Before I joined Facebook, I had read that Facebook was the so-called "Hottest" piece of Internet real estate. What wasn't clear was to what end. It appears that the Web 2.0 crowd of self-styled "geeks" or "nerds" (no offense intended) were stating their view that Facebook is "hot" because it has gained so many members and is so "great" for all the mundane, entertaining things one may do on Facebook to "pass the time," something I haven't done since I grew up. I didn't say, "I'm bored" very often anyway, not that there weren't boring aspects. The Freemasonry educational system bored me stiff. It's designed to hold back that which would solve everything because the solution includes taking down the whole Freemasonry way of approaching existence.
The numbers on Facebook are impressive; however, due to its starting point of exclusivity (privacy settings to act as bedroom walls) and for a very narrow age-range, it is still difficult to interact with a wider audience here.
I think discussions are relegated to the side partly because they are several clicks deep unless one bookmarks them or takes other such personal steps. They don't get a main-menu item. I would have them be main-menu. BlogCatalog is an example, but the action there is for bloggers only. Facebook could do the same but be open to all. The discussions are in the stream on groups, but once they move off screen, they are in an in-prominent block. The discussion icons are small, etc. It just doesn't encourage discussions. Groups must be sought out; and were categories have more than around 500 groups, the newer, smaller ones don't show up. Search results just stop after 500 or so.
I don't know if this will interest you or exactly what impact it will have, but I set my Facebook privacy settings to very nearly zero privacy. By doing that, I should be able to assume that my Facebook area will be as open as my blog to read, with the exception that my blog is entirely do-follow, whereas Facebook is no-follow in many areas (for whatever reason, I can't agree that it's helpful).
Of course, you are right that there is a huge crowd that simply says, we aren't interested in what interests you even if that's the solution. They feel put upon when others suggest more than what's mainstreamed as the typical charity that does its damnedest not to "offend" anyone, especially the capitalist, corporate, global overlords perpetuating the "need" for "charity."
"Oh, please help feed the starving," but don't overthrow, by any means, no matter how righteous, the Wall Street monsters who are the cause of starvation since humanity certainly has it within its capacity under current conditions to care for every single person in the family of human kind no matter the local "natural" circumstances such as drought, etc.
Who cares though enough to do the right thing? What I get back is pretty much, "Why do we have to do what you say?" We can't all be like you, etc. You want a Church of Saints, and on and on.
This is why there is separation and this life is a sieve. It's a level of Heaven/Hell. Some are going up even after having gone down. Others are going down even after having gone up and for different reasons. Some want to go down not to tell others there to come up but rather to wallow in the mire.
Which analogy helps people to visualize it? Staircases are often used. Ladders have been used. Escalators might be more apt for this generation. Being taken up in whirlwinds and beams of light have been used. Where the literal and figurative meets is hotly debated in "religious" circles.
Who's seeking what? I don't want to return to the mindset of the "Founding Fathers" that prevailed during and after the American Revolutionary War. They were very backbiting and often up to not but no good: self centeredness. There wasn't harmony. There wasn't unity. The common people were forced. They had little say. History makes that clear.
Large-L Liberal (so-called Enlightenment Era, classical), limited, representational, divided, checks and balances, republican, competitive government hasn't worked and won't. It's a mess. It's a very, very poor design. The minds that formed the American system were not nearly as intelligent as those "founders" claimed who managed to fake out posterity through the mini-ages so far. Just look at the memorials in Washington, D.C., (named after the highest ranking Freemason in history) to those "demigods." Please, they were selfish, and their system has allowed what has transpired: foreclosures on old widows, children living in storage units, soup kitchens running out daily, while the spiritual sons of Alexander Hamilton primarily but also Thomas Jefferson give themselves the largest bonuses in their history after having stolen once again the rightful inheritance of all the rest of humanity and after having reduced more and more of our brothers and sisters to debt and tax slavery.
All this talk about if only we could get back to the U.S. Constitution is a complete waste. It should be scrapped. It is not the answer. The answer is The Christian Commons.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)