Consensus Conformity in Practice - Part 1

I could have never imagined that such an obvious example of consensus conformity would have have played out on a public stage as happened just a couple of days ago.

In case you missed it, Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell asked her opponent, Chris Coons, where separation of church and state was found in the Constitution. In the typical sniggering fashion of all statists, he replied that it was in the 1st amendment (as the audience laughed). If you haven't seen or heard the exchange, you can catch it here...and many other places.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6972772n


Don't be confused by the text, because CBS, like most of the other mainstream media and Chris Coons, is dead wrong and, hard as it may be to grasp, candidate O'Donnell was right to question her opponent (it is not shown as often, but Mr. Coons also failed to recall the 5 freedoms which are actually included in the 1st amendment).

The "wall of separation" and "separation of church and state" (frequently including an appeal to authority by invoking the sacred name of Thomas Jefferson) are fallback positions for those of the statist persuasion whenever they find themselves contradicted by reality and the imprinted circuits of there modified brains are beginning to sizzle. The consensus conformity here is that there is a constitutional protection from having to ever confront any religious ideas.

Too bad for the media, Chris Coons, and all those soon-to-be incompetent lawyers, that was the exact opposite of what Jefferson, et al, meant by the idea.

If you want to learn a tad more, check out this short review:


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm

Why can we not take the country back? Because the only ones left who really understand the problems are the same ones the Stepford elites want to destroy.

Techno-Indifference

I have frequently labelled myself as a Luddite. I have never seriously considered wrecking any kind of machinery, much less automated looms, however, there is no disputing that I am a very late-adopter of any technological advances and I do not consider all new technology as per se progress.

It turns out that social science has a more contemporary tag to hang on my toe: neo-Luddite.


"A Neo-Luddite is someone who believes that the use of technology has serious ethical, moral, and social ramifications. Operating under this belief, Neo-Luddites are cautious to promote early adoption of technology, and while they are not necessarily opposed to technology, they would prefer to see a more serious discussion of the role of technology in society. Some Neo-Luddites actually dislike technology, opting for a life of “voluntary simplicity,” but this is not always the case." http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-neo-luddite.htm

Yep, that about covers it for me.

I really do question the benefits of ever-increasing dependency and use of digital appliances. Are we healthier or do we just live longer? Are we safer or merely more observed? Are we wiser or simply possessed of more data.

There are some who will not even comprehend how I could question the progress. There are a few who will completely understand.

God told us we would wrest our bread from the ground through the sweat of our brow - perhaps that meant more than a command to "work hard".