought up Communist China, and how the Communist government would alternate between purges and encouraging free speech. There would be a period of time where they would encourage free speech that they used mostly to identify those with different ideas than the government. They would pretend to be interested in hearing other opinions to make the government better. However, in reality they used those periods to catalog those people. Then they would go through a purge where they eliminated all those with the boldness to speak out.

TWI has always functioned in this manner. They value blind unquestioning obedience above all else. They mark those that speak out, and whether the free speech is Biblically based or not, they target them. Then they go to work on attacking them, and the whole mark and avoid tactic is used. They blackball people and lie about them. They also do this with people's positions. They use the club of positions or status to keep people in lock-step with them.

This manner of functioning is EVIL. And it is completely against the whole freedom based tenets of Christianity. And it is also completely against the tenets of the United States of America and free speech that is the cornerstone of America. At least here still in Congress you can have a representative yell out "You Lie" to the President of the US and still retain their job and not be executed. What do you think would happen to a person attached to TWI if they did that in a meeting where the BOD spoke? Or any leader?

That's why my message to those still involved in TWI is TAKE BACK YOUR FREEDOM. Don't let it be stolen away a little at a time.

Edited September 11, 2009 by chockfull

[chockfull]

And those "prophets" are false prophets. They are false apostles. There is no new light in TWI - there hasn't been for a long time. Even the light which was purported to be new was stolen from others. Those leaders act all pompous and authoratative. They are nothing. They only lead you because you allow them. They are worse than the average Christian you can meet in a local church, in your community, anywhere. Don't let their false posturing and posing intimidate you. Take back your freedom.

...

When one is faced with life, reality, bills, children, career, etc........IT BECAME APPARENT THAT TWI'S DEMANDS FOR LOCKSTEP LOYALTY WERE ASSININE. But, some of us were so embedded in responsibilities and "fighting to keep the integrity of the word"....what ever that means.....to step back and ask the hard questions and re-evaluate all things twi from the ground up. To this day, some are STILL WAYBRAINED.....and don't know it.

Thanks to the internet, we can actually have this conversation. Thanks to free speech....we don't have someone legislating our dissenting statements toward twi.

Coming out of the "censored camps of twi.....I shall always remember the suppression of thought and speech.

Freedom of speech.......I shall treasure it all the days of my life.

this

[skyrider]

And those "prophets" are false prophets. They are false apostles. There is no new light in TWI - there hasn't been for a long time. Even the light which was purported to be new was stolen from others. Those leaders act all pompous and authoratative. They are nothing. They only lead you because you allow them. They are worse than the average Christian you can meet in a local church, in your community, anywhere. Don't let their false posturing and posing intimidate you. Take back your freedom.

Yeah......take back your freedom.

It's kinda like, everytime that I post my viewpoints and experiences in twi.....I take back my individuality, my unique vantage point that no one else had/has.

By speaking the truth in love........I become free.

By speaking of unique experiences....I become me.

:)

[skyrider]

In my opening post on this thread, the two major categories, Religion and Politics, have strong tendencies towards censorship FOR ALL THE OBVIOUS REASONS.

What I continue to find very intriguing......imo, most people tend to view these two categories as exclusive subjects, the separation of 'church and state', and yet.....they employ the same strategies, the same censorship, the same pyramid power structures, the same party-line politics and propaganda, etc.

YET, THE SCRIPTURES NOTE THIS:

Mark 12:13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in [his] words.

Weren't 'the herodians' a part of the government/political structure?

Both sides, the religious hierarchy and political hierarchy were trying to 'catch Jesus in his words.' And, how often in the scriptures do we see Jesus' words and statements taken out of context or slanted and skewed to imply something else.....even in those attempts to convict and have him crucified.

Isn't the bigger picture of censorship, power to lord over people?

And, isn't censorship or 'spinning the opposing view'....only one tool in the oppressors' toolchest?

Edited September 13, 2009 by skyrider

[markomalley]

Of course, religion plays a huge role in politics. And vice versa.

Why? Because they both deal with the social nature of man. And both directly involve addressing what man believes.

Frankly, I don't see that this, necessarily, is a bad thing...but rather as something that could easily be abused to become a very bad thing.

Looking on the perspective of religion influencing politics, you have two potential extremes:

There is one extreme of fundamentalism, where certain religions cause adherents to completely abandon reason in favor of their interpretation of the transcendent. On the other extreme, there is a form of militant atheism as a matter of official state policy (note the adjective "militant"), which utterly denies the possibility of the transcendent in favor of dogmatic reason.

In the case of fundamentalism, people can then be manipulated to justify any manner of abuse in the name of that fundamentalist belief. In the case of militant atheism, there is no higher authority than man. As a result, all social mores become strictly man-made and thus are relative and can be man-changed.

On the other hand, we've seen many times where politics influences religion. One big example is where the Republicans co-opted the fundemental / evangelical branch of Protestant Christianity in this country starting in the late 70s. Another example is where the Democratic Party co-opted the black church since the mid 1960s. I know it goes both ways: Jerry Falwell and Jesse Jackson were just as manipulative on the other side, as well.

I think the best recent example, though, was Barack Obama's phone call with selected leaders on the "religious left" last where he implored that these religioius leaders start preaching about the "moral imperative" of supporting his "health care reform." The reason I say manipulative is that he did not, from the beginning, ask for their support or even ask for their input...he only did so in an effort to get religious leaders on the left mobilized when it was apparent that his health care reform effort was in trouble.

And this is where it ties into your post so that this is not an utter derail: by imploring religious leaders to extol his plan as a "moral imperative," he was attempting to use religious leaders to shut up opposition (after all, if you oppose his plan, you are being utterly immoral, bearing false witness, and are not acting as Christ would act...)

[skyrider]

And this is where it ties into your post so that this is not an utter derail: by imploring religious leaders to extol his plan as a "moral imperative," he was attempting to use religious leaders to shut up opposition (after all, if you oppose his plan, you are being utterly immoral, bearing false witness, and are not acting as Christ would act...)

mark.....although I see your point where politics employs religion to get things done and religion employs politics to get things done, but what I'm trying to address:

ISN'T RELIGION AND POLITICS BEDFELLOWS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR OPPOSING VOICES?

In my above post, Jesus had to stand against BOTH.....to not be swayed, to do the Father's will.

Twi used censorship to manipulate me. Political adversaries use censorship and spin tactics to manipulate me. So, there is this constant religious and political war being waged for the mind of man.

True Christianity has NO RELIGION in it.

True Christianity has NO POLITICS in it.

True Christianity is an intimate fellowship with my heavenly Father via Jesus Christ.

Or......?????

Edited September 13, 2009 by skyrider

[markomalley]

mark.....although I see your point where politics employs religion to get things done and religion employs politics to get things done, but what I'm trying to address:

ISN'T RELIGION AND POLITICS BEDFELLOWS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR OPPOSING VOICES?

In my above post, Jesus had to stand against BOTH.....to not be swayed, to do the Father's will.

Twi used censorship to manipulate me. Political adversaries use censorship and spin tactics to manipulate me. So, there is this constant religious and political war being waged for the mind of man.

True Christianity has NO RELIGION in it.

True Christianity has NO POLITICS in it.

True Christianity is an intimate fellowship with my heavenly Father via Jesus Christ.

Or......?????

Religion and politics CAN BE bedfellows in their attempts...

TWI used censorship, that is true. I understand this censorship got dramatically worse during the 90s, after I had gotten out, so I can't speak to then. I know when I was in, most of it was on a more-or-less voluntary basis: if you were seen to spend to much time listening to secular music or watching secular TV, somebody would invariably talk to you about "the renewed mind," but I don't recall any specific sanction (keep in mind I got out in '89 and was more-or-less a rebel for a year before that time)

As far as the content of True Christianity, I can appreciate one making a statement that "True Christianity" having no religion in it, looking through a TWI lens at "religion" -- and I, myself, have made that very same statement, when I was in TWI, but I see religion a bit differently these days...not through a TWI lens.

As far as 'true Christianity' having no politics in it, again, from a certain perspective, I agree with you. But Christianity should shape the character and conscience of the politician. So there should be some sort of a tie there.

Politics, as we see it in our culture, has very little to do with Christianity, I will be the first to grant you that. But, the word politics comes from the Greek, politikos, things of the polis, or city. And people are almost always organized together in villages, towns, and cities. In Rev 21:10, we see "the new Jerusalem" descend out of heaven. The point is that we will always have some variety of politikos as long as we have a polis. How that politikos is conducted can and should be shaped by our Christian faith...not in an effort to censor people, but rather in an effort for each of us to censor ourselves and our own conduct and own speech, so that we, through our actions can show ourselves as examples.

[skyrider]

When I sat thru wierwille's PFAL class:

1) I was told to write down all my questions and submit them to the class coordinator.

2) Pfal class was subjective by design. No open questioning was allowed.

3) In class, wierwille admonishes to "put away all 'outside' material for the next three months."

4) If class guy couldn't properly answer your questions.....then send them to dr. wierwille.

5) After class was over, twi leadership strongly encouraged me to sit thru it again....and again.

Seems like indoctrination and censorship go hand-in-hand.

[waysider]

4) If class guy couldn't properly answer your questions.....then send them to dr. wierwille.

"The Teacher"

Seems like indoctrination and censorship go hand-in-hand.

:o

[geisha779]

mark.....although I see your point where politics employs religion to get things done and religion employs politics to get things done, but what I'm trying to address:

ISN'T RELIGION AND POLITICS BEDFELLOWS IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR OPPOSING VOICES?

In my above post, Jesus had to stand against BOTH.....to not be swayed, to do the Father's will.

Twi used censorship to manipulate me. Political adversaries use censorship and spin tactics to manipulate me. So, there is this constant religious and political war being waged for the mind of man.

True Christianity has NO RELIGION in it.

True Christianity has NO POLITICS in it.

True Christianity is an intimate fellowship with my heavenly Father via Jesus Christ.

Or......?????

Well said. . . . you don't have to look through a TWI lens to see man made religion causes most of the worlds ills. . . . and scripture does still define true religion.

[markomalley]

When I sat thru wierwille's PFAL class:

1) I was told to write down all my questions and submit them to the class coordinator.

2) Pfal class was subjective by design. No open questioning was allowed.

3) In class, wierwille admonishes to "put away all 'outside' material for the next three months."

4) If class guy couldn't properly answer your questions.....then send them to dr. wierwille.

5) After class was over, twi leadership strongly encouraged me to sit thru it again....and again.

Seems like indoctrination and censorship go hand-in-hand.

I saw the same thing when I took (and re-took and re-took) PFAL, Intermediate Class, collaterals, yada yada yada.

But here's the point: you were encouraged to do it all. You were not sanctioned for not doing it. Therefore, I would say "indoctrinated" is accurate, but "censorship" doesn't really apply. It would only be "censorship" if they either forcibly prevented you from doing so or sanctioned you for doing so.

But that's all IMHO, FWIW, and YMMV