# data[].attributes.body
Does a person's belief ever become life threatening or caused lots of unnecessary changes in their life to them or others?

In some beliefs depending on far you really take that belief it will effect your life. That's why everything so diverse and different because of beliefs that people.

https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/350/350-850/350-850.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
STUBBORNNESS is one of seven basic character flaws or "dark" personality traits. We all have the potential for stubborn tendencies, but in people with a strong fear of change, Stubbornness can become a dominant pattern.

Stubbornness is a basic character flaw or personality defect, one of seven possible chief features adopted in adolescence to protect the self at the level of false personality.

Stubbornness is the tendency to resist any form of change. It is defined as:

refusing to move or change one's opinion; [1]

the trait of being difficult to handle or overcome; resolute adherence to your own ideas or desires [2]

Other names for stubbornness include dogged insistence, intransigence, temerity and pig-headedness.

Stubbornness is essentially an entrenched resistance to change. And given that life is all about change, stubbornness is effectively a resistance to life itself.

The person with stubbornness is driven by a fundamental resistance to being forced to do anything or experience anything against his will. The basic stance is, "No, I won't, and you can't make me."

The personality with stubbornness is over-sensitive to the possibility of having sudden or unwanted change imposed upon itself, and sees the threat of it everywhere. Anything new or different or involving change is perceived (subconsciously at least) as a direct threat- even if the change in question is positive and in the person's best interests.

Like all character flaws, stubbornness involves the following components:

1. Early negative experiences

2. Misconceptions about the nature of self, life or others

3. A constant fear and sense of insecurity

4. A maladaptive strategy to protect the self

5. A persona to hide all of the above in adulthood

Early Negative Experiences

In the case of stubbornness, the early negative experiences typically consist of domestic instability or upheaval and the streess of having to suddenly put up with new situations. The situations causing such stress could be beyond the parents' control, such as having to uproot in a time of war.

Alternatively, the stressful instability (as the child experiences it) could be of the parents' own choosing, such as constantly moving home to find a better job. Most often, perhaps, it is just part of ordinary family life-the arrival of a new baby, for instance.

Whatever the circumstances, the core experience for the child in question is the shock of the new. Just when the child thought she knew where she was, living safely at home with her best friends and her favourite toys, without any warning she is whisked off to start afresh in a new, unfamiliar place. Change has been imposed against her will, and it has caused unbearable stress.

The cumulative effect is a desparate desire for stability and familiarity, to stay put and have everything nailed into place, and to fend off anything new or unfamiliar.

Misconceptions

From such experiences of sudden instability and imposed change, the child comes to perceive life as being unstable and volatile:

New situations are traumatic and must be avoided.

People want to impose drastic changes on me against my will.

A big enough change in my life could destroy me.

Fear

Based on the above misconceptions and early negative experiences, the child becomes gripped by a specific kind of fear. In this case, of course, the fear is of new situations- of having new, unfamiliar circumstances imposed upon oneself.

Strategy

Because of this constant fear, the individual will crave permanance, stability and predictability. So the basic coping strategy is to resist change and any possibilty of change.

Typically this involves:

refusing to change or to accept new situations when asked to do so;

blocking the emergence of new/unfamiliar situations;

perceiving and anticipating every possibility of change or novelty so that it can be blocked;

denying that there is ever a need for change;

resisting internal pressures or impulses to change oneself.

In the case of illness, for example -

The chief feature of stubbornness will often insist nothing is wrong in the first place, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, but once illness has occurred, it then strives to continue the pattern so that nothing so dangerous as new improvement is permitted.

MICHAEL

Persona

Finally, emerging into adulthood, the individual does not want go around being overtly afraid of new situations. Hence stubbornness puts on a mask which says to the world, "It's not me-it's just this situation. Changing it would be wrong and unnecessary. Everything is fine the way it is, actually."

Under the guise of reasonableness and logic, the underlying fear tries to have its way. All new ideas are supposedly unreasonable and illogical. All actual changes are unnecessary and bad.

When this doesn't work, however, the mask comes off and the underlying shadow or "inner demon" is likely to emerge in a fit of rage. "How dare you do this to me? It's totally outrageous!" The rage is driven by a deep inner sense of overwhelming panic over the new situation.

All people are capable of this kind of behaviour. When it dominates the personality, however, one is said to have a chief feature of stubbornness.

Positive and Negative Poles

In the case of stubbornness, the positive pole can be termed DETERMINATION and the negative pole can be termed OBSTINACY.

+ determination +

|

STUBBORNNESS

|

- obstinacy -

Determination is state of mind that ensures a good enough situation is maintained: It ought to be this way because it makes sense. In moderation, this can be healthy or at least a healthy antidote to any kind of victim state.

Obstinacy, however, is a state of excessive fixation on an existing situation, regardless of logic, regardless of desirability. It must be this way because I say so and I don't care what anyone else says. Obstinacy will cause a person to cling to a terrible situation for no reason other than to avoid the possibility of facing change.

Handling Stubbornness

Stubbornness is the most prevalent character flaw there is. We all have some degree of stubbornness withion us, but more people have stubbornness as their chief feature than any other.

As with every chief feature, the key is becoming conscious of how stubbornness operates in oneself. If you have stubbornness, you can begin by observing your outward persona in action:

Do I have a tendency to justify the status quo?

Do I generally argue against change or newness on seemingly logical grounds?

Do I often deride new ideas or suggestions?

Try to catch yourself in the act of putting on your "Leave well alone!" mask.

Then dig deeper:

Why do I resist change, newness? What am I afraid of?

What do I fear would happen to me if I allowed uncontrollable chnges to happen?

Approaching the deepest level you may need outside help in the form of a counsellor, therapist or at least a close friend:

Where does this fear of new situations come from?

How was I hurt in the past?

Can I let it go?

Just as you can become more aware of stubbornness through self-observation and self-enquiry, so too you can gain more control over it through using that awareness and by exercising choice in the moment.

Whenever I am tempted to resist or attack people who want to change the status quo, I will consider the unreasonableness of my intentions rather than just theirs.

I understand that resistance to change is a resistance to life itself and leads nowhere.

I will be more willing to allow ordinary changes to happen in my life, knowing that they won't destroy me.

Another way to handle a chief feature is to "slide" to the positive pole of its opposite. In the case of stubbornness, though, there is no opposite. It is the only neutral form of chief feature-which means it has no polar opposite, being positioned at the intersection of all the dualities.

This allows for greater flexibility, however. A person with stubbornness can easily "slide" from neutral into any of the other chief feature positions, such as greed or martyrdom.

If you are getting caught in the grip of stubbornness's negative pole of obstinacy, you can re-balance yourself using the positive pole of any of the six other defensive patterns:

desire (the positive pole of greed)

sacrifice (the positive pole of self-destruction)

pride (the positive pole of arrogance)

humility (the positive pole of self-deprecation)

audacity (the positive pole of impatience)

selflessness (the positive pole of martyrdom)

In each case, there is a determination to cause, or allow, things to change-and determination is the positive pole of stubbornness.

For example, when you are stuck in obstinacy, sitting with "I won't allow it! I won't allow it!", your attention is wrapped up in the imposition of change and your sole intention is to resist that. To loosen the grip of stubbornness you have to you turn your attention to some other aspect of the situation:

What's in it for me? (desire)

Even though I don't like it, will it help someone I care about? (sacrifice)

Will it make me feel better about myself? (pride)

Will it help bring my ego down to earth? (humility)

Will it buy me time to do what I really want to do? (audacity)

Is it just what's needed, regardless of what I want? (selflessness)

By paying attention to one of these aspects of the situation, your fixation on the change itself is loosened. And by being willing to go with one of these aspects, your intention to resist is overcome.

Further Reading

Read an overview of the 7 character flaws - or see these specific pages:

Or for an excellent book about the chief features (character flaws) and how to handle them, see Transforming Your Dragons by José Stevens.

Also of interest: Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the stubbornest of them all? (A Colorful Mind blog)

[1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stubborn

[2] wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

(Visited 100,597 times, 38 visits today)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stubbornness - Personality & Spirituality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
STUBBORNNESS is one of seven basic character flaws or "dark" personality traits. We all have the potential for stubborn tendencies, but in people with a strong fear of change, Stubbornness can become a dominant pattern. Stubbornness is a basic character flaw or personality defect, one of seven possible chief features adopted in adolescence to protect the ...

# data[].attributes.body
Whats the good that comes from diversity of belief and does it overpower the bad enough to where it can sustain itself?

The good that comes from diversity of belief is the freedom and uniqueness of it all. It whats makes up all the different cultures around the world. For example when you travel somewhere the fun is seeing the difference between the place were you live and were you travel. Have you ever realized some of the most interesting stories from the trips you've probably taken is about how different it is and everywhere you go has different cultures and beliefs.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/there-are-not-enough-resources-to-support-the-world's-population/5511900

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earth is home to millions of species. Just one dominates it. Us. Our cleverness, our inventiveness and our activities have modified almost every part of our planet. In fact, we are having a profound impact on it. Indeed, our cleverness, our inventiveness and our activities are now the drivers of every global problem we face. And every one of these problems is accelerating as we continue to grow towards a global population of 10 billion. In fact, I believe we can rightly call the situation we're in right now an emergency - an unprecedented planetary emergency.

We humans emerged as a species about 200,000 years ago. In geological time, that is really incredibly recent. Just 10,000 years ago, there were one million of us. By 1800, just over 200 years ago, there were 1 billion of us. By 1960, 50 years ago, there were 3 billion of us. There are now over 7 billion of us. By 2050, your children, or your children's children, will be living on a planet with at least 9 billion other people. Some time towards the end of this century, there will be at least 10 billion of us. Possibly more.

We got to where we are now through a number of civilisation- and society-shaping "events", most notably the agricultural revolution, the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution and - in the West - the public-health revolution. By 1980, there were 4 billion of us on the planet. Just 10 years later, in 1990, there were 5 billion of us. By this point initial signs of the consequences of our growth were starting to show. Not the least of these was on water. Our demand for water - not just the water we drank but the water we needed for food production and to make all the stuff we were consuming - was going through the roof. But something was starting to happen to water.

Back in 1984, journalists reported from Ethiopia about a famine of biblical proportions caused by widespread drought. Unusual drought, and unusual flooding, was increasing everywhere: Australia, Asia, the US, Europe. Water, a vital resource we had thought of as abundant, was now suddenly something that had the potential to be scarce.

By 2000 there were 6 billion of us. It was becoming clear to the world's scientific community that the accumulation of CO ₂, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - as a result of increasing agriculture, land use and the production, processing and transportation of everything we were consuming - was changing the climate. And that, as a result, we had a serious problem on our hands; 1998 had been the warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998.

We hear the term "climate" every day, so it is worth thinking about what we actually mean by it. Obviously, "climate" is not the same as weather. The climate is one of the Earth's fundamental life support systems, one that determines whether or not we humans are able to live on this planet. It is generated by four components: the atmosphere (the air we breathe); the hydrosphere (the planet's water); the cryosphere (the ice sheets and glaciers); the biosphere (the planet's plants and animals). By now, our activities had started to modify every one of these components.

Our emissions of CO ₂ modify our atmosphere. Our increasing water use had started to modify our hydrosphere. Rising atmospheric and sea-surface temperature had started to modify the cryosphere, most notably in the unexpected shrinking of the Arctic and Greenland ice sheets. Our increasing use of land, for agriculture, cities, roads, mining - as well as all the pollution we were creating - had started to modify our biosphere. Or, to put it another way: we had started to change our climate.

There are now more than 7 billion of us on Earth. As our numbers continue to grow, we continue to increase our need for far more water, far more food, far more land, far more transport and far more energy. As a result, we are accelerating the rate at which we're changing our climate. In fact, our activities are not only completely interconnected with but now also interact with, the complex system we live on: Earth. It is important to understand how all this is connected.

Let's take one important, yet little known, aspect of increasing water use: "hidden water". Hidden water is water used to produce things we consume but typically do not think of as containing water. Such things include chicken, beef, cotton, cars, chocolate and mobile phones. For example: it takes around 3,000 litres of water to produce a burger. In 2012 around five billion burgers were consumed in the UK alone. That's 15 trillion litres of water - on burgers. Just in the UK. Something like 14 billion burgers were consumed in the United States in 2012. That's around 42 trillion litres of water. To produce burgers in the US. In one year. It takes around 9,000 litres of water to produce a chicken. In the UK alone we consumed around one billion chickens in 2012. It takes around 27,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of chocolate. That's roughly 2,700 litres of water per bar of chocolate. This should surely be something to think about while you're curled up on the sofa eating it in your pyjamas.

But I have bad news about pyjamas. Because I'm afraid your cotton pyjamas take 9,000 litres of water to produce. And it takes 100 litres of water to produce a cup of coffee. And that's before any water has actually been added to your coffee. We probably drank about 20 billion cups of coffee last year in the UK. And - irony of ironies - it takes something like four litres of water to produce a one-litre plastic bottle of water. Last year, in the UK alone, we bought, drank and threw away nine billion plastic water bottles. That is 36 billion litres of water, used completely unnecessarily. Water wasted to produce bottles - for water. And it takes around 72,000 litres of water to produce one of the 'chips' that typically powers your laptop, Sat Nav, phone, iPad and your car. There were over two billion such chips produced in 2012. That is at least 145 trillion litres of water. On semiconductor chips. In short, we're consuming water, like food, at a rate that is completely unsustainable.

Demand for land for food is going to double - at least - by 2050, and triple - at least - by the end of this century. This means that pressure to clear many of the world's remaining tropical rainforests for human use is going to intensify every decade, because this is predominantly the only available land that is left for expanding agriculture at scale. Unless Siberia thaws out before we finish deforestation. By 2050, 1bn hectares of land is likely to be cleared to meet rising food demands from a growing population. This is an area greater than the US. And accompanying this will be three gigatons per year extra CO ₂ emissions.If Siberia does thaw out before we finish our deforestation, it would result in a vast amount of new land being available for agriculture, as well as opening up a very rich source of minerals, metals, oil and gas. In the process this would almost certainly completely change global geopolitics. Siberia thawing would turn Russia into a remarkable economic and political force this century because of its newly uncovered mineral, agricultural and energy resources. It would also inevitably be accompanied by vast stores of methane - currently sealed under the Siberian permafrost tundra - being released, greatly accelerating our climate problem even further.

Meanwhile, another 3 billion people are going to need somewhere to live. By 2050, 70% of us are going to be living in cities. This century will see the rapid expansion of cities, as well as the emergence of entirely new cities that do not yet exist. It's worth mentioning that of the 19 Brazilian cities that have doubled in population in the past decade, 10 are in the Amazon. All this is going to use yet more land.

We currently have no known means of being able to feed 10 billion of us at our current rate of consumption and with our current agricultural system. Indeed, simply to feed ourselves in the next 40 years, we will need to produce more food than the entire agricultural output of the past 10,000 years combined. Yet food productivity is set to decline, possibly very sharply, over the coming decades due to: climate change; soil degradation and desertification - both of which are increasing rapidly in many parts of the world; and water stress. By the end of this century, large parts of the planet will not have any usable water.

At the same time, the global shipping and airline sectors are projected to continue to expand rapidly every year, transporting more of us, and more of the stuff we want to consume, around the planet year on year. That is going to cause enormous problems for us in terms of more CO ₂ emissions, more black carbon, and more pollution from mining and processing to make all this stuff.

But think about this. In transporting us and our stuff all over the planet, we are also creating a highly efficient network for the global spread of potentially catastrophic diseases. There was a global pandemic just 95 years ago - the Spanish flu pandemic, which is now estimated to have killed up to 100 million people. And that's before one of our more questionable innovations - the budget airline - was invented. The combination of millions of people travelling around the world every day, plus millions more people living in extremely close proximity to pigs and poultry - often in the same room, making a new virus jumping the species barrier more likely - means we are increasing, significantly, the probability of a new global pandemic. So no wonder then that epidemiologists increasingly agree that a new global pandemic is now a matter of "when" not "if".

We are going to have to triple - at least - energy production by the end of this century to meet expected demand. To meet that demand, we will need to build, roughly speaking, something like: 1,800 of the world's largest dams, or 23,000 nuclear power stations, 14m wind turbines, 36bn solar panels, or just keep going with predominantly oil, coal and gas - and build the 36,000 new power stations that means we will need.Our existing oil, coal and gas reserves alone are worth trillions of dollars. Are governments and the world's major oil, coal and gas companies - some of the most influential corporations on Earth - really going to decide to leave the money in the ground, as demand for energy increases relentlessly? I doubt it.

Meanwhile the emerging climate problem is on an entirely different scale. The problem is that we may well be heading towards a number of critical "tipping points" in the global climate system. There is a politically agreed global target - driven by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - to limit the global average temperature rise to 2C. The rationale for this target is that a rise above 2C carries a significant risk of catastrophic climate change that would almost certainly lead to irreversible planetary "tipping points", caused by events such as the melting of the Greenland ice shelf, the release of frozen methane deposits from Arctic tundra, or dieback of the Amazon. In fact, the first two are happening now - at below the 2C threshold.

As for the third, we're not waiting for climate change to do this: we're doing it right now through deforestation. And recent research shows that we look certain to be heading for a larger rise in global average temperatures than 2C - a far larger rise. It is now very likely that we are looking at a future global average rise of 4C - and we can't rule out a rise of 6C. This will be absolutely catastrophic. It will lead to runaway climate change, capable of tipping the planet into an entirely different state, rapidly. Earth will become a hellhole. In the decades along the way, we will witness unprecedented extremes in weather, fires, floods, heatwaves, loss of crops and forests, water stress and catastrophic sea-level rises. Large parts of Africa will become permanent disaster areas. The Amazon could be turned into savannah or even desert. And the entire agricultural system will be faced with an unprecedented threat.

More "fortunate" countries, such as the UK, the US and most of Europe, may well look like something approaching militarised countries, with heavily defended border controls designed to prevent millions of people from entering, people who are on the move because their own country is no longer habitable, or has insufficient water or food, or is experiencing conflict over increasingly scarce resources. These people will be "climate migrants". The term "climate migrants" is one we will increasingly have to get used to. Indeed, anyone who thinks that the emerging global state of affairs does not have great potential for civil and international conflict is deluding themselves. It is no coincidence that almost every scientific conference that I go to about climate change now has a new type of attendee: the military.

Every which way you look at it, a planet of 10 billion looks like a nightmare. What, then, are our options?

The only solution left to us is to change our behaviour, radically and globally, on every level. In short, we urgently need to consume less. A lot less. Radically less. And we need to conserve more. A lot more. To accomplish such a radical change in behaviour would also need radical government action. But as far as this kind of change is concerned, politicians are currently part of the problem, not part of the solution, because the decisions that need to be taken to implement significant behaviour change inevitably make politicians very unpopular - as they are all too aware.

So what politicians have opted for instead is failed diplomacy. For example: The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, whose job it has been for 20 years to ensure the stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere: Failed. The UN Convention to Combat Desertification, whose job it's been for 20 years to stop land degrading and becoming desert: Failed. The Convention on Biological Diversity, whose job it's been for 20 years to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss: Failed. Those are only three examples of failed global initiatives. The list is a depressingly long one. And the way governments justify this level of inaction is by exploiting public opinion and scientific uncertainty. It used to be a case of, "We need to wait for science to prove climate change is happening". This is now beyond doubt. So now it's, "We need to wait for scientists to be able to tell us what the impact will be and the costs". And, "We need to wait for public opinion to get behind action". But climate models will never be free from uncertainties. And as for public opinion, politicians feel remarkably free to ignore it when it suits them - wars, bankers' bonuses and healthcare reforms, to give just three examples.

What politicians and governments say about their commitment to tackling climate change is completely different from what they are doing about it.

What about business? In 2008 a group of highly respected economists and scientists led by Pavan Sukhdev, then a senior Deutsche Bank economist, conducted an authoritative economic analysis of the value of biodiversity. Their conclusion? The cost of the business activities of the world's 3,000 largest corporations in loss or damage to nature and the environment now stands at $2.2tn per year. And rising. These costs will have to be paid for in the future. By your children and your grandchildren. To quote Sukhdev: "The rules of business urgently need to be changed, so corporations compete on the basis of innovation, resource conservation and satisfaction of multiple stakeholder demands, rather than on the basis of who is most effective in influencing government regulation, avoiding taxes and obtaining subsidies for harmful activities to maximise the return for shareholders." Do I think that will happen? No. What about us?

I confess I used to find it amusing, but I am now sick of reading in the weekend papers about some celebrity saying, "I gave up my 4×4 and now I've bought a Prius. Aren't I doing my bit for the environment?" They are not doing their bit for the environment. But it's not their fault. The fact is that they - we - are not being well informed. And that's part of the problem. We're not getting the information we need. The scale and the nature of the problem is simply not being communicated to us. And when we are advised to do something, it barely makes a dent in the problem. Here are some of the changes we've been asked to make recently, by celebrities who like to pronounce on this sort of thing, and by governments, who should know better than to give out this kind of nonsense as 'solutions': Switch off your mobile phone charger; wee in the shower (my favourite); buy an electric car (no, don't); use two sheets of loo roll rather than three. All of these are token gestures that miss the fundamental fact that the scale and nature of the problems we face are immense, unprecedented and possibly unsolvable.

The behavioural changes that are required of us are so fundamental that no one wants to make them. What are they? We need to consume less. A lot less. Less food, less energy, less stuff. Fewer cars, electric cars, cotton T-shirts, laptops, mobile phone upgrades. Far fewer.And here it is worth pointing out that "we" refers to the people who live in the west and the north of the globe. There are currently almost 3 billion people in the world who urgently need to consume more: more water, more food, more energy. Saying "Don't have children" is utterly ridiculous. It contradicts every genetically coded piece of information we contain, and one of the most important (and fun) impulses we have. That said, the worst thing we can continue to do - globally - is have children at the current rate. If the current global rate of reproduction continues, by the end of this century there will not be 10 billion of us. According to the United Nations, Zambia's population is projected to increase by 941% by the end of this century. The population of Nigeria is projected to grow by 349% - to 730 million people.

Afghanistan by 242%.

Democratic Republic of Congo 213%.

Gambia by 242%.

Guatemala by 369%.

Iraq by 344%.

Kenya by 284%.

Liberia by 300%.

Malawi by 741%.

Mali by 408%.

Niger by 766%.

Somalia by 663%.

Uganda by 396%.

Yemen by 299%.

Even the United States' population is projected to grow by 54% by 2100, from 315 million in 2012 to 478 million. I do just want to point out that if the current global rate of reproduction continues, by the end of this century there will not be 10 billion of us - there will be 28 billion of us.

Where does this leave us? Let's look at it like this. If we discovered tomorrow that there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth and - because physics is a fairly simple science - we were able to calculate that it was going to hit Earth on 3 June 2072, and we knew that its impact was going to wipe out 70% of all life on Earth, governments worldwide would marshal the entire planet into unprecedented action. Every scientist, engineer, university and business would be enlisted: half to find a way of stopping it, the other half to find a way for our species to survive and rebuild if the first option proved unsuccessful. We are in almost precisely that situation now, except that there isn't a specific date and there isn't an asteroid. The problem is us. Why are we not doing more about the situation we're in - given the scale of the problem and the urgency needed - I simply cannot understand. We're spending €8bn at Cern to discover evidence of a particle called the Higgs boson, which may or may not eventually explain mass and provide a partial thumbs-up for the standard model of particle physics. And Cern's physicists are keen to tell us it is the biggest, most important experiment on Earth. It isn't. The biggest and most important experiment on Earth is the one we're all conducting, right now, on Earth itself. Only an idiot would deny that there is a limit to how many people our Earth can support. The question is, is it seven billion (our current population), 10 billion or 28 billion? I think we've already gone past it. Well past it.

Science is essentially organised scepticism. I spend my life trying to prove my work wrong or look for alternative explanations for my results. It's called the Popperian condition of falsifiability. I hope I'm wrong. But the science points to my not being wrong. We can rightly call the situation we're in an unprecedented emergency. We urgently need to do - and I mean actually do - something radical to avert a global catastrophe. But I don't think we will. I think we're fucked. I asked one of the most rational, brightest scientists I know - a scientist working in this area, a young scientist, a scientist in my lab - if there was just one thing he had to do about the situation we face, what would it be? His reply? "Teach my son how to use a gun."
This is an edited extract from Ten Billion, by Stephen Emmott (Penguin, £6.99) Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Humans - the real threat to life on Earth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earth is home to millions of species. Just one dominates it. Us. Our cleverness, our inventiveness and our activities have modified almost every part of our planet. In fact, we are having a profound impact on it. Indeed, our cleverness, our inventiveness and our activities are now the drivers of every global problem we face.

# data[].attributes.body
By Kim Shultz

No sticks and stones have touched my bones,
But words indeed have hurt me.
The taunts and jibes from Smith and Jones,
And those who would convert me.
Whisper the fiery wrath of hell,
And then speak of love sublime.
And how long would it take to tell
How those two things can combine?
Tell me my thought, my will is free
And then say I must obey.
Explain about eternity,
Which I must choose day by day.
The reasoning behind your speech
Is what I am questioning.
I don't deny the faith you preach,
Only the truth of the thing.
Faith is something I cannot share
Although I know I have tried.
But so long as logic is there,
Anything else would be a lie.

# data[].attributes.body
by Michael Pain

I see the hate and fear in your eyes
If only you would take a look and realize the lies that lie behind your eyes.
the holder of the scripture is the breeder of hate.
He fills you with the misinformation, falsification And fabrication.
you take the bait.
The hate spreads lIke a virus.
A neurological disease
I am now a demon to the world.
If only you would take A look and realize the lies that lie behind your faithful eyes.

# data[].attributes.body
by Michael Pain

I see the hate and fear in your eyes
If only you would take a look and realize the lies that lie behind your eyes.
the holder of the scripture is the breeder of hate.
He fills you with the misinformation, falsification And fabrication.
you take the bait.
The hate spreads lIke a virus.
A neurological disease
I am now a demon to the world.
If only you would take A look and realize the lies that lie behind your faithful eyes.

# data[].attributes.body
What is the meaning of belief to you personally?

# data[].attributes.body
Man's Corruption...  God's Redemption!The Bible speaks of man's sin and corruption. That's why God has offered us, his redemption!The heart is desperately wicked above all things.There's an evil corruption that sin brings!The Lord searches our heart and tests our ways.He watches our lives, all of our days!There's nothing good in ourselves.Not now, or ever!Without God's mercy...We're doomed forever!But, through Christ, there's a way and a plan!
He made this available to every woman and man!His gift of salvation is a message of love, made clear!The coming of Jesus Christ,draws ever so near!We can trade our sinful corruption, for a new way of living!Won't you come before the Lord,with a heart of giving?Giving our life to Jesus,is the best thing to do!
By his power and grace, you can be made BRAND NEW!I'm thankful for his salvation!
Mercy has been applied!
Because of Christ' death on the cross. I'm now sanctified!
By Jim Pemberton

# data[].attributes.body
am the hypocritical Christian. I say I follow Christ, But I'm still consumed by my demons. I go to church on Sunday, But I refuse to invite someone back. I want to serve on mission, But I'm too afraid to act. They think I read The Bible, But I just fall asleep in it. They think I'm positivity and smiles, But underneath I'm death and addictions. They think I'm clean and pure, But I'm broken and mistaken. I say I'm not worthy of His love, But Jesus will never let me be forsaken. I pray long prayers, But inside they're empty repetition. It might look as if my faith is strong, But my core is too easily shaken. I say the things I'm supposed to say, But don't follow His actions or obey. I speak the truth the church wants to hear, But deep inside on matters I don't know what to believe. I walk in shame as if I'm not good enough To be loved by God and saved through Christ, But there is nothing I could ever do to earn His peace; It's a free gift. I accept; Now forgiven, changed, and released. Thank You God, Thank You Jesus, Thank You Holy Spirit! In Jesus' Holy Name, We pray, Amen!Copyright © Kevin C. Martin | Year Posted 2013

# data[].attributes.body
Has judgement on others freedom of belief inflicted on more than just their feelings in a negative way?

Yes of course because weather people would like to admit it or not or rather if you'd like to admit it dose affect you if someone questions you on your thoughts, morals, culture, religion. If your even thinking about whatever someone said its already affecting you. Its taken your time just thinking about it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conformity

(Adapted from The Social Animal; Meyers; Michener et al.; Vander Zanden)

1. Definitions

Conformity = A change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure.

2. Types of conformity

A. Compliance. Publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing. This term best describes the behavior of a person who is motivated to gain reward or avoid punishment. On the level of compliance, many experimenters see little difference between animals and humans, because all organisms respond to rewards and punishments.

B. Identification. As with compliance, we do not behave in a particular way because such behavior is intrinsically satisfying. Rather, we adopt a particular behavior because it puts us in a satisfying relationship to the person or persons with whom we are identifying. We do come to believe in the opinions and values we adopt, though not very strongly. We want to be like some particular person.

EX: Want to be just like your father.

C. Internalization (or acceptance). Both acting and believing in accord with social pressure. This is the most permanent, deeply rooted response to social influence. Internalization is motivated by a desire to be right. If the person who provides the influence is perceived to be trustworthy and of good judgment, we accept the belief he or she advocates and we integrate it into our belief system.

D. Comparison of the three:

1. Compliance is the least enduring and has the least effect on the individual, because people comply merely to gain reward or to avoid punishment. Rewards and punishments are very important means to get people to learn and to perform specific activities but are limited as techniques of social influence because they must be ever present to be effective - unless the individual discovers some additional reason for continuing the behavior. (???)

2. Continuous reward or punishment is not necessary for identification. All that is needed is the individual's desire to be like that person. You will continue to hold beliefs similar to the SO as long as he remains important to you, he still holds the same beliefs, and those beliefs are not challenged by counter-opinions that are more convincing. If the SOs beliefs change or he becomes less important to you, your beliefs can change. They can also change if people who are more important to you express different beliefs. The effect of identification can also be dissipated by a desire to be right.

3. Internalization is the most permanent response to social influence because your motivation to be right is a powerful and self-sustaining force that does not depend on constant surveillance (as does compliance), or on your continued esteem for another person or group (as does identification).

4. In compliance, the important component is power -the power of the influencer to dole out rewards and punishments. In identification, the crucial component is attractiveness - the attractiveness of the person with whom we identify. Because we identify with the model, we want to hold the same opinions that the model holds. In internalization, the crucial component is credibility - the credibility of the person who supplies the information

5. Any of the three can determine behavior. In the Asch studies, it seems obvious the subjects were complying with the unanimous opinion of the group in order to avoid the punishment of ridicule or rejection. If either identification or internalization had been involved, the conforming behavior would have persisted in private (NOTE: Subjects gave different answers when responses were not public.)

6. Circumstances can increase the permanence of conformity produced by compliance or identification. While complying, we might discover something about our actions, or about the consequences of our actions, that makes it worthwhile to continue the behavior even after the original reason for compliance is no longer forthcoming. For example, people came to obey speeding laws even after enforcement was lessened because they liked the less hectic pace.

3. Classic studies

A. Sherif's studies of Norm formation. People looked at stationary light - and then formed a group consensus as to how far the light moved. Illustrated power of suggestibility. Later showed a suggestion could continue through five or more generations of participants.

Have real-life examples of the power of suggestibility - suicides and auto accidents go up after a prominent person commits suicide.

B. Asch's studies of group pressure. Asch believed intelligent people would not conform when they could readily see the truth for themselves. Showed people lines - a third of the time subjects were willing to go against their better judgment and agree with the group. About 75% went with the group at least once!

Asch found that three different kinds of reactions had contributed to the conformity.

1. Distortion of perception. A number of subjects said they were not aware their estimates had been distorted by the majority. They came to see the rigged majority estimates as correct.

2. Distortion of judgment. Most of the subjects who yielded to the majority concluded their own perceptions were inaccurate. Lacking confidence in their own observations, they reported not what they saw but what they felt must be correct.

3. Distortion of action. A number of subjects admitted that they had not reported what they had in fact seen. They said they had yielded so as not to appear different or stupid in the eyes of other group members.

Crutchfield did a similar study with military officers. 46% of the time they voted with the group!

C. Milgram's obedience experiments. In the above, there was no explicit pressure to conform. Milgram did his electric shock studies. (***Describe experiment - read p. 245 of Myers.) 63% went to the maximum shock level.

These studies show compliance can take precedence over one's own moral senses. Evil situations have enormous corrupting power. Fragmenting evil makes it even more effective.

We tend to make the fundamental attribution error when looking at such things - but Milgram said

"The most fundamental lesson of our study is that ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process."

4. Why conform?

A. Informational influence - Behavior of others might convince us that our original judgment was incorrect. The group's behavior provides valuable info about what is expected.

B. Wish to avoid punishment (such as rejection or ridicule) or gain rewards. We are concerned about our social image and outcomes.

C. Groups create barriers to independent behavior.

1. Risk of disapproval from other group members. By deviating too far, individuals risk rejection.

2. Lack of perceived alternatives. A member may not realize he has any other choice but conformity. (In Milgram experiments, subjects were told they had no other choice.)

3. Fear of disrupting the group's operations. People fear independence will hamper the attainment of group goals.

4. Absence of communication among group members. Lacking information that others might join in the nonconforming action, they avoid going out on a limb.

5. No feeling of responsibility for group outcomes. Members who conform may cause a group to fail to meet its objectives. They hesitate to take the initiative to turn the situation around, especially if they do not feel personally responsible for the group's success or failure.

6. A sense of powerlessness. If a person feels that he cannot change the situation, he is unlikely to try anything new. The apathy becomes self-fulfilling. No one tries anything different, and consequently, nothing improves.

5. What increases or decreases conformity?

A. Unanimity. Any puncturing of unanimity makes it easier to defy the group (even if the other defier is an idiot!). In fact, even if one other person gives an incorrect response that is different from the error the others are making (i.e. he says A, the group says B, and the right answer is C) conformity drops sharply. A fellow dissenter exerts a powerful freeing effect from the influence of the majority. Milgram found that when teacher/confederates disobeyed, only 10% of the subjects delivered the maximum shock.

B. Group size - but the group needn't be that big. Groups of 3 people are about as influential as groups of 16.

C. Cohesiveness. The more attracted individuals are to the group, the more likely they are to conform to its dictates.

D. Status (of the person who is being asked to obey). There are different theories about the effect of status on conformity. George C. Homans takes the view that both high and low status individuals conform less than those intermediate in status. He reasons that one deviation is unlikely to jeopardize the position of a high status person, and that low status people have little to lose by nonconformity. But for persons of intermediate status, the situation is different; they lack the standing of the high status person, and unlike the low status person, they have plenty of room for downward mobility. Some research confirms this, but other research does not.

Milgram found lower status types obeyed orders more readily. Conversely, higher status people, or those who feel they are more competent at the task in question, are more likely to resist group pressure.

E. Self esteem. Individuals who have a generally low opinion of themselves are far more likely to yield to group pressure than those with high self-esteem.

F. Culture. Norwegians conform more than the French. Japanese students are more willing to take a minority position than American Students.

E. Publicity and surveillance. The greater the publicity and surveillance associated with the behavior, the greater the conformity. Where behavior is difficult to monitor, the effectiveness of social sanctions is weakened. In public settings, we are likely to experience pressures for compliance although private acceptance may be absent.

F. Prior commitment. Once people have given an answer, they are much more likely to stick with it than when they hear others first. Those who state own opinions first are much less open to influence. Don't want to appear wishy-washy.

G. Emotional distance of the victim. Milgram found closer they physically were to the victim, less likely they were to obey. (e.g. sometimes the victim was in another room, sometimes in the same room, and sometimes the teacher actually had to press the victim's arm against the shocker). Vividly witnessing the suffering of others makes it more difficult to continue inflicting pain on them.

In another variation on this theme, the subject did not have to press the shock lever himself but was assigned the subsidiary role of helping another teacher. Over 90% of the subjects went to the maximum level. It seems that most were quite willing to participate in this situation as long as they were not the ones who inflicted the pain.

NOTE: Has relevance for the Kurt Waldheim situation, and others.

NOTE: This has real implications in the nuclear age, where you can kill people thousands of miles away. It is easy to be indifferent to the plight of innocent victims. Somebody suggested that, before the president could issue orders to use nuclear weapons, he should first have to kill the man holding the box - so that s/he is aware of the reality of death.

H. Legitimacy of authority. We have been conditioned to believe that scientists are responsible, benevolent people of high integrity. When an "assistant" took over in the Milgram experiments, compliance dropped to 20%. When studies were done in Bridgeport, Connecticut rather than at Yale, only 48% delivered the maximum shock.

A study of nurses found almost universal compliance with drs. orders, even when they were told to give overdoses.

I. Closeness of authority. When orders were given by telephone, the number of fully obedient subjects dropped to 25%.

J. Personality. Demonstrated effect has been very small. However, studies have tended to look at similar people in strong situations. Dissimilar people in weak situations may show more differences. i.e. put Mother Theresa and Charles Manson together in an everyday situation, and personality may play a more prominent role.

K. Difficulty and ambiguity. The more difficult the task or the more ambiguous the stimulus, the greater the conformity. Where the task is difficult, we are more likely to look to others as sources of information regarding appropriate courses of action.

L. Allocation of resources. Equitable sharing of resources heightens people's tendency to comply and requires less surveillance to produce compliance.

M. Guilt. When we commit a wrong, we feel guilty. We seek to atone by complying with another person's wishes. Guilty people seek out ways to lessen their guilt by voluntarily engaging in a good deed. However, a desire for restitution does not seem to be the reason why. A person who does harm may be even more inclined to help someone who is not the victim. Continued contact with the victim apparently results in uncomfortable feelings of obligation.

6. Resisting social pressure. Knowing that someone is trying to coerce us may even prompt us to react in the opposite direction.

A. When social pressure becomes so blatant that it threatens their sense of freedom, people often rebel. Reactance = A motive to protect or restore one's sense of freedom. Reactance is aroused when freedom of action is threatened. Can lead to social rebellion.

B. Asserting our uniqueness. People also feel discomfited by appearing like everyone else. When people are deprived of their feeling of uniqueness, they are more likely to assert their individuality by nonconformity.

7. Reactions to Deviance (non-conformity) within groups. Non-conformity represents a serious problem for the rest of the group. It disrupts normal operations and challenges the group's conception of reality. If allowed to continue, deviation may eventually cause a group to perform poorly or even to collapse. How, then, can groups deal with non-conforming behavior?

A. The group can try to restore conformity. Group members can speak to the deviant, remind him of the group's expectations, explain and justify these expectations, and urge him to comply.

If this doesn't work, the group can apply more pressure, including threats of direct punishment. Whether the deviant will be sanctioned, and how severely, depends on several things.

1. How much does the deviant's behavior interfere with important group goals? Behavior that prevents the group from attaining its goals - such as violating a central norm - will incite punishment that is both swift and severe.

2. The status of the deviant will affect the severity of the punishment, but the relationship is not simple and straightforward. One theory says that high-status persons are relatively free to violate minor norms provided they do not interfere with the attainment of the group's goals. At the same time, high-status persons are punished more severely than low-status persons if they breach important norms and thereby impede progress toward the group's goals.

To put it another way, groups are generally reluctant to label a high-status person as deviant. When the consequences of the deviation are minor, they prefer to overlook the matter. If the deviant act blocks attainment of the group's goal, the members have little choice: they must label the high-status member a deviant and apply severe sanctions. This phenomenon is known as status liability - high-status members are more liable than low-status members for major offenses.

B. The group can reject the deviant. If majority members in a group lack the capability or the inclination to apply pressure to a deviant, they have another option available to them: they can reject the deviant. Reject can assume various forms.

1. The member can be expelled

2. The group may not invite the deviant back to the next meeting.

3. Psychological isolation - The majority will ignore the deviant and refuse to interact with him even though he is physically present.

Rejection and sanctioning often occur at the same time. Rejection of the deviate is a means of reestablishing equilibrium within the group because it "purifies" the membership. After the deviant is ostracized, only the conforming members remain.

C. The group can change its own position and move into line with the deviant's. A small minority will sometimes sway, and then even become, the majority. Even when the majority does not accept the minority's views, dissent often increases the majority's self-doubts and prompts it to consider other alternatives more seriously. Galileo, Lincoln, Freud all advanced minority positions and eventually induced the majority to adopt their beliefs.

Deviant behavior is a potential threat to the group's effectiveness. Sometimes, however, an individual will engage in independent behavior not because he wishes to disrupt the group or pursue selfish objectives, but because he wants to change the rules or the procedures used by the group in pursuing its goals. In spite of the dissident's good intentions, the group may prefer to leave well enough alone, and will attempt to suppress the proposed changes.

Question: When is independent behavior likely to produce changes rather than meet with suppression by the majority?

Answer: Have to distinguish between group norms, and the goals that underlie those norms. If a member's behavior departs from group norms, but points to new ways to more fully realize the group's goals, the changes may be accepted by group members.. If a member tries to force a change in the group goals, he or she will likely meet with resistance. Only if a group has drifted aimlessly or has failed repeatedly to achieve its goals will an effort to change goals be favorably received.

Innovative suggestions are more likely to be adopted if they are proposed by a well-established or high-status member. One study suggests that leaders are more able to introduce changes after they have first demonstrated commitment to the group's norms and values. High-status members are more successful because they are usually considered more skillful and are more committed to group goals than other members.

Deliberate attempts to bring about social change are made not only by individuals, but also by small subgroups called active minorities. The majority can often dismiss the disagreement of alone minority member as the product of that person's idiosyncracy, but it is harder to discount two or more minority members who support one another.

What makes a minority persuasive? The style of behavior adopted by the active minority is important in determining its success.

1. Consistency. Several studies have shown that an active minority is more likely to change the opinion of group members if its position is distinctive and consistent over time. Whereas majorities can often gain compliance regardless of member's underlying attitudes, active minorities must truly persuade group members. A consistent position is persuasive because it implies that the minority is clearheaded, confident, and purposive. A consistent minority causes the majority to rethink its positions. It can also stimulate creative thinking. Consistent minority becomes the focus of debate.

EX: Moscovici argued that the Asch experiments actually illustrated minority influence. The subject was a representative of the majority - perceptual competents. The other six were from the minority of perceptual incompetents. This minority was influential because of its consistency.

EX: Conservative Republicans were badly beaten in 1964. In 1980, they won with Ronald Reagan. This may be because of their consistency. Democrats may be suffering because of their inconsistency.

2. Self confidence. Any behavior by a minority that conveys self-confidence - for example, taking the head seat at the table - will tend to raise self-doubts among the majority. Self confidence tends also to be a trait of leaders. Charismatic leaders tend to have an unshakable faith in their cause, utter confidence in their ability to succeed, and an ability to communicate this faith in clear and simple language.

3. Defections from the majority. Members of the majority who might otherwise have censored their self-doubts feel freer to express them, and may even switch to the minority position. Defectors are often more persuasive than those who have been with the minority position all along. Defections can often lead to a snowball effect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conformity (Adapted from The Social Animal; Meyers; Michener et al.; Vander Zanden) 1. Definitions Conformity = A change in behavior or belief as a result of real or imagined group pressure. 2. Types of conformity A. Compliance. Publicly acting in accord with social pressure while privately disagreeing.

# data[].attributes.body
When you know you believe in something or discover you do you either put your time and effort into or its just on the side. My belief is that everyone has there own belief whether they would like to admit it or not. Even I believe that athiist technicly BELIEVE there is  no god but just because theres no god dosnt mean they dont have beliefss

# data[].attributes.body
Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you don't believe in something.

# data[].attributes.body
Top 16 sighns iof belief

# data[].attributes.body
“One of the great tragedies of life is not the failure to live a more epic story; it’s the failure to realize the story we are already living.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
God has not abandoned you, and He has not neglected any part of your story. Just look a little closer and you will see.

Before you start reading, please consider supporting our magazine. We are a nonprofit and depend on donations to continue advocating mental health and offering support.

Editor's Note: We are a non-religious magazine. However, we acknowledge that spirituality is important to many. Our Faith column is a place to discuss how faith (of any kind) positively affects mental health and how to improve the conversation around mental health within faith communities.
"One of the great tragedies of life is not the failure to live a more epic story; it's the failure to realize the story we are already living."
These words came from my pastor this past Sunday. After a week of having my story attacked, misrepresented, and misinterpreted, to show up at church and find out we were talking about our stories was more than just a coincidence.

We talk a lot about stories here at Libero - our entire organization was built on them. Sometimes, though, I think my pastor is right; we often fail to realize the story we are already living.

My story is filled with hurt, trials, and confusion - but it is also filled with joy, healing, and hope. And I know I am not the only one with a story like this - I believe if we look hard enough, or even simply change our perspective, we all can see our stories made up of these things.

Are you enjoying this article?

We are a nonprofit magazine. This means we depend on the generosity of others to keep our magazine running. If you are enjoying this article, would you consider making a donation?

I used to hate my story.

I blamed God for all the hardship, yet never gave Him credit for any of the good times.

The good times, I believed, were all due to "chance" or my own determination. But the bad stuff, no, that was all God. I wanted to have it both ways: to both be in control of my life and be at the mercy of a higher power - depending which suited best at the time.

But now my perspective has changed.

I know there are people out there - and possibly even reading this - who don't believe in a Higher Power, who don't believe there has been a hand in my life or in theirs. And that is fair. I don't expect everyone to share my belief system.

But here's the thing: I know what I know, and to me this is truth.

As Anne Lamott says (did you really think I'd make it through a post like this without quoting Anne?!) in my favourite quote of all time:

"It is, finally, so wonderful to have learned to eat, to taste and love what slips down my throat, padding me, filling me up, that I'm not uncomfortable calling it a small miracle. A friend who does not believe in God says, "Maybe not a miracle, but a little improvement," but to that I say Listen! You must not have heard me right; I couldn't feed myself! So thanks for your input, but I know where I was, and I know where I am now, and you just can't get here from there....So it was either a miracle...or maybe it was more of a gift, one that required some assembly." (from Travelling Mercies)

That is how I feel about my life and story. The fact I am sitting here right now alive and eating a cookie is nothing less than miraculous, because I know where I was. My story is a miracle, it is a gift. It required some assembly, including my willingness to receive the gift and utilize it, but through the whole thing, I am a testiment to God's love and how He works in our lives.

God has not abandoned you, and He has not neglected any part of your story. Just look a little closer and you will see.

I believe just as He has and continues to work in my story, so does He in yours.

In our bulletin on Sunday there was a piece of paper with "Figure out Your Story" written at the top and three steps. I am going to challenge you - as my Pastor challenged us - to go through these steps, and hopefully you will begin to see things from a different perspective.

Step 1:

Write down the Top 10 most influential things that have happened in your life. You can use bullet points, draw a life map, journal until your hand is sore - whatever works best for you.

Step 2:

Take some time to think about your top 10 list and see if you can spot any threads, trends, or patterns that show how God has been at work in the midst of your story.

Step 3:

Maybe you'd like to share your story with us. If you would, head on over to our Submissions page and share your journey on our Community Blog. Feel free to include how God has worked in your story to bring you towards freedom. And we would love for you to attach a " Free from" photo along with your story, too!

I hope you find this exercise helpful, and I hope some of you choose to share your story - with us, with your church or small group, or close friends - to encourage others to search for God's hand in their lives as well.

I want to leave you with this quote - it is from an amazing book I am currently reading by Gerald May called "The Awakened Heart":
"Later, we can look back upon our gropings and recognize how the way did open and recognize the presence of a guiding hand that we did not see at the time. This is true for all of life. You could stop now and reflect upon your own life history. What is responsible for brining you to where you are today? How much of your life's journey has been the result of your intentional self-determination? How much has been beyond your control? Then, putting it all together, what is it that has seen you through? We are looking at neither determinism nor autonomy here, but a mysterious graceful presence that is deeper than companionship and far more tender than command."
Tweet this post:

Before you go... If you found this article helpful, please support our our magazine. We are a nonprofit and depend on donations in order to continue providing resources and support for mental health. You can donate using this form:

Donate to Libero Magazine

Want to share your story or submit an article to our site?

We would love to have you share your story or your mental health experiences or tips with the Libero community! For more information on submitting, please visit: liberomagazine.com/submit

Are you a blogger?

Join our Bloggers Network and have your content shared on our site for the Libero community! Find out more at liberomagazine.com/bloggers

Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views, beliefs, or opinions of Libero Network Society. In addition, any advice, tips, or recommendations made within this article should only be followed after consultation with a medical professional and/or your recovery team. Libero Network Society holds no liability for any potential harm, danger, or otherwise damage that may be caused by choosing to follow content from this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
God has not Abandoned Your Story | Libero Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
God has not abandoned you, and He has not neglected any part of your story. Just look a little closer and you will see. I believe just as He has and continues to work in my story, so does He in yours.

# data[].attributes.body
"When you reach the pinnacle of success."

# data[].attributes.body
The word “religion,” meaning to bind fast, comes from the Western Latin word religare.

# data[].attributes.body
Defending and respecting others freedom of diversity in there beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
POST BY Kary L. Moss Executive Director

Over the years, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has been called many names, but nothing brings out the taunting more than the holiday season.

Beginning in about mid-October, we receive our first holiday card of the season calling us, among many things, Godless. The truth is the ACLU is neither Godless nor God-full. Our point of view is that religious belief-or the choice not to believe-is among the most personal and private decisions an individual can make.

The Founders of this country correctly believed the right of each and every American to practice his or her religion- or no religion at all- is one of the most cherished freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, our victories for religious freedom are overshadowed by well-organized attempts to demonize the ACLU and curtail religious diversity by sounding the alarm bells on the purported "war on Christmas."

Take, for instance, the Web site WorldNetDaily, which has suggested that the ACLU is actively working to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains and delete all references to God in America's founding documents.

Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts aren't important to these groups. If they were, they would learn that the ACLU defends the rights of Christians, the rights of other religious people and nonbelievers alike.

Yet for true religious liberty to flourish, everyone must be free to worship without government interference.

For instance, Christmas displays-including nativity scenes-are perfectly acceptable at homes, churches and even, in some cases, on city property.

The courts have upheld Birmingham's display, in which the city government has created a public forum in its downtown park where individuals may place displays of their choice-both religious and secular-during the holiday season.

In addition, the federal courts have ruled that religious displays are permissible on government property so long as, when viewed as a whole, a reasonable observer would view the display as having a secular purpose, not a religious purpose.

Without question, freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that needs to be protected for individuals, families and communities. The government should not be in the business of deciding whose sacred texts and symbols should be placed on government property and whose should be rejected-or how they should practice their faith

That is why the ACLU of Michigan is proud to count among its clients Joseph Hanas, an observant Catholic from Genesee County who was sent to jail for asking a drug court judge to remove him from a drug rehabilitation program that coerced him into practicing the Pentecostal faith. He was forced to read the Bible for seven hours a day and was tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff also told him that Catholicism was a form of witchcraft and they confiscated both his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book.

After seven weeks, Hanas requested placement in a secular drug treatment program. The judge refused his request and sentenced him to boot camp and jail. It was only after his release from boot camp that he finally received drug treatment at a secular residential rehabilitation program.

Just a few weeks ago, a federal judge in Detroit agreed with us and ruled that Hanas' constitutional rights were violated.

After all, to advance religious liberty, our nation's Founders intended for government to remain neutral in matters of religion. It is precisely because the government stays out of religion that we have religious freedom in this country.
This Op-Ed originally appeared in the Wednesday, December 19, 2007 issue of the Detroit News. By Kary L. Moss, Executive Director, ACLU of Michigan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Religion Includes Defending Diversity of Beliefs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
POST BY Kary L. Moss Executive Director Over the years, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has been called many names, but nothing brings out the taunting more than the holiday season. Beginning in about mid-October, we receive our first holiday card of the season calling us, among many things, Godless.

# data[].attributes.headline
On a global level, Everyone sholud have the freedom of dibversity in their beliefs free of judgement.

# data[].attributes.subject
On a global level, Everyone sholud have the freedom of dibversity in their beliefs free of judgement.

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone should have the freedom of diversity in whatever they believe in. Without this freedom its difficult to acquire or defend.  As freedom of expression is a foundation for religious and political activities, it is often exercised in concert with the right to freedom of thought and assembly.

# data[].attributes.body
On a global level, Everyone should have the freedom of diversity in their beliefs free of judgement.