On the contrary, the nation as a whole most certainly had a conscious going back to the Civil War with the abolitionists. In the 60’s the fact that there were numerous protests in favor of Civil Rights is a clear indication that the nation as a whole was willing to entertain open debate about the issue and be swayed by examples of unjust treatment.

> Did the British colonists have a conscience when Ghandi
> confronted them with pacifism? No.

Similar to above, because the British allowed for open debate and considered themselves a “civilized” society, the effect of violence against Ghandi’s non-violent protest clearly contributed to the British relinquishing control of India. Had it been Hitler’s Germany, Ghandi would have been executed along with most Indian without remorse or feeling.

“According to Mormon teachings, American Indians are descendants of the ancient House of Israel and church members have a responsibility to help bring them back to the Kingdom of God.”

Apparently the NA natives ARE Jewish. Who knew? LOL.

Yeah, right!!!

#35 said: “…Atheists are not religious..”

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Atheist believe in science, facts & themselves.

#46 because they weren’t jews. And if you go and ask the Church of Jesus of Latter-Day Saints, you’ll see that Jesus appeared to the North American Indians.

Did the white Southern racists have a conscience when MLK confronted them with pacifism? No.

Did the British colonists have a conscience when Ghandi confronted them with pacifism? No.

Pacifism is the most powerful when there is absence of conscience because it nurtures and demands it of your enemy — which creates the possibility of real change for the better.

#56, I agree with your non-violence point. Good point. I was looking at violence against society such as murders and genocides. Of course non-violent protest will only work in societies that have a conscience. Otherwise it may become a matter of self defense.

I disagree with you on non-violence. Non-violent protest is a means to an end just as violent protest. Non-violent protest is especially effective against civilized opposition and nations where open debate is allowed to take place. However, it should be clear that non-violent resistance has never been proven to be effective against unprincipled, totalitarian regimes. It has nothing to do with self-preservation per se. It comes down to what is the most effective and least costly method against your opponent. Non-violent protest against Hitler would have resulted in extermination.

So where’s the documentation and stories of god’s visit to the North American Natives? Why did the Arabs deserve such up close and personal service while the rest of the world then and now get a mishmash of scribblings or get ignored? How could a God make such a mess in spreading his message? A god so powerful as to create the universe, yet so inept at giving instructions to his “children”. A god so inept that he/she/it is unable to appear to us and can only send one messenger to a privileged few, and incompetent enough to get himself killed.
…It all seems so believable. Where do i sign up?

(geesh, not “indians” as I stated earlier. I played cowboys n’ indians when i was little … old habit )

To have trust that others have performed their job is fundamental in our society. When one of the people that report to me say they completed a task I take them at their word. I don’t need to verify. The same is when I read a piece of research. Only if I am more then interested would I ever research the citations provided. I trust the peer review to do their jobs. Yet, I want all those citations in case I want more information on that specific thought. All this is based on trust, not faith. Trust requires something verifiable as a base. Faith merely requires an explanation without having any foundation.

Most arguments here dealing with faith tend towards religious faith. There is no proof or evidence for their belief other then what they believe. This is the faith many people find dangerous and destructive. I recommend you re-read post #17 by None.

Morality is not owned by any one group. Nor can following that morality make you a follower. To follow non violence isn’t a faith based idea, it is a matter of self preservation. If we kill everyone, then the species will die off. The same may be said about assault, theft, or any anti-social behavior fitting into group dynamics. It is for the sake of the group or society that we have common morals.

But back to the argument at hand; would you say that “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” is not a whorthwile standard? For that one was indeed repeated by another wise sage, in the east, and seems to be a standard that some tribes of North America held to as well. If that is too much faith for you, then do as I have done, and try it on an experimental basis. Does this way of living solve more problems, or create them? In my life, it has cost me time, but never failed to enrich the lives of others, nor my own life. This is but my own experience, but there is nothing to say that a bit of experimentation is not whorthwhile in your own case. Having faith is only the first step; living by that standard gives you experience which backs it up.

Keep in mind, that while I have faith in wise men and their teachings, the fact that I have a broad mind and a tendency to see the best aspects of all philosophies would lead these “Culture Warriors” to label me an agnostic or atheist. None the less, I can’t see the value in having no faith at all. It is rather like not trusting anyone’s experience but one’s own, combined with a deep cycnicism that not only stereotypes and labels people, but judges them as irrational as well. Indeed, I tend not to think that such a thing as having ‘no’ faith is even possible. For instance, for science to proceed one must have a certain faith in peer review and the editors of the journals to keep balderdash out of the discourse, and allow in all repeatable phenomena. But how many scientists in the audience bother to repeat all of the experiments underpinning their work before proceeding? Is faith really so irrational as having to discover everything oneself?