http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10...ng-unemployed/

From the horses ass mouth himself

Well, at least he didn't tell the unemployed to "eat cake."

Or did he?

Did she? Do you have that link as well?

OK. I actually heard an announcement about the Chicago protests on the classical radio station I listened to this morning. They quoted an organizer who said that they are asking for a permit for an even larger area to protest. They're expecting thousands.

And they can have ketchup for a vegetable.

That was an interesting WP article, Miss Tick. The only television I watch (or am subjected to) is at the gym. But I actually would be interested in that series entitled "Revenge." I had not heard the term "prosperity gospel" before.

What a time we live in.

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

Oh well said. Are you writing about this stuff in a blog or leading a group? If not, you should be.

And don't forget the applause Rick Perry got for standing up for the death penalty, the final statement on race, poverty and the economic rock tumbler otherwise known as the "free market."

Interesting choice the one percent has made in making a growing angry majority its enemy.

I marched with my Union today here in NYC. It was huge and exciting. All of us were talking about how we hadn't felt this kind of populist energy in a looong time.

Awesome! Just read that the unions are supporting a third week of protests.

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

"Wall Street protests swelled Wednesday to their largest numbers yet, after local unions pledged support to a third week of demonstrations against income inequality, corporate greed, corruption and a list of other social ills...

And following a string of arrests, they say they are pursuing a class action lawsuit against the New York Police Department and Mayor Michael Bloomberg for their "unconstitutional effort to disrupt and suppress" demonstrations."



http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/05/politi...ss_mostpopular

I understand what you saying, and I am not a subscriber to an organized religion, nor do I often if ever use the term "morality" for some of the reasons you cite. I like logic very much, and whether or not I was an educator, I would believe profoundly in the power of education. But I think Miss Tick's points are well taken, and I wonder if we can simply agree to the term ethics or perhaps a phrase like "equality through justice" or "equality, justice, harmony" when we call for a different code of conduct.

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt.... :p

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

I don’t believe it is necessary to define logic alone as the measure by which we decide what is right or what is wrong. Morality or should I say the word morality has gotten a bad rap. I think it’s because it has always been found hanging around religion and religious people. We need to separate human morality from religious morality. And right quick too. We are faced with moral dilemmas and choices every day. I think we need to learn to make morally right choices based on equity for all. First do no harm works well when embarking on an ethical journey.
.
Personally I believe the last thing we need to continue to do is to leave morality in the hands of organized religion. To have the right wing religious fanatics, regardless of their geographic or geopolitical position, continue to define morality for human beings is, to me, the last thing we need.

You know it is quite astonishing to discover how we almost always conflate morality with the flawed ethics found at the core of organized religions.

Religious morality is problematic because the principles developed by the various organized religions were initially meant to apply to a particular group in order to increase cohesion and unity of said group while at the same time emphasizing the differences of other groups. This type of morality is fundamentally flawed. The potential is a hostile moral system. Not to mention a moral code that was in no way meant to be universal. For example when examining ‘holy books’ you quickly discover that do not kill really means don’t kill your own. Non believers, infidels, pagans and other various enemies are fair game. This quirky philosophy on murder has been passed down in one way or another through religious history and is ingrained in our collective religious psyche. Perhaps this might explain why some deeply religious people have no qualms with the death penalty or with killing their enemies (which in some cases can loosely be defined as those who believe differently.)

Another problem with religious morality is the distinction it makes between private morality and public morality. Leaders and governments answer to the beat of a different morality drum. Living with this kind of duplicity embedded in one’s morality means there is no dissidence for the moral when as leaders they order the deaths of thousands upon thousands of men, women and children while still understanding themselves to be deeply religiously moral. George W. Bush comes to mind as an example, but there are many, many more. This kind of morality no longer works for human beings facing global crises. It’s a new world where survival will hinge on our ability to develop global economic, political and cultural cooperation.

One excruciatingly immoral flaw in religious morality is the eternal hell threat. This need to intimidate believers and demonize non-believers with eternal damnation not only condemns without mercy or appeal 70% of humankind depending on which religious side you stand but it encourages persecution, religious wars and genocide. This ideology of hell and the hatred it encourages against “the other” is responsible for countless deaths.

A huge flaw of religion-based morality comes from the religious need to separate the human body from the mind. Negative, or dare I say, bad religious morality concerning the human body and what can or can’t be done with it by the human inhabiting it directly derives from this bizarre desire to see the body separate from the mind.

To me a moral code, to be judged useful, must treat others with dignity and respect. A moral code that reduces the quality of people’s life is no moral code at all.

The time has come for those who clearly revere and respect humanity, for those who see the need for equity and justice, for those who understand the dignity inherent in all life to take back the use of the term morality. We must overcome our initial revulsion to the term moral. Our reluctance to use the words moral and morality is understandable. There has been a bad taste left in our mouths because of what passes for moral behavior and what is done to other human beings in the name of morality by supposedly god fearing morally righteous people. But religious morality has little to do with our moral belief systems. What is acceptable moral behavior CLEARLY needs to be defined. We should not turn away from this task because of bitter experience with religious morality. For most of us who seek equity and justice for all, I would imagine our beliefs and choices are already inherently moral as well as deeply humane. Why not own the language? Why not take back morality from those whose actions are anything but moral. Why should they own this word that clearly does not fit them.