Reply Form - College Of Design: Fill & Download for Free

glossolalia language researchBasically, get a copy of scripture in a language that is not likely to be known in your area. Play it for all those who claim the gift of interpretation. You will not find a single person who gets the interpretation correct. This is a linguistic fact."In almost all instances, linguists are confident that the samples of T-speech represent no known natural language and in fact no language that was ever spoken or ever will be spoken by human beings as their native tongue. The phonological structure is untypical of natural languages. Some samples of T-speech, however, are more complex and cannot be clearly distinguished from a natural language on these grounds.15" age 372“Glossolalia: Analyses of Selected Aspects of Phonology and Morphology,” M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1967, p. 95" (Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-Speaking: Their Contributions and Limitationsby Vern S. Poythress[Published in the Westminster Theological Journal 42/2 (1980) 367-388. Reprinted in Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Watson E. Mills. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Pp. 469-489.)Just google: Glossolalia in Contemporary Linguistic Study or google Samarin, TonguesThe highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl (The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues) concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired glossolalic utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired." In fact, glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior." (Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements by Spittler, P. 340).Experts in the field of linguistics have diligently studied the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of many years. One of the early investigations was made in the early 1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language. Another early study, that of W.A. Wolfram in the year 1966, also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of human language as a system of coherent communication.In a massive study of glossolalia from a linguistic perspective by Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a "pseudo-language." He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, engaged in a study of various English - Spanish - and Mayan-speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and Mexico. She compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as well. She published her results in 1972 in an extensive monograph (Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia by Felecitas D. Goodman, University of Chicago Press, 1972).Goodman concludes that "when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration--that is, the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation)-- she concluded that there is no distinction in glossolalia between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. The "association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption," writes Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopedia of Religion (1987).Goodman also concludes that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behavior, learned either unawarely or, sometimes consciously." Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to "speak in tongues," ie. how to engage in glossolalia.In fact, it has been found that the "speaking in tongues" practiced in Christian churches and by individual Christians is identical to the chanting language of those who practice voodoo on the darkest continents of this world.Let us briefly examine the results of eight linguists:Eugene A. Nida, Secretary of Translations for the American Bible Society and world renowned expert in linguistics, concluded from his studies that the phonemic strata indicates that the phonomes of glossolalic utterances are closely associated with the language background of the speaker's native language.7Felicitas D. Goodman made phonetic analysis of glossolalia from recordings she taped for her Master's Degree in Mexico and different sections of the United States. She concludes that the glossolalia she analyzed was not productive and noncommunicative.8James Jaquith from Washington University in his research among English speaking tongue-speakers concludes that "There is no evidence that these glossolalic utterances have been generated by constituent subcodes of any natural language other than English."9Ernest Bryant and Daniel O'Connell of St. Louis University studied nine tapes of glossolalia taken from among their respondents. The results of their studies proved that "all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of the native speaker of English."10 He says, "If a foreign language system were used a much greater divergence of phonemes would be expected, but the opposite is the case."Dr. Donald Larson of Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota, began analyzing glossolalic samples in Toronto, Canada, in 1957. Since then he has analyzed many samples and observed glossolalic behavior in different parts of the world. His research also concludes that the phonological features of the native speaker's language carried over into his glossolalia experience.11In a letter to Dr, William Welmers of U.C.L.A., I asked him, "In your studies of modern glossolalia have you detected any known language?" His reply was, "In short, absolutely not." He goes on to say that "Glossolalic utterances are consistently in important respects unlike human languages. They are characterized by a great deal of recurrences of closely similar sequences of syllables and usually employ a restricted number of different sounds." Dr. Welmers said that the same thing is true of hundreds of other utterances studied by Christian linguistics of his acquaintance.12Dr. Samarin, by far the most thorough, says, "There is no mystery about glossolalia. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and to analyze. They always turn out to be the same things: strings of syllables made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like or sentence-like units.13F. Goodman, "Phonetic Analysis of Glossolalia in Four Cultural Settings," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (1969), Pages 227 to 239.F. Goodman, "Speaking in Tongues. A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia," University of Chicago Press, (1972).W. Samarin, "Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism," Macmillan (1972).W. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, (1972), 1:121-130.W. Samarin, "Glossolalia as Regressive Speech," Language and Speech (1973), 16:77-89.W. Samarin, "Review of Goodman (1972)," Language (1974), 5:207-213.D. J. Janes, "Glossolalia: The Gift of Gibberish," available at the Institute for First Amendment StudiesJ.G. Melton, Ed., "The Encyclopedia of American Religions," Volume 1, Triumph Books, Tarrytown, NY, (1991), Page 41 to 47.Jussi Karlgren, "Speaking in tongues," The Linguist List, #6.385. A compilation of responses by linguists to a question on the structure of Glossolalia.Jeff Wehr, "Speaking in Tongues," Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 11, #11, 1996-NOV-11.Steve Paulson, "Divining the Brain," Templeton-Cambridge Journalism, 2006-SEP-20,Andrew Newberg, Nancy Wintering, Donna Morgan, and Mark Waldman, "The Measurement of Regional Cerebral Blood Flow During Glossolalia: a Preliminary SPECT Study." Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging for 2006-NOV. This is the official publication of the International Society for Neuroimaging in Psychiatry."Language Center of the Brain Is Not Under the Control of Subjects Who 'Speak in Tongues'," University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 2006-OCT-30,Kildahl (1975) points out that:"There are no reported instances of a glossolalist speaking a language which was then literally translated by an expert in that language…"Malony & Lovekin (1985:5) conclude:"Although tongue speakers often claim that their new language is French or Italian or Spanish, and so on – languages they never knew before – scientific studies to date have not confirmed their claims."T. H. Spoerril has described this speech as "unsemantical conglomerations of sounds" and "as sound externalized without sense which sometimes produces the impression of coherent speech." The terms "unintelligible," "meaningless," and "jibberish" have also been applied to the entities representing this type of speech.Boisen, A. T. Religion in Crisis and Custom: A sociological and Psychological study. New York, Harper, 1955.On Youtube: Creationist Study, Disproves Glossolalia As Language.Why did Jesus forbid prayer with babbling/long repetitions if he was going to give it as a special gift?“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition (battalogeó/battalogēsēte) as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.” (Mat 6:7)If modern tongues are the same as those in Acts, why is there no verifiable xenoglossy?“devout men from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) around the first tongue speakers clearly stated “we hear them in our own tongues” (Acts 2:11).If glossolalia is a real language, why are different interpretations given for the same phrase?“Interpretations do in fact take place, but they are usually pious exhortations in the language of the group where the glossic utterances are made. They are often strikingly longer or shorter than the glossic utterance.” (1)“I have heard the same glossolalic phrases repeated by the same glossolalist in different services, but each time the identical glossolalic utterances are given a different translation.“ (4)“the interpreters gave different meanings to identical words in the same set of words. When confronted with this inconsistency, the interpreters simply said, ‘God gave different interpretations.'” (14, 23)Why is Priming the Pump needed in Pentecostal training? I once visited Happy Church in Denver, CO. They hearded non-tongue speakers into a room and said, repeat after me. I asked what this this all about and they called it priming the pump.I have met many people who have had the same thing happen to them in different churches in different cities."A variety of linguistic analyses of glossolalia (the religious phenomenon of “speaking in tongues”) were performed to determine both the extent to which glossolalia is language‐like and the extent to which it is linguistically dependent upon the glossolalist's native language. The results indicate the glossolalia is, in more ways than not, both language‐like and unlike the speaker's native language. These results are contrary both to earlier studies of glossolalia and to the predictions of current psycholinguistic theory. The implication is that glossolalia manifests a unique sort of speech encoding which cannot now be, but must eventually be, accounted for by psycholinguistic theory."(A linguistic analysis of glossolalia: Evidence of unique psycholinguistic processingMichael T. Motley)1 Timothy 6:20,“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings…”1 Corinthians 14:19-20 “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.”google Glossolalia Project for more research.Glossolalia and Linguistic Alterity: The Ontology of Ineffable SpeechEvandro BonfimA linguistic analysis of a corpus of glossolaliaSpeer, Blanche Corder, 1922-Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004 pp. 171–184Glossolalia and Altered States of Consciousnessin two New Zealand Religious Movements"AbstractIn nine tape-recorded samples of glossolalia, there is a remarkably low correlation with English samples from the same Ss, ascribable primarily to variation in vowel frequency. Nonetheless, all glossolalic phonemes are within the normal phonemic repertoire of native speakers of English. There is a divergence of syllables per pause rates between glossolalia and English. Optional articulatory choices characteristic of glossolalic samples can evidently be studied by means of accepted scientific procedures independently of theological or religious explication."(A phonemic analysis of nine samples of glossolalic speechErnest BryantDaniel O’Connell)5 There were many religious Jews staying in Jerusalem. They were from every country of the world. 6 When they heard this strange sound, they gathered together. They all listened! It was hard for them to believe they were hearing words in their own language. 7 They were surprised and wondered about it. They said to each other, “Are not these Galileans who are speaking? 8 How is it that each one of us can hear his own language? 9 We are Parthians and Medes, Elamites and from the countries of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and in the countries of Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene. Some have come from the city of Rome. Some are Jews by birth and others have become Jews. 11 Some are also men of the countries of Crete and Arabia. They are speaking of the powerful works of God to all of us in our own language!”(Acts 2)Tongues: Intelligible LanguageIn an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.Unintelligible Tongues Are UnlovingIn chapter 14 of the first Corinthian letter, one of Paul’s major points of emphasis is this. If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message, such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in a tongue, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message.The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing here suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case.Angels Always Spoke UnderstandablyThere are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds. As one scholar astutely observed:With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are less the words of ecstasy than theirs (Sadler, 217).Angel’s Tongues: HyperbolePaul’s appeal to “angels” in 13:1 is a form of hyperbole (an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake) that is designed to accentuate his argument.Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.When all the data is considered, there is no basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the notion that there is a heavenly, ecstatic “glossolalia” that some saints are able to access, whereby they speak to God alone.REFERENCESM. F. Sadler. 1906. The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. George Bell and Sons: London, England.SCRIPTURE REFERENCES1 Corinthians 13:1; Galatians 1:8CITE THIS ARTICLEJackson, Wayne. "What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?" ChristianCourier.com | Church of Christ magazine investigating religious doctrine, Christian evidences, and ethical issues.. Access date: November 29, 2016. What Are the "Tongues of Angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1?Mark 16:17These special powerful works will be done by those who have put their trust in Me. In My name they will put out demons. They will speak with languages they have never learned.1 Corinthians 14:10There are many languages in the world. All of them have meaning to the people who understand them.That's not the way I see it when you look at the verse in context. 1 Cor 13:1-3 consists of 5 parallel statements to emphasize the worthlessness of having spiritual gifts without love. Paul is pointing out that even if someone possessed spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. Each of them is a IF statement, where he presents 5 extreme hypothetical examples to make his point:"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."Even if someone had the gift of tongues to such a degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them."If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;...but do not have love, I am nothing."Even if someone had the gift of prophecy to such a degree that they knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie was omniscient), but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them."and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."Even if someone had the gift of faith to such a degree that they could remove mountains, but didn't have love, it would be a worthless to them."And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, ...but do not have love, it profits me nothing."Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave ALL their possessions to the poor, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them."and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing."Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave their own life, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.None of these extreme hypothetical examples represents the normal operations of those gifts, including speaking with the tongues of angels. The statements are clearly presented as parallels, so you cannot say one is to be taken as being the normal operation, while the others are not.Notice that in each case Paul prefaces the hypothetical with the the normal operation of the gift: "If I speak with the tongues of men...", "If I have the gift of prophecy...", "if I have all faith...", "if I give...". So the normal operation of the gift of tongues is to speak in the tongues of men (not the hypothetical tongues of angels).On Romans 8:26 it clearly says the human tongue is unable to speak what the Holy Spirit is groaning, thus it is NOT speaking in languages.Romans 8:26-27King James Version (KJV)26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.Matthew 6:7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.But, in studying tongues by recording it and having a computer analysis of the recordings, all tongue speakers are doing is repetitions of sounds, not a language of any kind.Why does not two people give the same interpretation of the same recorded tongues example? Why does the interpretation vary so much in length of the recording?computer research on repetition of sounds, not language.GoogleSamarin analyzes the speech of tongue-speakers in the samemanner that a linguist analyzes a foreign language. He makes aphonetic and semantic inventory, and describes its prosodic andparalinguistic features. The discourse "is divided into units ofspeech . . . through accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses" (p.78). "The breathgroup itself can often be divided into subgroupsthrough phonological features" (p. 79). It consists of syllablesmade up of consonants and vowels taken from the speaker'snative language or a foreign language known to him, with muchrepetition, alliteration, and rhyme. However, the "syllable stringdoes not fall into words" (p. 81), even though one gets the feelingthat "words are almost emerging" (p. 82).In comparing glossolalia to real language Samarin shows howthe two differ in form and function. In form, real language is a ...(A Linguistic Analysis ofGlossolalia ...................................... Theodore Mueller 185)I have a big case which anyone can duplicate.Simply record various samples of "tongues" have various people with the gift of interpretation translate them and ask translators to translate them.On several occasions, I took recordings of languages likely not known in the English speaking world of works that have been translated and asked them to translate them --- to date, not a single person has gotten it even close within right. God allows and honors fleeces. He is also, not the god of chaos. Everyone at Pentecost heard them speaking in their own languages which tells me God gives us known real languages, not noise.Paul uses the illustration of music to say the languages from him have meaning otherwise, no one would heed the sound of attack.Data from recent neuroimaging studies on stuttering give us insights into the possible bases of these fluency-inducing conditions in stuttering speakers. The main brain regions that work together to make fluent speech production possible include areas in the frontal cortex of the brain, which controls movement planning and execution, and auditory sensory regions located farther back, in the temporoparietal cortex. Regions deeper within the brain, including the basal ganglia, thalamus, and cerebellum, also support speech movements by providing internal timing and sequencing cues. It is in these brain regions and their connections that researchers have found brain function and anatomy differences between stuttering speakers and fluent speakers.Using Brain Imaging to Unravel the Mysteries of Stuttering | Dana FoundationYes, because the tongue speaking thing was common in some of the mystery cults that Jesus was speaking against at the time.Too often we regard speaking in tongues as a purely Christian phenomenon, but it was known in the ancient ecstatic religions; and Aristophanes in Frogs mentions ’the tongue of Bacchos’ (357). While a heathen might babble without consciousness of what he was saying, there is no indication that speaking a known language without prior instruction was practiced outside of a Christian context.Pandemonium and Silence at CorinthThe most ancient evidence that we have is from the report of Winamon, a young man who was the worshipper of the Egyptian God Amon. The report which is dated approximately 1100 BC says that as he was worshipping Amon in the temple he was overwhelmed in a state of frenzy which continued throughout the night and he spoke in some ecstatic language. We don’t know if it was a legitimate language or just religious frenzy, gibberish, but it is clear that the tongues was the direct result of this kind of possession and control by a god, although it just could have been brought on by emotion which is true in a lot of cases.Plato also reports religious ecstatics in roughly the 5th century BC. In the accounts we can observe that in each instance reported by Plato the speaker had no control over his mental faculties, he did not know what he was saying, there was the need for some sort of interpreter or diviner who would tell what was said, and the person was allegedly under the control of a god.Virgil, writing about 17-19 BC, mentions a Sibyline priestess who would go into an ecstatic state where she was unified with the spirit of Apollo, and she would begin to speak in tongues, in ecstatic utterance. They claimed that it was known language. This is in pagan Greek worship of Apollo that she was probably possessed by a demon and spoke in a legitimate or a known language as well as in incoherent gibberish. Tongues in PaganismTongues and the Mystery Religions of CorinthH. Wayne House Tongues and the Mystery Religions of CorinthWhy do tongue speakers always uses phonemes of his or her native language?'interpretation' and 'translation go hand in hand. One can not translate until they have interpreted the text.in·ter·pre·ta·tioninˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/nounthe action of explaining the meaning of something."the interpretation of data"synonyms: explanation, elucidation, expounding, exposition, explication, exegesis, clarification Morean explanation or way of explaining.plural noun: interpretations"this action is open to a number of interpretations"synonyms: meaning, understanding, construal, connotation, explanation, inference"they argued over interpretation"Definition of translation1: an act, process, or instance of translating: asa : a rendering from one language into another; also : the product of such a renderinghttp://blog.lionbridge.com/travel-hospitality/files/2012/07/Lionbridge-FAQ-Interp-vs-Translation.pdfI did ask them to put their interpretation into writing, and they did take the time to revise it a few times each and yet none of them ever came close to what the recordings really meant. The processes are similar enough in everyday language. Also, if the interpretation was from God it would be very accurate, thus close to a translation.The article I posted above lists five differences.But, if God is interpreting would not those be accurate?What I brought up are not "spiels of unbelief", but are common sense and discernment. In Acts 2 and in the writings of Paul it is clear that this gift is in fact speaking human language unknown to the speaker. God allows fleeces, I Thess 5:21 tells us to prove all things, hold to what is good. The exact thing of speaking in tongues were among the pagans, mystery religions first at Corinth and today in cults like LDS or Mormonism, Gnostic groups, oneness Pentecostals and even in world religions. Based on fact that none research wise are speaking human languages, it must be babble from the disengaging of the human mind which is the same thing imaging brain research wise that occurs with stuttering.The verb "speak" in 1 Corinthians 13:1 is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood in Greekassumes an unreality, or something not presently the case. Paul was not speaking in tongues of angels, butonly used that phrase to make a hypothetical case based on a hyperbole. Furthermore, there is no evidence thatangels use a heavenly language, for when they communicate in Scripture they use normal human language(Luke 1:11-37, 2:8-14).Do Pentecostals really speak in Languages? The ResearchAside, I often collect recordings in langues unknown to most Americans. Play them for Pentecostals. There has never been a Pentecostal who got any of the messages correct.Interpretations rarely match the lenght of the recording. Many of the recordings are people teaching non Christian subjects or opinions.

TL;DR/Racism Disclaimer: I am for the movement. I do believe American citizens and all people should be equal regardless of race, color, creed, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, language, occupational status, perceived or actual sexual orientation, perceived or actual gender identity, and multitudes of other things. I really do. I just don’t agree with what the Movement has done in the name of their cause as of late.I agree with BLM in theory but not in practice … We need to keep “Derek Chauvins” out of the police force~ Elijah KrauseIn my memory, BLM hasn’t been too big of a topic on the news in the past (pre-George Floyd). Although, what I found online says otherwise. I don’t remember any of it.I went to their website and read up on the “herstory” of the movement. I didn’t get much information from that— except one shooting, which I’ll get to in a minute.I read the “About” section. Exactly what the name says and I thought all along; #BlackLivesMatter. Additionally, it does go into detail about how the movement also empowers female, homosexual, and transgender voices, which I did not know. I think that’s all fine and dandy.The shooting I referred to is the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. I looked it up. Just like I figured.Which brings me to my present opinion on the matter.If POCs would stop resisting arrest, we wouldn’t be in this pickleI read what happened to Mike Brown, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd before writing this. On a separate [past] occasion, I took the time to watch the footage of George Floyd and the incident with him and the cops. I watched another video where a black couple was pulled over on the highway and an officer asked the man to put his hands behind his back; he didn’t, and was therefore resisting arrest, and the officer had to get him on the ground with another officer holding the guy down for him to cuff the guy. I’ve seen it. They all have one thing in common: the incidental Blacks were resisting arrest.I don’t disagree that George Floyd’s incident was a little melodramatic, but in no way did it call for the protests we’re seeing today.Mike Brown’s shooting took place in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014. He was stealing— that was what caused Ferguson police to go after him. At noon, the police officer, Darren Dean Wilson, was driving down Canfield Drive and encountered Brown and the man he was with, asking them to move out of the middle of the street. Presumably identifying them, Wilson backed up the Chevrolet Tahoe police SUV. Brown reached in the window and a struggle took place between him and Officer Wilson. Wilson was armed with a SIG Sauer P229. At this time, two shots were fired, hitting Brown’s right hand. He and his companion fled to hide behind a car as Officer Wilson pursued them on foot. As soon as he was found, Brown was shot with 6 shots to the chest and died on the scene.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Michael Brown was wanted for stealing, and he was resisting. Now, we all know that’s no warrant to kill someone, but he additionally reached inside the officer’s vehicle— most likely reaching for Officer Wilson’s gun. Police have every reason to neutralize such a hostile threat, whether it be because they feel personally threatened, or because the perpetrator will become an armed one if they obtain the officer’s gun.[10]You should never, under any circumstances, reach for a police officer’s gun.That standard is designed to take into account that police officers are frequently asked to make split-second decisions during fast-evolving confrontations, and should not be subject to overly harsh second guessing.[11]The shooting of Breonna Taylor was also justified. Narcotics officers were serving a drug warrant. They searched Breonna Taylor’s home because they had seen the wanted drug dealer drop off a package there on a January afternoon. Despite identifying themselves, Breonna’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, “believed someone was breaking in”, causing him to shoot in self-defense. Walker discharged the first shot, which then allowed officers to open fire on them. Breonna Taylor was shot dead at the scene. Walker has been in and out of jail on charges of first-degree assault and attempted murder of a police officer, pending possible changes[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Police were rightful to shoot— just not at Breonna. That doesn’t mean the officers should be charged for her death; although her family can file a wrongful death lawsuit.One last shooting I’d like to bring up; the shooting of David McAtlee. Basically, officers and National Guardsmen were enforcing the 9 pm curfew in Louisville. In an effort to make people go home, the authorities had boxed the crowd into the parking lot area they were in- I’m thinking it was to make them uncomfortable because of Coronavirus concerns; someone ended up shooting, and the shootout resulted in the wrongful death of this man[21][22][23]. Again, it was totally justifiable. Accidental and incidental.This kind of supposed “persecution” would happen to anyone who:Resists arrestIs a fugitiveEndangers an officer’s life[24]People should be encouraging peaceful protest ONLYYou see all this outrageous behavior of protestors vandalizing, or in some cases, destroying statues— federal property— and blocking roads and highways. It is unneeded [25][26][27].I mean, I can’t even search for “statue” online without getting a bunch of these disappointing news stories.It’s our history! Sure, it’s a stain on it now. Sure, we don’t want to honor those racists from a time when racism wasn’t wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s still history. Your right to protest does not include looting, burning, shooting, assaulting, or vandalizing.I have no respect for those looking for instances like this as an opportunity to kill, to loot and to burn down innocent person’s businesses. They are thugs who need to be dealt with in the proper way. Justice must also be served in these matters.[28]Look at Germany.Their stain on history is 5x worse than our stain. Their stain includes Hitler. Their stain includes persecuting Jews— and there’s no evidence to be misconstrued or tell you otherwise. There’s a special place in Hell for people like Hitler.What have they done?Germany has 24 Holocaust museums. Dachau is still standing and it is operating as a museum. Germans (historians, at least) are happy to speak in WWII documentaries.Never mind the rest of these countries that maintain Holocaust museums:We should remember history. I know that no one’s saying we should stop teaching about slavery and the Civil War, but come on! We need to keep history alive in every form!Again, these statues are federal property. That means the US Government does, indeed, reserve the right to send DHS troops to cities such as Portland, OR, and Chicago.Call your representatives, send them letters, vote them out if you don’t like them when election season rolls around, but don’t do what you’re doing now in the protests. Your right to peacefully protest DOES NOT include the right to vandalize and takedown statues, loot businesses, or block streets. Your right to protest DOES include the rights to gather outside governmental buildings and demand change; the right to lobby your representatives, thru calling, emailing them, or sending them letters, to advocate for the change you’d like; and to make petitions.Forcing brands to change their logos has been uncalled forThe logos may have been created with racist ideals, but the brands themselves have made an identity for themselves. There should not be pressure on brands like Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Cream of Wheat to change their logos.Even though it doesn’t relate to POCs, the Redskins (yeah, I said it) should not have been forced to change their name and logo either. Again, they’ve made a new association with the name regardless of what your 92-year-old Native American grandma thinks of it.Plus:BREAKING: Football teams everywhere are reportedly protesting the Washington Football Team’s name, as it’s offensive to actual football teams— NFL Memes (@NFL_Memes) July 24, 2020Amid all this, I think you should check-in with friends (especially teens)This has been a crazy time for most of us. Not just all this shit associated with BLM, but this Covid crap.Staying on topic with the BLM movement, however, teens who previously have been uninvolved with politics might be dipping their toes in because of this issue. I know a few. I’ve become more political than I have been in the past too.I mean, I think everyone has, but this part is mostly directed towards teens because I can relate.I lost a friend due to this. She literally came out and said something like, “you were so nice in school. but all you really do is think of yourself” or some shit like that because I’m putting my opinion out there. She’s a hardcore dem by the way ;)I have lost friends I didn’t even have because they, too, misunderstood my opinion. Once they saw it, I got replies from them calling me a “disgusting racist bigot”.Younger democrats need to listen to others’ opinionsI’m saying younger democrats because I feel like adults already know how to listen to other people’s opinions. I hope. They should.Like I said above, I’ve gotten Instagram Story replies calling me a “disgusting racist bigot” just because they misunderstood my opinion. I didn’t feel like typing back either because my fingers were numb from trying to make the previous person understand me to no avail.No one can understand me because they talk/type too fast, leaving you without time to think and typed a well-informed response. Younger people need to slow down and listen to what others have to say.I think this is just ridiculous, ‘nuff said.I hate posts that proclaim “IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP, YOU’RE A…”XenophobeHomophobeTransphobeMisogynistRacistand whatever else the new terms arePersonally, I don’t like either candidate. Trump makes uninformed off-the-cuff remarks that are asinine, dumb, and all other words synonymous with the two. Joe Biden has cognitive issues— and I don’t want to hear that they’re from “excitement in speech” because they aren’t, and there are recordings of him forgetting things on TV.Both candidates are not too likeable.Clearly, however, the time comes to pick one. All of the rest have either dropped out or they just won’t make it.On one hand, Joe Biden used to be Vice President. He has cognitive issues. Biden plans to make healthcare affordable for everyone, make community college free, make university free if you’re family makes under a certain amount, and make preschool a requirement… and make it free, of course.Although, I agree with Joe Biden on gun control.Then we have President Trump who has done more for this country than any other President I can think of.I don’t like either candidate, but I choose trump because he doesn’t advocate for communist or socialist policies, he’s done well for the economy, and because he has made an effort towards peace and denuclearization with NK. I don’t really care about what he did in his life before he became president because that may not be him today, and/or he’s a perfectly fine president, despite his impeachment.~ Comment on Ethan James' shareLastly, and most importantly, do not defund the policeDo y’all understand how messed up our country will become if we replace our police forces with “community-led public safety initiatives”?Someone told me about this video they saw which showed what it might be like. It went something like this:“You have reached 911. All of our mental health professionals are currently assisting others in need of assistance. Please wait 3 days until we can get to your request.”And what will a psychiatrist do at a domestic violence anyway?Sir, I am asking you nicely. Please put the gun down so we can diffuse this situation properly. Use “’I’ statements”. Tell your wife something like “I feel angry with you because….”, and talk it out.Yeah, no.We need the police to protect us against crime. We can’t get rid of them. If we do get rid of them, it’s time for you to give me anA N A R C H Y.The fact that Minneapolis City Council member actually voted to defund police is horrifying and ridiculous.Some far left-ers I know claim “defund the police” doesn’t mean to do away with the whole organization. That’s where they’re wrong. You see posts like:But that’s not entirely true.It’s a little something called “bait”. They’re saying it’s not all they chalk it up to be, and then when they’re in power— boom, police forces across the nation suddenly go bye-bye.What about White lives? Latino lives? Jewish lives? #AllLivesMatterSome people see BLM as a hate group because they promote Black lives over every other race and creed. I don’t get that offended, but I think it raises a good point.#AllLivesMatter, and BLM should gradually change their philosophy to make it less offensive to some.This has been an official statement. I don’t see my opinion changing unless events and actions can be changed. Based on what I’ve seen, it would take a miracle to change my opinion. As a centrist, I can move a little bit to the left and understand how things pan out, but these protestors— most of them are radical, far leftists; they will go to the extremes as we have seen as of late.We’re living in exciting times for sure.Footnotes[1] Darren Wilson's radio calls show fatal encounter was brief[2] Ferguson police say teen shot by cop was suspect in robbery; officer's identity revealed[3] Autopsy Shows Michael Brown Was Struck at Least 6 Times[4] Dorian Johnson, Mike Brown Shooting Witness, Meeting With FBI And County Prosecutor[5] Chief: Officer noticed Brown carrying suspected stolen cigars[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-reconstruction/[7] Police Officer in Ferguson Is Said to Recount a Struggle[8] What we know about Michael Brown's shooting[9] What Happened in Ferguson?[10] https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3737&context=jclc[11] When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?[12] Here’s What You Need to Know About Breonna Taylor’s Death[13] Get Access[14] Louisville police pursued 'no-knock' search warrant in fatal shooting of ER tech in her home[15] Louisville postal inspector: No ‘packages of interest’ at slain EMT Breonna Taylor’s home[16] Breonna Taylor Was Shot and Killed by Police in Her Own Home[17] Shooting victim Breonna Taylor's lawyer to Louisville police: 'Get your damn story straight'[18] Breonna Taylor: Louisville EMT Killed in Botched Police Raid, Lawyer Says[19] Judge grants order to dismiss charges against Kenneth Walker, boyfriend of the late Breonna Taylor[20] Kenneth Walker attorney asks for permanent dismissal of attempted murder, assault charges[21] 'My son didn't hurt nobody': David McAtee, Louisville business owner, killed by authorities[22] Police say video shows David McAtee firing shots before being hit in west Louisville shooting[23] https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article243405831.html[24] When can police use lethal force against a fleeing suspect?[25] Christopher Columbus statue taken down hours after Lightfoot ordered its removal[26] Fate of Columbus statue pulled down at Minnesota State Capitol will not be decided until 2021[27] Robert E Lee statue in Virginia knocked down, broke in two, police said[28] Letter to the editor: Protest peacefully without looting and killing

Heh… These parodies are sadly accurate:I started off in computer engineering with the intent of getting a masters in architecture to do what is now called smart buildings. I flinched when I had to take calculus 1 three times to pass it and jumped to architecture. Engineering is beautiful because the math makes truth in structure, but it lacks an artistic element. Art is art but I know incredible artists that are starving and my art skills come nowhere near my perception of them… So I split the difference with one foot in art and one in engineering to architecture. I couldn't have been anything else with all the problem solving and integration of components and unique challenges with technology, art and data management I have encountered in BIM (3D building information modeling).That being said my architecture school education at Mississippi State University school of architecture (now the college of Architecture) was horrible. I am a reasonably smart guy and I smell bullshit from far away so my profs and I didn't get along too well together. I had ideas and they hated them. Studio was a 5 credit class that consumed 15 hours a week on the schedule and another 30 to 45 hours a week working on projects between the French oriented professors ecole des beaux arts insisting function followed form, and the minimalist Bauhaus German lead professors who believed in rigidity of structure and form and the art of craft. Is was fun, but I tend to be a bit masochistic. Took a few times to get through arch history taught by one of the 3 architectural historian in the US at the time (ah Fazio) so I also invested time in undercooked minors in art, music and computer science. Eventually I got to my fifth year in Jackson Mississippi which took two years to get through… after all the breakdowns and most of my profs saying I didn't have ”it”, me winning some national awards, getting an art piece hung in the national gallery (still think that was the best!) the one architect the entire school looked up to as a dirty, Chris Risher, looked at my work and my approach and loved it. I got lucky someone saw the merits of my work, and finally graduated in 1998, nine years after I graduate high school.They couldn't see the value in 3d modeling, all too stuck in the craft of objects rather than critical thinking which is where I truly shine. Part way through 4th year, Sharon Roe as a guess professor from Minnesota came in and asked “what do you think we are missing in our eduction here?” I replied,”They never taught us how to think like architects. They throw all this stuff at is to make things but the true nature of order and dressing in… architecture… that is what I need and many others of us as well.” And she shed light on the thought process and design which helped turn things around go all of us.Up to that point the entire school was flawed, focused to much on trinkets and artifacts rather than whole building integration, building construction, team management, and effective use of the computers and AutoCAD 10 they made us purchase but never use.That is a light skimming of what it is in architecture school there… many long nights, impossible schedules and having work to apart for seemingly no reason… if it wasn't a pretty picture, even if it worked, you wouldn't pass. I repeated 4th year twice and fifth year twice… but to have Chris on my side… PRICELESS!Chris died in 2017 at 77 years old, and he had an interesting style and life. Besides saving my career he was a really interesting guy. You can read about him here: Architecture stands out, but Chris Risher Jr. stood behind scenes