TED Conversations

Ronald Vallecer

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

That any person who chooses to profess faith must have documentation that is available to the open source community.

That any person or persons who chooses to operate an organisation that is religious in nature must have to do so within an open source setting, for anything that is religious in nature invokes the power of human trust and thus must carry with it the responsibilities of doing so. I must clarify that personal faith need not be divulged, but that any person who wishes to affect another person must to ensure total transparency and accountability. By doing this, we eliminate the chance of charmers or does who have gifts in influence. It is easy to mislead one or even a hundred thousand given the right unfair circumstances, but only truthful ideas can stand the test of an open source checks and balance.

By doing this we can mitigate the harm caused by both macro and micro entities that invoke on the sacred trust of people through religion. Regimes may no longer use the fuel of emotions of discontented citizens. Parents may no longer enforce abuse the power of personal doctrine over their wards. Those who are more able in the talents of persuasion will need to go through a more credible watch dog via the open source community. Let it not be mistaken that this is an attempt to breech personal privacy, but rather an attempt to increase the transparency and accountability of those who seek to influence.

My hopes is that this is the beginning of policy which can put an end to the endless cycle of abuse that re-occur just because people are allowed to invoke on the power of circumstance. Evil intentions cannot survive out in the open, the source of our true strength as humans is communication, and this revolution can only be achieved if we were to open source our hearts, that one thing is for sure, most of us just want a better world.

Related Talks:
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Random Chance 30+

    • 0
    Oct 17 2012: A brand?!!!
    Yeah, I like that liar a lot more than that liar over there.

    They've got a better brand.
    They lie right to your face and you still believe them.

    Oh, sorry, that's still happening on a very large scale, to the tune of 300 million in the U.S.,
    135 or so million in Russia, a similar amount in Brazil, almost 2 billion each in India and China,
    and there is also the rest of the globe.

    Deception and deceit are done for ulterior motives, the first being money which brings power.
    Those of faith do it for the money and the power.

    Get rid of money, or the reasons for being deceitful, and close to 100% of all crime, worldwide, will disappear.
  • thumb

    Roy Bourque 20+

    • 0
    Oct 10 2012: The solution to your problem can only come through truth. The bible warns of the power of deception, yet your topic deals with the power of religion to deceive, which is a real issue. Only the truth can protect you from deception. We are finding that exposing fraud is the only cure for deception.

    Marshall applewhite in heaven's gate was able to deceive 39 educated people because they were disillusioned with life and were willing to be deceived. The same was true for Jim Jones. Religion promises heaven, but try to get any religious person to describe heaven and they can't do it. But they have no problem describing hell because it deals with pain and suffering. Thus religion has focused on pain and suffering as the medium to which to sell their doctrine. Expose that as fraud and you open the doors to possibilities.

    The bible speaks of tithes. But the religious leaders of that time were responsible to provide for the poor and the widow. Today religion still speaks of tithes, but what do they do with the money? If they apply it to humanitarian aid, then they have shown their worth. If they apply it to their own selfish gain, then they have shown who their master is, and it isn't God.

    Let every person be responsible for following the money and the charmers will be exposed. Leave it to the charmers to show documentation and they will find a way, because they are very good at doing just that.
  • thumb

    Ken brown 30+

    • 0
    Oct 6 2012: So should we Brand QM? Branding what a joke,what other corporate rubbish are people going to come up with in the next 15 years? Do you remember the last corporate buzz word? it's transient,the next and up and coming generation won't remember this word as the last gen has forgotten the last one.

    • Ronald Vallecer

      • 0
      Oct 6 2012: I agree that branding is a joke, this phenomenon of brand loyalty is a threat to the balancing effect of demand and supply. Ideally, consumers can be their own watch dog if they are able to keep an objective perspective. But what I really was pertaining to before I changed the topic, was that religious institutions are brands. Just like when Peter invokes association to a huge brand when he claims he is Christian. Then I ask him for clarification, and he says that Jesus Christ's teachings are already open source, well I am pretty sure that Peter does not equal to Jesus Christ. Might I add alleged teachings because it can never And their are a billion things out of the Bible that are contradictory, old testament vs new testament. All these things are vague, but at the same time the brand Christian can be invoked any time as though it actually makes sense.

      Services and products cater to human needs. The need for a religion is catered mostly by large religious institutions. The grey area of this subject is exactly what makes it susceptible to abuse.

      I have to make it clear that I have no problems with Christians, nor any religion, well I would have to say that because religion as a brand has become huge to the fact that it has become a blanket for abuse. Anyone can say that they are of God or of Jesus Christ or some other religious person of significance and escape the backlash all because they have invoked the trust stigma that such brings. At the same time they escape any transparency or accountability issues. Ask a religious person to justify or prove things, he or she would always tell you to have faith or that his or her faith cannot be question. Again, I have no problem with personal faith, so long as it personal, anyone should be allowed to practice what they believe, but when one's actions are aimed at affecting others, I think we need the checking and balancing power of the open source community to counter act gifted but sinister minds.
      • thumb

        Ken brown 30+

        • 0
        Oct 6 2012: It's quite easy to spot the sinister mind within a religious group,they splinter their group off and go off into the wild blue yonder to create the haven for the possible return of christ when the teachings of the book points to remaining within society and go about their own business and not get involved in politics.I have christian beliefs and can't find physical evidence that will convince a physical worldview person that my beliefs are real to me,if i say look at this system,it looks designed someone can equally say that it can come about naturally which i don't deny that it can't.The multiverse against the creator,from nothing to ever increasing complexity exponentially outwards and inwards against God,the eternal battle.I agree that when a few nutters go off and start killing people that then religious zealotry has twisted to the left away from the main teachings of peace except the only hard evidence for this behavior is in the middle east which doesn't belong to anyone but them.

        Have you any examples other than politicians that court the main supposedly christian voters during elections? depending on which country your in.

        EDIT

        Or they start to think they are christ and well end up like khoresh,nutters!

        We have a militant group here in nz that is so transparent but not to the devout that follow the guy,poor saps.

        • Ronald Vallecer

          • 0
          Oct 7 2012: To a critical mind it is transparent, but we can never and should not assume that the majority is as protected. Those who aren't equipped should be protected too, if an idea is declared to be a product, then they should be protected as consumers. By creating an open source checks and balance for religious ideas, seekers would be granted access to the wealth of information modern society had to offer, at the least, they too will come to a conclusion that it is not easy task to find truth in these matters.
      • thumb

        Ken brown 30+

        • 0
        Oct 7 2012: I can't say your idea is a bad one as it has a logical base to operate out of,just one thing,what about a system that adopts a religious organizational structure but denies it is religious in any way,a school of thought with spirituality mixed in?

        Sometimes a charismatic pastor can fall prey to the system,i generally can tell if he/she has started down this road by slight inserts during a session of political leanings and opinions of other groups and religions.not good.

  • Edward Alonzo

    • 0
    Oct 6 2012: This may be good in most of the world, but it may not fly in the US. I can see the ACLU right on this.

    • Ronald Vallecer

      • 0
      Oct 6 2012: Well the beauty about this proposal is that it doesn't have to be a government that puts it into policy. All everyone has to do is offer documentation of their belief system when engaging another and to ask for the same when someone else engages. Later on, a system similar to Github can be used for checks and balances. If the said religious person is truly in search of truth and what is right, then he or she would go where the answers lay. But if that person's aim was to take advantage of weaker and confused minds, then this kind of system is exactly their greatest nightmare. Vigilance, alone it is hard to do, but together, time in time again we have proven we are capable of great things. Thank You.

  • Ronald Vallecer

    • 0
    Oct 6 2012: Hi everyone, just changed the thread based on the feedback that I got. I'll continue do this based on the feedbacks that I receive day in and out. Still as excited as yesterday! and to Peter, just merely stating that you are Christian is not enough if my checks and balances were to be put into policy. You would have to put forward proper documentation of everything that you believe in. Why? Well, let's just say that saying I am Christian can invoke the power of trust from a lot of people, and that power should come with the right mechanisms that insure transparency and accountability. I think this will be quite a challenge for a lot of people. A lot of people might hate it because it is hard, but I assume that nothing worth anything is every simple or easy. Good day to you sir.
    • thumb

      Peter Law 30+

      • +2
      Oct 6 2012: Hi Ronald.
      The life & teachings of Jesus Christ are as well documented as anybody I know. How 'open source' can you get ?
      The trouble with humans is that we all think we are right. We must fight this tendency as the truth is that we are all wrong on many things. Folks following one website will agree on many things, while those on another will totally disagree. To enforce a specific view on all is commonly known as dictatorship.

      :-)

    • Qab Dqab

      • 0
      Oct 22 2012: Surely a Christian would carry around a copy of the bible as the "proper documentation", a muslim would carry the quran etc. Peter's comments can be applied to all major religions, they are very "open source" (except of course scientology but i expect you could get their "bible" if you tried). I am not sure what it is exactly that you are looking to introduce?

      You say in the introduction that "Evil intentions cannot survive out in the open...". Are you sure about that? Do you have any examples of evil intentions that existed until they were brought out into the open? Perhaps i misunderstand what you mean by evil intentions.
  • thumb

    chen xin

    • +1
    Oct 6 2012: religion is another form of company .it has its thought and it also benifit from people .i think it is much th same as a charity ,they do not earn for their destination,they want to help people .and they think we shluld build a much better world .and also they want to explain something that we can not prove through science .so religion is a god thing

  • Solidus Sharp

    • 0
    Oct 5 2012: I respect all people who understand religion is a threat and problem to innocent people who just want peace . Best of luck

  • Ronald Vallecer

    • 0
    Oct 5 2012: The Answer to problem of Religion

    I am very excited to share with everybody that I may have found the answer to the problem that haunts almost everyone in the world today. The problem that drives terrorism, social divide and human right violations around the world. Please bare with me since this idea is at its infancy, but I promise you if you read to the end of this post, then for those who are seeking hope, just like it did to me, a spark of change would have been ignited.

    Here it goes, for many years now, I've been on a search just as many of us today still are, for a solution that we all face, and though it has many faces, many forms, the root cause is all the same, religion. Even without googling it, I think it is safe to assume that religion from its simplest form to its more complex evolution that we have today, is as old as society itself. Here in lies the problem and at the same time the solution. The problem is that religion caters to a whole set of human needs, and for a lot of people, unconscious association to a brand occurs and in extreme cases, becomes part of the entity's identity. This phenomena is common and more people are aware of it in terms of corporate commodities. By now, a lot of people should be aware that purchases of branded services or products normally cater to more than just the physical needs of the buyer. Designer bags are bought at premium prices more for socio-psychological related benefits rather than the function of portable storage. Checks and balances throughout most developing nations, certainly in developed ones, exist to ensure that the rights of consumers are protected. Information is put at a premium so that an informed choice can be made possible during a transaction. Hopefully all that is good, but what does it have to do with religion? Well if you look at it from the perspective of services and branding, religions exist to cater to the needs of humans. Like the usual branding phenomena, the functions that the service
    • thumb

      Peter Law 30+

      • +2
      Oct 5 2012: Hi Ronald.
      You seem to think that religion is a problem. It may help the discussion if you we're to specify 1) The problem & 2) The religion causing the problem.
      There are many harmless, & beneficial religions, & a blanket 'religious problem' approach is inaccurate & unhelpful.

      :-)

      • Ronald Vallecer

        • 0
        Oct 6 2012: Thanks for the feedback. The problem with mainstream religions that we have today is that they have been taking advantage of their brand's carry over effect which I think is unfair to their subscribers since it limits their accountability and transparency. A lot of religions are allowed to sell their brand's ideas of rewards and punishment without any checks and balances at all.
        • thumb

          Peter Law 30+

          • 0
          Oct 6 2012: Hi Ronald.
          So how exactly is this and different from a soap star, a football team, or your favourite golf club ? Grown up folks; even gullible ones; should be allowed to find there satisfaction in their chosen pastime . I have no interest in fishing, but I claim no right to complain about others doing it. Take away our diversity & we are just sheep. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I am a Christian & I love it & I fail to see any adverse effect on my community because of my belief. What checks & balances do you think are appropriate in my case ?

          :-)

      • Ronald Vallecer

        • 0
        Oct 6 2012: The difference is that you can't really use the brand of leisure sports to invoke any power of sort. You can't say hey, we are both Bulls fans, let's all converge and decide that abortion is a sin. Also, Christianity has one of the better more transparent and accountable systems within the major global religion setting.There is no argument that religious institutions are helpful in countless ways and are essential to successful communities, after all they do cater to one of our most basic needs which is security. I think that it is great that you are Christian and that you love it! But another person might say that he is Christian and abuse those benefits that invoking association towards Christianity gives. But like I said, if you are a self-professed Christian that enjoys the benefits your association brings, then all is well. But imagine if you were one of the billion or more people whose religious affiliation is a form handcuffs, pushed them by their fore bearers not by personal choice but rather with the sinister system of religious carrots and sticks. "You are one of us or you are dead!" They are allowed to utter such things all because the clout of brand has overpowered function and content of their religion.

        I know that it is a pain, but such questions need to be ask for precaution, when you say you are Christian, what do you really mean? You can't possibly remember let alone follow all of Jesus Christ's teaching. Is it just a way to feel good? It is very different to association yourself to a ball club you know.

        But like you said, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but aren't those personal liberties curtailed when they start impeding other people's liberties? So too it is the same in the discussion of religion, anyone should be allowed to believe in what ever they like, but a better system should be put into place so that religion as an industry may prosper even more and the consumers are better safeguarded.
        • thumb

          Peter Law 30+

          • 0
          Oct 7 2012: Hi Ronald.
          I guess it depends what you define as a religion that needs regulated. Most Christians would indeed say that abortion should be a last resort; as was the intention when it was legalised.
          Other groups no doubt would encourage the freedom from restrictions. One doesn't have to be a religion to be a pressure group. Group A is pro, group B is con. Folks are free to choose; I don't see the problem.
          It is true that many are in 'abusive' sects; some very big & outwardly respectable. Most are easily checked out; we all know about the KKK for instance, & the Freemasons are up front about their secrecy, yet people happily join up to both.
          The real villains of the peace are corporate bankers, politicians , the mafia, & the like, but they are unlikely to be affected by web opinion.
          We must retain the freedom for folks to join dodgy clubs & religions. Humans are strange creatures; one man's meat is another man's poison.
          Christianity is about following Christ, pure & simple. If we are serious about it, we get better at it as we go along. There are only two rules; not that difficult to remember. I suspect you have misconceptions. Certainly I would take on board any highlighting any area of my life that deviated from Christ's teaching, so that aspect should be open source to anyone interested.
          I agree that we should not allow religions to impede freedom of choice for others in a free society; if they succeed we are no longer free. However if we start legislating against 'religion' willy nilly then our freedom has gone as well. We live in an age where we seem to believe that we can always improve things with more rules. I believe the opposite.

          :-)

      • Ronald Vallecer

        • 0
        Oct 8 2012: It's great that a lot of us already live within system designs that is both transparent and accountable. Pressure groups in the US are pre-defined, information is easily obtainable thus leading to more often than not an informed choice, thus aiding best choice making. Again I am not after free choice, but rather freedom from unfair coercion. It's easy to make informed choices when 1) information is accessible 2) persons of influence are not allowed to coerce choice. Look around you, online and offline, there are countless examples of individuals not enjoying the same social designs. Will they affect you? Of course they will, they have in the pass, all terroristic acts are in some way or form affected by a person influencing another to act based on faith, all because 1) information to decide otherwise was not accessible, 2) social coercion was not prevented. It is not merely enough to say that you and I, and the people around us are able to make a free well informed choice. Sooner or later if we don't start realising that good policy needs to be spread, we all end up reacting to horrible situations instead of being pro-active.
        • thumb

          Peter Law 30+

          • 0
          Oct 8 2012: Hi Ronald.
          I think you are really getting at militant Islam. I would agree with you in that regard, but you have to be specific.. It will do no good having a go at other 'faiths'. Most Muslims would agree with you too, the last thing they need is atrocities committed in their name. Even humanists, & Atheists etc have a faith, we all believe in something which can't be proven . If we all have to go through hoops because of a militant minority then they have won already. If you can find a way to inform the terrorists of the error of their ways, then good luck to you.

          :-)
Showing all 22 comments