US ambassador killed over a film

[FireIceTalon]

Not sure where to post this, but it seems fitting for this topic considering how many of it's threads are going. Let me clarify right off the bat, this is not a bash against anything.

So anyways, my wife and I planned a family trip to Disneyworld and invited my mother and her husband, who usually comes with us on family trips. My mom suddenly became very excited at this prospect and said she couldn't wait to go so she could visit the HOLY LAND. I was like, what in the world is that? So I did some research. Forget Mickey Mouse; here is a picture of their mascot. Now I don't have to be ultra-Christian or completely Atheist find this offensive. Does anyone else here feel the commercialization of a religion (any religion) is just... wrong in some way? I personally find it a bit creepy. I never knew that place even existed before.

My mother and I have talked long talks about religion before, so I don't judge her and if this is something she is looking forward to, I won't be the one causing strife; I'm just glad she's happy and if this experience enriches her life, then that makes me a happy person for it. It still doesn't stop the place from being creepy.

Sort of. But in the big scheme of things, I still think our obsession with CF and consumerism in general is worse.

[Alram]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Tuesday it never concluded that the consulate attack in Libya stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam, raising further questions about why the Obama administration used that explanation for more than a week after assailants killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Yahoo news

[DeeBye]

The problem is that some people in government use scientists like this to say that "scientists disagree on the evolution versus creationism debate" and then use that claim to pursue their own religious agenda to insert the teaching of creationism as "science" in schools.

Bringing this up again because it makes me angry.

This US Congressman is somehow serving on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, the Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

He also believes that the Earth is "but about 9,000 years old".

“That’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to do that,”

WHY DOES THIS PERSON SERVE ON A SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

[eppie]

WHY DOES THIS PERSON SERVE ON A SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

To be complete; he serves on a science committee IN THE US. He would probably manage to do the same in Poland, South Korea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and a few African countries but that is it.*

Even considering all their crazy shenninigans it is probably a good thing that China is becoming the major world power. I mean thinking that eating ground tiger bones make you better in the sack finally isn't half as bad as wanting to plunge humanity back into the dark ages like all those christian and muslim taliban want.

* maybe more scary that probably 40 % of the US population agrees with this guy.

[FireIceTalon]

WHY DOES THIS PERSON SERVE ON A SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

To be complete; he serves on a science committee IN THE US. He would probably manage to do the same in Poland, South Korea, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and a few African countries but that is it.*

Even considering all their crazy shenninigans it is probably a good thing that China is becoming the major world power. I mean thinking that eating ground tiger bones make you better in the sack finally isn't half as bad as wanting to plunge humanity back into the dark ages like all those christian and muslim taliban want.

* maybe more scary that probably 40 % of the US population agrees with this guy.

Yea, you can thank our lovely primary public indoctrination, whoops I mean education system, for that. Teaching our kids to be good little passive, God-fearing bigoted consumers that would rather let the so-called "free market" (or god) do their thinking for them.

[kandrathe]

WHY DOES THIS PERSON SERVE ON A SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

He's an M.D, and his undergraduate degree is in Chemistry.

http://broun.house.gov/biography/

"...serves as Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee."

It's the House of Representatives, and he represents a conservative part of Georgia. Surely, they can suffer one flat earther??? He's certainly counter balanced by ....

http://science.house.gov/about/membership

No, after reviewing the biographies of about a half a dozen, none leap out at me as being much opposed to what Rep. Broun would be saying. Perhaps he is the extreme view, but he's not very alone there. And... he's actually more qualified than most of his peers to be there since he's actually got more science in his background.

Found one. Rep. Jerry McNerney seems a good fit.

[DeeBye]

It's the House of Representatives, and he represents a conservative part of Georgia. Surely, they can suffer one flat earther???

That had me LOL for real. Good show kandrathe.

[eppie]

WHY DOES THIS PERSON SERVE ON A SCIENCE COMMITTEE?

He's an M.D, and his undergraduate degree is in Chemistry.

http://broun.house.gov/biography/

An MD is not a PhD and an undergraduate degree also doesn't make you a scientist. But I will not be childish about this one he probably came into contact with more science than many of his peers.
Still it is a mystery to me how someone with such views can study chemistry. Because yes, everything you learn during a chemistry undergrad course goes againts religioous beliefs.

"...serves as Chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee."

It's the House of Representatives, and he represents a conservative part of Georgia. Surely, they can suffer one flat earther??? He's certainly counter balanced by ....

http://science.house.gov/about/membership

No, after reviewing the biographies of about a half a dozen, none leap out at me as being much opposed to what Rep. Broun would be saying. Perhaps he is the extreme view, but he's not very alone there. And... he's actually more qualified than most of his peers to be there since he's actually got more science in his background.

Found one. Rep. Jerry McNerney seems a good fit.

No but all joking and nittpicking aside, this is very serious. How can a country allow people with such views to have so much power. I mean, the whole outrage against the Taliban or muslims protests seems to me very hypocritical. You have in your representative bodies people that have exact the same views as the taliban have (of course you only have to change the word god for allah, but for the rest the same). Some of his republican colleagues also continue spouting BS by saying women can't get pregnant when they are raped, and often they actually ask for it!?.

But as an important note. Also in Holland we have around 3 % of parliament who say the earth is just a few 1000 years old, and even more than believe evolution isn't real.

I think our next peace mission to some arab country should consist solely of these christian extremists....with a bit of luck they like they way the muslims counterparts are handling things and stay there.

[shoju]

The problem Eppie, is that there is a large portion of the population of the United States of America that believes the same way. These people have gravitated towards the Republican Party (though they aren't just exclusively republican), and have taken a party that was about less government intrusion in your life (that's a pretty simple, boiled down summary of their philosophies) and turned it into the mouth piece for the mainstay of the Conservative Christian populace of the country.

Despite what some people will try and get you to believe the poll numbers are out there. There is a very large, active portion of the United States Population that is trying to undermine the progression of science (and so help me if I have to put perspective on how people are undermining, I'm going to explode. If you teach another being that science is wrong, you are trying to undermine science), because they have adopted a very literal stance about their religion, and are taking their cues from documents that were written 2000+ years ago, without considering the historical, cultural, and scientific perspectives of the documents, because sometime between then (50AD ish), and now, Heads of the Church decided that these texts were divinely inspired. That doesn't explain the large stockpile of historical "religious" texts that they have withheld. Were none of those divinely inspired? How do we know?

Not all people of Faith believe these things. Not all people who claim to believe in God believe this way. Science doesn't "debunk" the idea that there is a god, and belief in god doesn't debunk science. At least... they don't have to debunk each other. The problem and conflict between the two of them arises (primarily) when science shows us the reasonings behind things, and people discount it, because they choose to follow things that were written at a time when we did not possess the means as beings to study our surroundings with the capabilities that we have now.

Instead of embracing a larger understanding of our surroundings, there is resistance. Some, I believe is in fear. Not fear that "God may not be real". But fear in the loss of power. Fear that if things are explained, and that science is able to explain more about how this existence works, that the power found in the hierarchy of an Organized Religion will be lost. And just so we're clear, I'm not strictly speaking of the Christian Church, so put the bigot signs down. I'm speaking of any organized religion in this instance. I'm holding them all to the same standard.

At this point, nothing that science shows can prove that there is not a higher power. It can prove how things work. How things happen. How we got here. How we have evolved. How we have become a sentient organism. How the other things in the galaxy work. How they were made. How that stuff works. But, and this is what my whole thing is, what have they done to prove that there isn't some higher power, or divine being? Maybe everything we have learned is how the toolbox that the being opened up and used works. Maybe "And God said let there be light" was a "Big Bang". Maybe human evolution as we know it, was the "6 days" (which I have addressed before, multiple times) of Evolution. The Bible says that Man was created on the last, "6th Day". Maybe that was the "end" of that evolutionary cycle. Maybe that's how the stories were interpreted. The story of creation is told from a man who wrote it some 2500 years after Adam is said to have lived. That's a long time for things to get passed, person to person, storyteller to storyteller.

Now, Science is showing us how this all worked. I find it incredibly silly to discount science because of Faith, and vice versa. Faith, and Science, shouldn't be competing to disprove one another. People on both sides at times forget this. I'm just as excited to read about new scientific discoveries in all sciences as I am at the prospect of getting to read some long lost, and recently discovered text written in a time that seems so long ago.

Maybe the show Ancient Aliens is right. Maybe "God" is an Alien. And he's not coming back until Human Beings can figure some stuff out. Or, he's that kid with an Ant Farm, watching what "happens"

[FireIceTalon]

I've always found it ironic that the GOP wants less government, but yet they want to tell people who they can and cannot marry, what a woman can do with her body and what she can't, force their religious doctrine on people by having ID taught in science classes, make young black kids to be janitors at their schools, and now they are mingling with companies to get them to force their employees to vote GOP or else (since after all, corporations are people in their eyes).....pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

As far as the whole science vs. religion debate goes, science does NOT have to disprove the existence of a God....the burden of proof is on people of faith to prove their deity. And thus far, they have been unable to do so. You can be a religious scientist, but keep that shit separate. The minute you converge them, your scientific credentials come under question.

[shoju]

I've always found it ironic that the GOP wants less government, but yet they want to tell people who they can and cannot marry, what a woman can do with her body and what she can't, force their religious doctrine on people by having ID taught in science classes, make young black kids to be janitors at their schools, and now they are mingling with companies to get them to force their employees to vote GOP or else (since after all, corporations are people in their eyes).....pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

As far as the whole science vs. religion debate goes, science does NOT have to disprove the existence of a God....the burden of proof is on people of faith to prove their deity. And thus far, they have been unable to do so. You can be a religious scientist, but keep that shit separate. The minute you converge them, your scientific credentials come under question.

I find myself agreeing with you (for the most part) again... This is almost a habit about some things.

I agree 100% with the first paragraph, and I think it speaks volumes to the... "coup" that has happened in the Republican Party. There are a lot of "Governmental" issues that I agree 100% with Republicans about. There are some other things that I'm very Liberal about (Social Services type things for example) as well.

The second paragraph, I simply say this. As long as Science isn't actively going out of their way to take a dump on Faith, I agree. Explain things that "religion got wrong", (literal creationism, etc..) is fine, but if science is going to step in and say "THERE IS NO GOD" well, then at that point, they have a burden of proof as well.

And the lack of "proof" that there is, doesn't mean that there "isn't". I mean, there was a time when we lacked the proof of what science has gone on to prove. That's what science is about.

Finding something. Organizing the information. Testing. Proving.

[kandrathe]

The problem Eppie, is that there is a large portion of the population of the United States of America that believes the same way.

1st and most important, the "House of Representatives" is supposed to be a Congress of the peoples representatives acting on behalf of the district they represent. They may be debating and drafting all kinds of seemingly odd legislation -- the Senate, was originally made to represent the States interests and was meant to be a more contemplative (slow) deliberative body. If they operated correctly as in our republican origins, they wouldn't even be considered a part of the Federal Government, but rather the peoples (and States) protection against federal power. Only because of the creep of Federal power have we allowed police powers and oversight of internal affairs to be moved from the local and State level to a federal level. All these types of concerns should be local, and Rep. Broan work would be limited to interstate, and international concerns. What we should be asking is why our Federal government has a Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Constitutionally, all those things are outside their job description. At least until we make contact with extra-terrestrials.

Second, even if he was a Frisbeetarian, our Constitution protects us (through the 1st amendment) and guarantees the federal government shall not interfere in our religious beliefs by imposing upon us things to which we cannot morally support (due to our religious beliefs or lack of them).

Third, the basis for these ideas of "limited government" formed over thousands of years, from Aristostle, Plato, Cicero, Sidney, Livy, Harrington. Namely;

• government should govern for the good of the people, not for the good of those in power;
• there is a natural aristocracy, and skilled statecraft arranges things so that this element acquires authority, or, failing that, blends democratic and oligarchic influences in society to approximate to that outcome;
• mixed regimes are better than pure regimes, because they are more stable;
• the best form of government in nearly all circumstances involves the balancing of aspects of all three pure regimes (kingship, aristocracy, and timocracy);
• a pure democracy can easily turn into a tyranny of the majority.

If we do this right, even a large population (majority) of flat earthers would not impact us in the slightest way. Only when we surrender our individual powers to the state can a state dominated by jack booted cretins impact us. Again, we can focus the government role on three age old principles; 1&2) Criminal and Civil Torts -- how have you harmed me? and 3) Contracts -- have you kept your word?

Based upon that then, I'd reject that the problem is too many people believe one way, and say that "the problem" is that we've bastardized our system of government to the point that "people like that" can do something that affects you, or more likely how you are allowed to educate your children.

I find it incredibly silly to discount science because of Faith, and vice versa.

In Summa Theologica, on faith and the existence of God, St. Thomas Aquinus references Hebrews 11:1-3 - "1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." There is clearly a separation between the observable, and the unknowable. Faith does not compel Christians to be literal and dogmatic, but to be called to a relationship with their creator. Their faith as expressed this way threatens no one.

An MD is not a PhD and an undergraduate degree also doesn't make you a scientist. But I will not be childish about this one he probably came into contact with more science than many of his peers.

He does. Most of them had some non-science undergrad degree like history, art, or poli-sci -- then went for law.

Still it is a mystery to me how someone with such views can study chemistry. Because yes, everything you learn during a chemistry undergrad course goes against religious beliefs.

Not everywhere, and even then he maybe just tuned out those discussions. Then again, what was the chemistry department like at University of Georgia in 1967? Look here --> http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/A...?id=h-2622 Anti-evolutionists had dominated Georgian politics (and thereby how it was taught in education at all levels from 1930's through till 1978).

How can a country allow people with such views to have so much power.

But, again, you have it backwards. It's not "what our government let's us do", but "what we let our government do". Rep. Braun has only individual power, and the right to speak. His election as a representative only gives him a voice and a vote in the House, and that power was given to him by the people of his district. It is counter-balanced by the hundreds of people from all the other districts, and even then legislatively must pass the Senate, and be signed by the President. If the government starts to put "rules" in place on who can believe what for whatever reason, then we are all in trouble. They might just start burning up Branch Davidians, or locking up Atheists.

The Church is evolving -- see here --> http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/rel_evol_sun.htm

[shoju]

First Amendment?

[FireIceTalon]

Science and religion can never be compatible. I repeat, they can never be compatible. The former is based on material observation and testing a hypothesis to find a valid theory or empirical laws in the physical world, or what is called REALITY...the latter is grounded entirely on faith, ideology/idealism, subjective morality, and cannot be tested in any way - certainly not in any meaningful objective way at least.

As I stated previously, one can be scientific and also be religious, but they must exist and operate independently of one another. The minute you mix the two, you are injecting ideology into science, and thus it becomes subjective instead of objective - science must always be objective to even be considered science in the first place.

[kandrathe]

The former is based on material observation and testing a hypothesis to find a valid theory or empirical laws in the physical world, or what is called REALITY...the latter is grounded entirely on faith, ideology/idealism, subjective morality, and cannot be tested in any way - certainly not in any meaningful objective way at least.

So, like beauty, contentment or love? There are many things then that are untestable, or subjective. Other "things", like Time (i.e. space-time), are so pseudo-conceptual, and yet most of us understand so little about it (e.g. CPT symmetry violations by quantum particles).

Our strength is the rationality of science with the human capacity for imagination. I'd say the two aspects are what make us human.

[FireIceTalon]

Indeed, they are. That being said, time itself is a social construct - just like race, religion, nationalism, culture, beauty, love, human nature and so forth are.

The imagination can be both objective and subjective. With things like love and beauty, it is certainly subjective, no question. What you find beautiful may very well be different from what I or someone else does.

But with science, it is objective, or at least should be. If science was subjective, all knowledge of the world we live in and its processes, both natural and historic, would be useless or lack meaning, and civilization would likely have crumbled by now, or at the very least we would still be stuck in the dark ages. Using your imagination in science is fine, as long as you are doing it an objective manner, and not a subjective one to legitimize an agenda or an ideology.

[eppie]

So, like beauty, contentment or love? There are many things then that are untestable, or subjective. Other "things", like Time (i.e. space-time), are so pseudo-conceptual, and yet most of us understand so little about it (e.g. CPT symmetry violations by quantum particles).

Our strength is the rationality of science with the human capacity for imagination. I'd say the two aspects are what make us human.

Believing in a god probably happens because of natural (scientific) causes but that doesn't make the existence of a god true.
Things like beauty, love and contentment all have biological reasons.

There are (natural) scientists who believe in god, but almost all of these have been raised in religious families. The percentage of all natural scientists who started believing in god out of their own free will is likely far below 1 %.

Being raised in a religious family really plays with your brain and no matter how intelligent you are not every person is strong enough to get rid of that.
The reason why religion keeps being strong in a always more modern society is the one mentioned above, plus the fact that birth rates are high in many religious countries.

Religion and science cannot be combined unlike what religious scientists will tell you. There is no real reason imaginable why what is written in bible, quran or any other book should be real.

[shoju]

There are (natural) scientists who believe in god, but almost all of these have been raised in religious families. The percentage of all natural scientists who started believing in god out of their own free will is likely far below 1 %.

Being raised in a religious family really plays with your brain and no matter how intelligent you are not every person is strong enough to get rid of that.
The reason why religion keeps being strong in a always more modern society is the one mentioned above, plus the fact that birth rates are high in many religious countries.

Religion and science cannot be combined unlike what religious scientists will tell you. There is no real reason imaginable why what is written in bible, quran or any other book should be real.

I'm not trying to start something here, but I'm just curious. Are you saying that Religion is Brainwashing, and that by being raised in religion, you in fact become so, and are then not intelligent enough to decide for yourself later in life what you believe?

I mean, it sounds like you are saying that people who have belief in a higher power are less intelligent than those who don't, and surely I wouldn't want to put those words in your mouth.

And, there is a large portion of what is written in the Bible and the Quran, that is verifiable by other things. The Egyptians keeping Isrealite slaves, the reign of David, and Solomon as kings, people in the new testament are even mentioned in referenced in ancient Roman things.

While you may disagree with the "supernatural" points that the bible brings up, saying

There is no real reason imaginable why what is written in bible, quran or any other book should be real.

Is disingenuous to the facts that can be found elsewhere, and you do your argument a disservice by saying that absolutely nothing written is true.

[eppie]

There are (natural) scientists who believe in god, but almost all of these have been raised in religious families. The percentage of all natural scientists who started believing in god out of their own free will is likely far below 1 %.

Being raised in a religious family really plays with your brain and no matter how intelligent you are not every person is strong enough to get rid of that.
The reason why religion keeps being strong in a always more modern society is the one mentioned above, plus the fact that birth rates are high in many religious countries.

Religion and science cannot be combined unlike what religious scientists will tell you. There is no real reason imaginable why what is written in bible, quran or any other book should be real.

I'm not trying to start something here, but I'm just curious. Are you saying that Religion is Brainwashing, and that by being raised in religion, you in fact become so, and are then not intelligent enough to decide for yourself later in life what you believe?

I mean, it sounds like you are saying that people who have belief in a higher power are less intelligent than those who don't, and surely I wouldn't want to put those words in your mouth.

And, there is a large portion of what is written in the Bible and the Quran, that is verifiable by other things. The Egyptians keeping Isrealite slaves, the reign of David, and Solomon as kings, people in the new testament are even mentioned in referenced in ancient Roman things.

While you may disagree with the "supernatural" points that the bible brings up, saying

There is no real reason imaginable why what is written in bible, quran or any other book should be real.

Is disingenuous to the facts that can be found elsewhere, and you do your argument a disservice by saying that absolutely nothing written is true.

I am not saying that people who are brought up religious are less intelligent. I am saying that religious upbringing is indeed some type of brainwashing and that even intelligent people often have many difficulties completely letting loose what they were taught as children. Religion does something special with people.

Of course many of the things in bible or quran are real....just description of what people saw during that time. (although most parts were written quite many years after they actually happened.....so if Bush can make us believe Saddam had WMDs when they invaded Iraq there is also no reason to believe that all of the 'historical facts' are true) But indeed as you say for the miracle stuff-----no reason to believe that was real.
So yes I didn't write that down correctly.

[FireIceTalon]

Relating intelligence to belief in a religion would be pretty difficult to quantify, if not impossible. There is however, certainly a correlation between education and being religious. Numerous studies have shown that those who are more educated are more likely to be atheist, those who less educated are likely to believe in a faith. This has been reflected geographically too, where there is a higher population of atheists in coastal cities than in middle America. But education is very much a different matter than actual intelligence. George W. Bush attended Yale and Harvard, but was dumber than a rock, or at least he certainly said a lot of things that would indicate such.

Religion was developed during a time when we had no science or history to be able to understand or explain the natural phenomena that occurs around us. It is on this basis why philosophical Idealism and Materialism are fundamentally opposed to one another.

And eppie, love and beauty are social constructs mate, not biological. Love might appear to have a biological component to it, such as between a mother and child, but even this relationship must be learned, and with the divorce rate in our society being 50%, I would say this is solid evidence that love changes, best friends can become strangers, and therefore, love is ultimately a social construct. Beauty is absolutely, 100% a social construct, for the exact same reasons that race is.