A post on a link that I made on Facebook and the subject … Article 6

Posted by Benedito Ubiratã on @ 6:30 am

Article printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/ubiratan

URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/ubiratan/2010/10/12/a-post-on-a-link-that-i-made-on-facebook-and-the-subject-article-6/

Sometimes placing links on Facebook is an almost automatic thing. We put the links just to show what we feel and realize that maybe someone at a great rate of identification, after all you invite people who have identified to be part of your network, or line, explaining better. As most of you sometimes just inviting people of all kinds ends up discovering who holds other types of thought, and if you leave them out there you just tracking and realizing what influences them, or they want influence.
The action ends up automatically, and your links end up being a quiet discussion with the other components of their line, or network. Would put the network, and then within that network, a line aligns with their ideas and end up becoming more heavily in the next identification.
But a priori, the discussion is silent and very fast. Without much explanation they converge and diverge from what is proposed by himself, differ from his line itself, and converges to what others want, or even an entire network is influencing. You may feel alone, or distinct from all selfish, or else supported by an entire row within the network.
The acts are so whoever has the most base, who read more, most research has the ability to see more. And sometimes in consequence put something that provides a better case within the network. However, I repeat, all very quiet, and very fast. Only time analyzing the insistence of some, and withdrawal from others.
Yesterday I put a link, an excerpt from the constitution of the United States of America, Article No. 6. Put because he was tired of watching the questioning of some leaders or not something in religion after they become leaders. See, after they become leaders, have the option to remain or change.
And there was the question of whether or not this leader change option he should lose his job? The opnion is based on theological item.
After all because I read in several places the questioning of the leaders concerned. And the problems, sadness, panic in the entire group in each group dominated by this leader. And so I decided to calm down. Why calm?
There is the idea that this leader can be exchanged in a new democratically elected. That’s nice of democracy.
Once submitted this idea to be able to exchange power, democracy, that is the will of the majority, everything is calm and quiet.
Now what’s interesting is that the article number 6 guarantees that freedom to the government, and this assures his people that he does not need to hide what you feel in theological terms. That makes it free and free his people. At a later period he may defend his choice, and its people can decide on its continuation or not.
But then there was a questioning of this article from a colleague in Facebook, putting on my silent Article number 6, which I remember just put the link in article number 6, and did not make any comment.
In this questioning, there was doubt as follows: As the article can not be changed and there is a favor to a pre requisite to the government or leader to be voted? This leader would then be a prerequisite not supported by the public will, but by the will of a law, a constitution. Do not argue, the next leaders would have to enter in accordance with this constitution.
It was interesting for the moment my answer, because I do not think that doubt is a discredit to my colleague’s action, but one of the major actions that I see on Facebook, which is to give chance to simulate problems and discuss this intelligently. One can think freely and how the simulation results is available to anyone to understand the different simulated problems.
In the case of his colleague, I think the irony was ironic, and just one way we take the discussion in a less quiet and then we can take a break in the discussions quickly and quietly. Sometimes it’s good, not to deviate much from the fears that we anticipate or feel on a daily basis.
And then I said to my view, and as I fear and feel safe because that Article number 6, and perhaps many in the world do not have such luck. The freedom guaranteed by a Constitution. And please do not view me as a foreigner to the United States just wanting to play the role of raising them only by weakness. I am the idea that good ideas and good deeds should be praised as often. And why not, sometimes criticized.
And then I said that sometimes take the example of Iran would be interesting, because for me it not acceptable what happens there. That is the fact that for years there is a kind of government popularly called the government Aiatolahs, and what is observed is that it is high time that the young and old there are many willing to revisit this government and this form of pre requester raise leaders and chooses them, and anything can happen the opposite way, because the prerequisite of its laws does not allow another type of government between without pre condition is favorable to the ideal of aiatolahs.
See pre requirement, be in favor of ideology aiatolahs in a way that such a person be in favor of Jewish idea that could never happen, and perhaps because it is Christian. Taking these two examples of how intensely they attack countries that carry these two theologies.
The pre existing requirement in the laws there prevent the people there want for their intelligence and capacity for observation, the change of government aiatolahs, year after year that attacks anyone who has ideology or theology distinct from them.
This is an arresting people and then a lot of the generation that kind of thinking and pre requisite. And until it is obvious once the rest of who dominates the pre requisite for so many generations that have dominated in his will, the next generations of these or remember to observe these distinct ideas of the ayatollahs.
Article 6 guarantees that number goes up each year, if someone with an idea, or an error, or even a diversion of reasoning of the majority population, end up having a chance to change.
This can occur without the error that happens in Iran, it may never be able to modify the form of government because the laws do not allow there to think about it. An example of this is seen in newspapers and blogs accusing year after year, that people of that country are disappearing lest there be a diversity of ideological and theological thought. I wonder if forty years from now there born a girl or a boy with a desire to be Jewish. Or to be Christian.

This will be so different, because there was a thought that this cleanup will own a self censorship. Feel different and be afraid to be different.
And freedom?
In this respect, has ended.
You are just in the scope of philosophical discussion, and related sciences, universities or academies relegated to wake the system of government, obviously to allow this kind of discussion to avoid the risk. But you are only a small group of scholars who are trying to perceive and the inevitable, which is why, having no person against anything similar thought is so sharp, that he has to establish an entire academic school, to begin to discuss their ideas with people. When not long before many people had to match those thoughts could give children ideas. Sensible distinction and anguish.

This likely happened in the 30 to 50 in the last century with Hitler and Stalin. Scientists and universities were massacred and their members were deported, they fled or were killed by the thousands to survive his vision. And the same is not true today?
Stalin and Hitler advocated, which remained an indisputable cultural movement, after many years no young person would perceive the various ideas that could calculate the probability of existence. And that was the stupidity, humans feel, think, are smart, and question, then by the time everyone wanted a change, and realized they were trapped in a system that would not allow something other than pre petitioner, something against Article 6.
In Nazi Germany, something distinct from National Socialism. And in the former Soviet Union was anything other than Communism. Millions of people have not died out of their countries. News for decades retro Russians, or rather native countries belonging to the Soviet Union died by trying to “think” differently to the regime. And would not fail to mention that also killed millions in Germany and these were Germans, because they can not change the idea of Nazism. Hitler had a line of thought, and nothing was modified.

The distinction of the two is simple because the German people Hitler killed before having the total area. When ruled the whole of his people was absorbed with the war and the ideal of ever winning. Were lost in the Holocaust to be different and rulers, and not realize that the generations were within the pre requisite of having to be a Nazi or anything. But prior to the game who was against the Nazis in Germany to the Germans out specifically before his ascension total. I think if the immigration measure in the whole world will see that many Germans realized his idea and left because they perceive that they would die if they stayed in Nazi Germany, for having different ideas to Nazism.
The distinction is that the Stalinism he runs into the death of his people after his ascension. Until then his people did not realize his idea, and the failures of communism to the new planet with billions of people. The system would be ineffective as the population demands to happen, and no more of these happened, and the world was changing and his people would follow this change, and the Communist government could not give his people that change. To not have millions and millions of rebellions Soviets died in the dungeons remembered Siberia and other places of terror and torture.
The basic idea of these two governments was to take generations to change any need for modification. As it is impossible for humans, they needed to kill, or rather overwhelming. Oppression had had a loss of popular confidence. But the reliability was no longer needed, they had laws that ensured that any unreliability would be useless, or was in favor of the scheme, or he was arrested and killed.
Article No. 6 provides the scope to see my freedom from a theological leader, for years and questioned if this can be changed by the majority. But the majority to put its new leader, if this fails after year, so they can own Article 6 by discouraging that his former opponent, out for a new choice in the majority. Or why not the observation of a single again in the new generations? He will be free to observe, is guaranteed to provide what he sees wrong until the continuity of his vision within a generation and this change since there is no pre subscribers.
And no pre theological requirements, defines the idea of having a free government and a free people to change. Article 6 provides that, not the emergence of extremists in power, and if they arise can be exchanged.
In the case of Iran, the extremists who are in power there since the regime of Shah Reza Parlev, nothing can be changed, because the laws there do not allow. You have to do praise the U.S. Constitution has an article on the theological case gives freedom to his people that anyone can have the ideology that you want and nothing can argue on the basis of not having pre-requisites. After all this came into power by the desire of the majority.
It is a fact that extremists after being in power do everything to prevent his departure. Always end up following the ideology of Hitler’s control or Nazism itself. They end up having to have a police or a government that controls the next thought. Always felt insecure because the modification of their ideas, is the ultimate act of selfishness administration, which Stalin, Nero, Hitler, and many others would have and failed. And it will.
In modern times, speaking openly in a while in Emotional collective groups that hold power and knowledge to manipulate them can not be certain pre requesting power. And theology or religion best works brilliantly and intensely emotional public. Pre order it is to want to have control of collective emotional that way. And if someone does not want to solve their emotional dominated like that? Extremists would never allow.

For those not familiar with Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, click on the link below and see the article in full.

U.S. Constitution – Article 6

Article 6 – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Hugs

Benedito Ubiratã