Because The Un

[Brasidas]

 

 

 

Why can't some of these programs stand on their own merit and junk the 100 layers of corrupt UN bureaucracy above them? The UN is a jobs and graft program for corrupt bureaucrats, most of them from totalitarian nations.

 

 

I have to agree with this. I remember multiple times when the UNHRC membership included abusive autocratic regimes who only had one purpose, to score points using the UN apparatus. This is what happens when you have membership criteria that pretty much consist of "existing" rather than having qualification metrics such as representation through popular election, which I know would have excluded places like ROK until the 80s, but it would probably have made many regimes change how they do business to join the club. As it is, the UN has been hijacked, which is fine. Just leave the body except the Security council, then constantly veto so nothing goes through, and let the PRC turn it into a popularity contest they pay for.

[RETAC21]

 

 

 

 

Why can't some of these programs stand on their own merit and junk the 100 layers of corrupt UN bureaucracy above them? The UN is a jobs and graft program for corrupt bureaucrats, most of them from totalitarian nations.

 

 

I have to agree with this. I remember multiple times when the UNHRC membership included abusive autocratic regimes who only had one purpose, to score points using the UN apparatus. This is what happens when you have membership criteria that pretty much consist of "existing" rather than having qualification metrics such as representation through popular election, which I know would have excluded places like ROK until the 80s, but it would probably have made many regimes change how they do business to join the club. As it is, the UN has been hijacked, which is fine. Just leave the body except the Security council, then constantly veto so nothing goes through, and let the PRC turn it into a popularity contest they pay for.

 

 

Again you want the UN to be something it never was and never was to be. The initial members of the Security Council were 2 democracies, of which one had an extensive empire where the locals had mostly zero say on their lives and the other segregated by race as a matter of fact, an authoritarian regime that governed through warlordism, an failing democracy with another large empire, plus a genocidal communist country that was in the process of swallowing half of Europe. The other 45 members included all kinds of regimes ranging from the fascist to the proto-communist, with kleptocracies, etc.

 

Does it act as soapbox to clean regimes and such? sure it does, which is why it is going to remain powerless to stop wars that don't want to be stopped, because having it as World Government would be so much worse.

 

It already forces regimes to change the way they do business, otherwise no one would have heard of the Rohingya genocide and the Kurds would be a memory by now.

 

Can it be cheaper, meaner and more effective? surely, but I suspect that comes with a blood bill that the powers that be are unwilling to pay.

[Nobu]

Im terrified of Scientology ever going into politics. Imagine if they backed Tom Cruise to run? I get nightmares about that....

 

Germany and Germans apparently feel the same way, if their stance on it, and on the for-profit religion industry in general, is any indication.

 

It would help the case for organized religion immensely if its reputable membership addressed the caravan of opportunists, the tax exempt, and Jeffrey Epsteins in sheep's clothing trailing behind it.

[Nobu]

A blood bill they are unwilling to pay now. Later may be a different story.

 

The bureaucracy of garbage that is the UN is actually an opportunity for any leader with a vision of harnessing 10,000 of the world's most-hardened bureacrats to the oars of his (or her) ambition, rowing as one.

[RETAC21]

A blood bill they are unwilling to pay now. Later may be a different story.

 

The bureaucracy of garbage that is the UN is actually an opportunity for any leader with a vision of harnessing 10,000 of the world's most-hardened bureacrats to the oars of his (or her) ambition, rowing as one.

 

Why you think no one thought of it? Google: Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for a couple of examples.

[Nobu]

Not to demean the work of Annan and Boutros-Ghali, but given the current state of the UN, they kept its bureaucracy functioning at best.

 

I don't think Guterres is the man to reform it either. The link touting his "New Process for Secretary-General Selection" on his UN homepage is broken.

 

https://www.un.org/pga/71/sg/

[Brasidas]

 

 

 

 

 

Why can't some of these programs stand on their own merit and junk the 100 layers of corrupt UN bureaucracy above them? The UN is a jobs and graft program for corrupt bureaucrats, most of them from totalitarian nations.

 

 

I have to agree with this. I remember multiple times when the UNHRC membership included abusive autocratic regimes who only had one purpose, to score points using the UN apparatus. This is what happens when you have membership criteria that pretty much consist of "existing" rather than having qualification metrics such as representation through popular election, which I know would have excluded places like ROK until the 80s, but it would probably have made many regimes change how they do business to join the club. As it is, the UN has been hijacked, which is fine. Just leave the body except the Security council, then constantly veto so nothing goes through, and let the PRC turn it into a popularity contest they pay for.

 

 

Again you want the UN to be something it never was and never was to be. The initial members of the Security Council were 2 democracies, of which one had an extensive empire where the locals had mostly zero say on their lives and the other segregated by race as a matter of fact, an authoritarian regime that governed through warlordism, an failing democracy with another large empire, plus a genocidal communist country that was in the process of swallowing half of Europe. The other 45 members included all kinds of regimes ranging from the fascist to the proto-communist, with kleptocracies, etc.

 

Does it act as soapbox to clean regimes and such? sure it does, which is why it is going to remain powerless to stop wars that don't want to be stopped, because having it as World Government would be so much worse.

 

It already forces regimes to change the way they do business, otherwise no one would have heard of the Rohingya genocide and the Kurds would be a memory by now.

 

Can it be cheaper, meaner and more effective? surely, but I suspect that comes with a blood bill that the powers that be are unwilling to pay.

 

 

I never even hinted I wanted a world government from the UN, so I am not sure where you got that. I've never said anything coming from it should be a basis for rule of law either. I only said that the proclamations that come from one council only serve the interests of the autocratic governments on the council and do not serve the purpose of the council of which they are a member. I then stated the reason for being of the UN has been hijacked, which is fine, but it doesn't require additional US funds or even all that much effort, other than simply and clearly saying that vetoing everything proposed would be the way to defang the beast. Let it leave NY, go to Macau or Hong Kong, then just vote against all resolutions. Problem solved. The PRC did it for years with no problem as I recall.

 

No autocratic country is going to the UN to ask for permission to go to war, ever. They'll just do it. The founding purpose of the UN was to limit future wars. Adding all this extra fluff, does not serve that purpose, though they may mitigate some of the underlying causes sometimes. The problem is that the mechanisms put in place to enact policy get hijacked for various reasons, most of them minor and selfish, and using a lot of US dime in the process. I have a real hard time saying the UN is worth the cost of keeping around lately. I say this fully anticipating the US may become embroiled in internecine conflict in the near future, and definitely have no desire for 3rd party peacekeepers becoming involved.

[Rick]

 

 

I respect religion and personal belief. I have a hard time extending that belief to the clergy. Historically they were just as feuding and non-cooperative as nation states, these days I see them mostly as morally bankrupt, or spineless religio-bureaucrats who are mostly preoccupied with administrating thelselves.

 

Has the secular state done any better for morality and culture than the church?

 

"Which" morality, "which" state, and "how secular".

I don't think we can discuss this in the abstract.

 

Is Germany post 1945 a secular state?

If so, I think all in all it at least hasn't done much worse than the better examples of churches. There were horrid examples of child abuse under state supervision, but at least there's now willingness to clean up and investigate, unlike what I'm seeing with, day, the RCC. Can't see that Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims get along with each other all that well in India and surrounding countries. I shudder to think what would happen if you let the Sunni and Shia clergy duke it out on a global scale, and they're both muslim. Serbian Orthodox and Russian Orthodox split because they can't agree if crossing oneself should go left to right or right to left. America was founded by the British taleban of their time, sectarian, church-demolishing iconoclasts whose parallel society just couldn't get along with the rest of the country. They weren't persecuted for their beliefs. They aggressively attacked who didn't share their narrow-minded interpretation of the Bible, and had to be kicked out of Britain before they would kill more people. And then in America these super-moral proselytists imported slaves, and because they couldn't get along with each other, spread out to found all kinds of more or less bizarre Christian communes with more or less oppressive rules.

 

Have churches also done good?

Absolutely. Don't get me wrong here.

 

But the idea that the clergy is inherently better suited to organize public life than, say, elected politicians finds no supporting evidence in history. I like my Republic, because I can get rid of dangerously useless dolts, and replace them with the next useless dolt who is probably less dangerous. That doesn't protect us against the general fallacies of man, but the clergy is made of people too, with additional drawback of a lack of oversight and public scrutiny.

 

Agree to the abstract, but let's start with Christianity since it has influenced your country and mine. You mentioned morality. How can a state make people "moral?" Your state and mine have laws, but do laws make people moral? Laws are designed to stop certain behaviors, to give a set of rules for people to live together. But laws cannot make you moral as history, past and present have shown. Are you rewarded by the state for obeying a law to the degree if you would break said law? Who decides if a law is just? In the U.S. the Supreme Court has upheld and struck down many laws some judges thought correct and others unjust.

Only God can change your morality and his judge is Jesus Christ. Jesus has really only one verdict and that is forgiveness if you repent. Does government offer forgiveness? Government laws may restrict the hand, but only God can change your heart.

Let's skip down to your last paragraph -- only because your middle one is a thread in itself.

"But the idea that the clergy is inherently better suited to organize public life than, say, elected politicians finds no supporting evidence in history. "

Many clergy have been politicians in many countries. It would take a lot or research, and more realistically, individual interpretation, to see if they were "better suited to organize(ed) public life." But, imo, to expand on this, look at what politicians who have been or are Christians and see what they have done or are doing.

" I like my Republic, because I can get rid of dangerously useless dolts, and replace them with the next useless dolt who is probably less dangerous. That doesn't protect us against the general fallacies of man, but the clergy is made of people too, with additional drawback of a lack of oversight and public scrutiny."

I would say clergy would be under more scrutiny as they are supposed to be obeying God over man's laws. How many clergy have recovered from scandal vs politicians? And yours, and mine of course, "useless dolts" keep making things worse, not matter which "dolt" or party they belong to. Which brings me back to my underlying statement; more God -- but it has to be the people's choice, or more government -- which will give people no choice and no chance.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Rick

[Ssnake]

This part of the debate should be split into a second thread maybe; I'll withhold further comment until then. But I don't agree with you, Rick.

[Der Zeitgeist]

This part of the debate should be split into a second thread maybe; I'll withhold further comment until then. But I don't agree with you, Rick.

 

Discussing morality with religious fundamentalists. Sounds fun.

[Stuart Galbraith]

[Rick]

 

This part of the debate should be split into a second thread maybe; I'll withhold further comment until then. But I don't agree with you, Rick.

 

Discussing morality with religious fundamentalists. Sounds fun.

 

You cannot have long term successful morality without God. Jesus is the bridge between perfect God and imperfect man.

[Murph]

The US should pay no more than Russia to the parasites. Not.one.penny.more.

[Ssnake]

 

 

This part of the debate should be split into a second thread maybe; I'll withhold further comment until then. But I don't agree with you, Rick.

 

 

You cannot have long term successful morality without God. Jesus is the bridge between perfect God and imperfect man.

 

a. The verdict on that is still out. "Which god", by the way.

b. Jesus bridged some 2000 years ago. Since then it's all but perfectly imperfect men in the clergy.

[Rick]

 

 

 

This part of the debate should be split into a second thread maybe; I'll withhold further comment until then. But I don't agree with you, Rick.

 

 

You cannot have long term successful morality without God. Jesus is the bridge between perfect God and imperfect man.

 

a. The verdict on that is still out. "Which god", by the way. Which one indeed. You only have a lifetime to decide and an eternity to profit or lose by this decision.

 

b. Jesus bridged some 2000 years ago. Since then it's all but perfectly imperfect men in the clergy. And every clergyman I have met and heard admit they are like the rest of man, not perfect.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think the reason why I've always rejected foreign policy being linked to Christianity, is that ive always regarded as Christianity (or any religion) as about personal self growth. Its about your personal relationship with God. That strikes me as a deeply curious thing to inject into foreign policy, which is about the lives and wellbeing of millions of other people. So why should the personal views of one mans religious views be imposed on millions of others? As pointed out before, thats what they do in Iran and Afghanistan. They dont seem to dig it very much.

 

Shakespeare said something in Henry V, something about every mans duty is the king, but every mans soul is his own. Which to my mind is perfectly accurate, and to me strikes the stark divide between politics and religion. Religion is for yourself and your soul, your duty to your king, or President or even your fellow man or even country is sometimes not wholly unrelated, but its also not the same thing. My religion can tell me its a sin to kill a man, but In a war I can kill damn near any enemy combatant I like and get a medal for it.

 

Jesus bridges a lot of divides, but he has yet to tackle that one to my satisfaction.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith

[Rick]

I think the reason why I've always rejected foreign policy being linked to Christianity, is that ive always regarded as Christianity (or any religion) as about personal self growth. Its about your personal relationship with God. That strikes me as a deeply curious thing to inject into foreign policy, which is about the lives and wellbeing of millions of other people. So why should the personal views of one mans religious views be imposed on millions of others? As pointed out before, thats what they do in Iran and Afghanistan. They dont seem to dig it very much.

 

Shakespeare said something in Henry V, something about every mans duty is the king, but every mans soul is his own. Which to my mind is perfectly accurate, and to me strikes the stark divide between politics and religion. Religion is for yourself and your soul, your duty to your king, or President or even your fellow man or even country is sometimes not wholly unrelated, but its also not the same thing. My religion can tell me its a sin to kill a man, but In a war I can kill damn near any enemy combatant I like and get a medal for it.

 

Jesus bridges a lot of divides, but he has yet to tackle that one to my satisfaction.

Matthew 28:16-20

[Nobu]

Modern, mainstream, and transparent church-based interpretations of God, king, and country as components of political policy are one thing. The elephant in the corner consisting of the for-profit religion industry is quite another.

 

Those leading the church into the 21st Century may want to think about taking a look at what trails behind it in its wake, as it may one day be devoured by it.

[Burncycle360]

And, in a surprise to no one...

 

https://twitter.com/YesThatAnna/status/1275933271231279104

[Stuart Galbraith]

Modern, mainstream, and transparent church-based interpretations of God, king, and country as components of political policy are one thing. The elephant in the corner consisting of the for-profit religion industry is quite another.

 

Those leading the church into the 21st Century may want to think about taking a look at what trails behind it in its wake, as it may one day be devoured by it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And, in a surprise to no one...

 

https://twitter.com/YesThatAnna/status/1275933271231279104

There, and there are you guys saying its not good at anything!

[Murph]

And, in a surprise to no one...

 

https://twitter.com/YesThatAnna/status/1275933271231279104

Once more utterly useless and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Get rid of the UN.

[Rick]

Modern, mainstream, and transparent church-based interpretations of God, king, and country as components of political policy are one thing. The elephant in the corner consisting of the for-profit religion industry is quite another.

 

Those leading the church into the 21st Century may want to think about taking a look at what trails behind it in its wake, as it may one day be devoured by it.

Factual source please.

[R011]

Modern, mainstream, and transparent church-based interpretations of God, king, and country as components of political policy are one thing. The elephant in the corner consisting of the for-profit religion industry is quite another.

 

Those leading the church into the 21st Century may want to think about taking a look at what trails behind it in its wake, as it may one day be devoured by it.

Those leading which church? There are at least hundreds of them, all independent of each other with no central authority regulating them. Indeed, such an authority would be entirely unconstitutional in the US.

[Nobu]

I do not say Scientology and Creflo Dollar's church are religions. The government of the United States does. What that makes them in reality, I leave up to general interpretation. Mine is that they are part of the for-profit religion industry. Feel free to disagree.

 

Hundreds of them indeed, with varying levels of transparency, good faith, and actual intent for good, versus actual intent to enrich themselves.