Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[--Pete]

Hi,

Exactly. However, I believe the way to remove the problems of the private sector mess are to disentangle it from government. No mandates, and no subsidies. Let insurance companies compete for business equally.

Which came first, the insurance companies or the government controls on the insurance companies? Since, I think you'll agree, that insurance companies came first, then they had their chance in a free and open market before the government 'interfered'. And there's my answer to you: you want to take us back to the conditions that started this whole mess in the first place. You think that this time, things will work out right, that the free market will generate an equitable solution. When has that ever really happened? When has an unregulated profitable industry not turned into a monopoly?

So, we agree that the mixture of government and industry is a poor solution. One or the other needs to go. If the government goes, we're back to square one which failed. So, lets just for laughs, try the other solution.

The way to gut insurance companies is to make health care very affordable, and this would be a blessing for the entire world.

Affordable health insurance would indeed be "a blessing for the entire world". Problem is, affordability and quality are inversely related. A few people trained in basic health matters and a bunch of inexpensive medications can make a big difference in a third world country, but it takes a bit more to do open heart surgery, to irradiate tumors, to transplant a kidney, etc. Operating rooms, particle accelerators, DNA typing equipment, etc., are expensive and so is the process of learning how to use them. So, where do you draw the line? Besides, just how does affordable health care gut the insurance companies? They'll just take a bigger percentage of a smaller pie -- unlike the supply of doctors and medical equipment, the supply of file clerks and copy machines is unlimited.

--Pete

[Ashock]

I have, for example, been touched by the compassionate way in which drug companies have addressed and brought to public awareness such crippling issues as erectile disfunction over the last several years.

Ahh, so that's how they fix this horrid problem!

[Jester]

When has an unregulated profitable industry not turned into a monopoly?

Pete, I'm somewhat baffled by this question. Are you implying that monopolies are the norm during unregulated competition? I'm in favour of single-payer health care, but that's because of the peculiarities of the health care market, not a failure of markets generally. Where's the monopoly for pencils? For soy sauce? For computer games? Not all markets tend towards monopoly. I would say very few do.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, I'm somewhat baffled by this question. Are you implying that monopolies are the norm during unregulated competition?

Basically, yes. There are many items, such as soft drinks, that avoid monopoly because of taste preferences. There are others where external factors such as shipping costs dominate. But the main reason that there are not more monopolies is government control.

Consider: a few people start out in a new field. At first everyone is doing pretty good and it is even possible for others to enter the field. But some of these people, through skill, luck, or sweat, do better than the others. Those that do drive the others out of business or acquire the other's business. Checked by government regulations, you might end up with three national auto manufacturers, or two major aerospace companies. Unchecked, the process will go to the monopolistic limit (although there might exist niches for small companies).

Once a monopoly is established, it has the ability to be self perpetuating. It has the resources to outlast the upstart competition in a loss war. It has the ability to block markets. And, when all else fails, it has the funds to buy the competition out, either peacefully or by leverage.

You mention pencils, soy sauce, and computer games. To some extent you're right, many companies produce each of these items. But look further up the food chain. I don't know about pencils, but almost all food product processors are owned (in the USA) by a small handful of companies like General Mills. And in spite of the large number of computer game start ups, the successful companies end up being owned by companies like Vivendi or 'merged' into companies like EA.

So, yes, other things being equal I think that monopolies are the inevitable end point of unregulated free markets.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Which came first, the insurance companies or the government controls on the insurance companies? Since, I think you'll agree, that insurance companies came first, then they had their chance in a free and open market before the government 'interfered'. And there's my answer to you: you want to take us back to the conditions that started this whole mess in the first place. You think that this time, things will work out right, that the free market will generate an equitable solution. When has that ever really happened? When has an unregulated profitable industry not turned into a monopoly?

Your premise is that the insurance market messed up somehow, but actually I think that in order to have a legitimate insurance market you need some government regulatory authority to insure that contracts are enforced. Otherwise, the bad guys can masquerade as good guys, under sell the good guys, then renege on fulfilling their contractual obligations. You need some level of government authority to keep the playing field fair and level. Internationally, we have this problem with bootleggers who can easily copy and distribute DVD's and CD's. So, again, when your product is a contract, or based on royalties, you need governments to help create the market in the first place. Otherwise, these industries are quickly wiped out by the pirates.

So, we agree that the mixture of government and industry is a poor solution. One or the other needs to go. If the government goes, we're back to square one which failed. So, lets just for laughs, try the other solution.

Not entirely. A big problem with the insurance market is that its roots are still in state regulation. Each state has its own rules, so a multinational, or international company needs to follow 50 different sets of market rules. There is much that can be done to reform the entire insurance market (and not just health insurance), however, it would take all 50 states surrendering their insurance regulatory fiefdoms or a US Congress with a backbone strong enough to sell this reform to the American people.

As for monopoly, I spent four years working for a regional railroad just after deregulation. Prior to that, if you wanted to ship something by rail over the regions track you had to pay the regional railroad price. Which gave rise to cheaper prices on interstate trucking. After deregulation, rail roads began to compete again and began to re-examine all their former business practices that were wasteful and not customer oriented. So, even under regulation, the worst excesses of monopolies can be expressed.

Sometimes monopolies cannot be avoided if the desired goods or services are only offered by one company. "A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. - - In a world of free trade, international cartels would disappear even more quickly." -- Free to Choose, Milton Friedman

[--Pete]

Hi,

Your premise is that the insurance market messed up somehow, but actually I think that in order to have a legitimate insurance market you need some government regulatory authority to insure that contracts are enforced. Otherwise, the bad guys can masquerade as good guys, under sell the good guys, then renege on fulfilling their contractual obligations. You need some level of government authority to keep the playing field fair and level.

All true, but all moot. Yes, we need governments to make and enforce laws. That's hardly 'regulating' the insurance industry, that's simply anti-fraud legislation. While an extreme free market advocate may consider these laws to be 'restrictions' ("Buyer beware" and all that crap), most people would consider them a necessary part of an orderly society. And they do nothing to level the playing field of honest insurance companies -- they simply try to get the con games out of the system.

So, again, when your product is a contract, or based on royalties, you need governments to help create the market in the first place. Otherwise, these industries are quickly wiped out by the pirates.

Well, say rather to protect the market. But that is not much different than laws against theft of physical properties. Without recourse against shoplifting, retailers would go out of business.

Not entirely. A big problem with the insurance market is that its roots are still in state regulation. Each state has its own rules, so a multinational, or international company needs to follow 50 different sets of market rules. There is much that can be done to reform the entire insurance market (and not just health insurance), however, it would take all 50 states surrendering their insurance regulatory fiefdoms or a US Congress with a backbone strong enough to sell this reform to the American people.

Again true, but somewhat moot. The present system does not seem to work in any state. I don't see how replacing fifty similarly flawed systems with one central, probably equally flawed, system is going to solve the problem. The problem, after all, is not the inefficiency of government, or the greed and mismanagement of health insurance companies, or the rapidly rising cost of health care. The problem is the lack of health care for a large part of society. Any solution that puts the cost of health care $500 above what a person can afford instead of $5000 above may be good in theory but is meaningless in practice to that person.

So, even under regulation, the worst excesses of monopolies can be expressed.

Well, yes. Inefficient regulation can be no better, and often worse, than no regulation at all. Ask Russia. But that does not imply that useful regulation does not exist. At most it implies that good regulation is a difficult exercise.

Sometimes monopolies cannot be avoided if the desired goods or services are only offered by one company.

Isn't that a tautology?

"A monopoly can seldom be established within a country without overt and covert government assistance in the form of a tariff or some other device. It is close to impossible to do so on a world scale. The De Beers diamond monopoly is the only one we know of that appears to have succeeded. - - In a world of free trade, international cartels would disappear even more quickly." -- Free to Choose, Milton Friedman

I've read Friedman's book. He makes some good points and gives some examples of how regulation screwed things up (primarily Russia, India, and rent control IIRC). However, he ignores many factors and takes a very simplistic (too simplistic IMHO) approach. His contention that the best values are what will survive in the marketplace is based on fair competition. When a large, established company is competing with a small start up and it consistently undersells the start up while taking a loss and consistently outbids the start up for materials, supplies, and often personnel, the competition is not fair (in terms of product price and quality) and the large company will win. God *is* on the side of the big battalions.

And, as for international monopolies, you need look no further than Microsoft. Which is also a great case study for underhanded business tactics, and for the power of advertising over the appeal of quality.

--Pete

[Crusader]

I enjoy the humorous juxtaposition of the two news events. Islamic extremists upset by something as banal as a cartoon drawing repeatedly attempt to kill the artist, however, when in a similar fashion, the main figure of Christianity is likewise impugned by a person in the Danish press there is hardly a whimper of protestation. I'm not suggesting there should be moral outrage, because I understand that this is one persons opinion, and it may be shared by some other Danes, but hardly would be the position of everyone who read the editorial. I feel the same way about the infamous cartoons, in that, while crass, they are an expression of one person, and published by one paper, but hardly express the sentiment of an entire nation.

What I found humorous was that this person avoided life threatening outrage by attacking mere Christianity this time. It highlights one of the differences between West notions of freedom of expression, and those from the Middle East.

You'll find this in most (European) countries that are starting to be dechurched. People finally realise that religion isn't all it preaches to be. There are too many holes in the bible and other holy writings to take it seriously now that science (and the education of the plebs) is catching up. So Christianity is rapidly in decline. In fact, while most people here are still registered as Christians, a good part of them actually aren't, except that their parents made the choice for the baby to have it registered as Christian. So over here Christianity is rapidly in decline and being sarcastically rediculed as a relic of the past by most of the younger generations, where unwashed masses were kept dumb by the church so they could be kept under the thumb better. (We're missing roughly 800-1000 years of scientific advance thanks to Christianity). Over here, if you chose to believe that's fine for most people. Just don't expect tolerance when you bother them at their doors coming to bring the holy word. This is pretty much the opposite for the States, where people still cling to Christianity with fervor and you are an outcast if you're not Christian (an openly athiest president of the USA is not possible at this point in time. People won't blink at an openly gay athiest prime minister in the Netherlands. In fact Pim Fortuyn had a shot at this).

Then we move on to the Muslim religion and then we come to one of the most troublesome problems a good part of Europe faces today. Over here as said above we're rapidly casting off the shackles of religion and religion is being rediculed with fervor by many. Then comes along the muslim minority which tolerates NOTHING of the sort. Most Christians will shrug at a picture ridiculing Jesus and move on, perhaps feel hurt or insulted, but only a handful will actually go rabid at it. Muslims, however, immediately scream murder or, more appropiately, Jihad! Immediately they flock to instances against discrimination or the law to have this insult stamped out (and fail, freedom of speech and all) while in the meanwhile their younger generation (often poorly educated and statistically about 4x more criminal) goes to the street and molests some people (further increasing anti-Islam feeluings in society, viscous circle and all). So here you have the modern europe realising how religion bent them over and are catching up with vigor to stamp it out and on the other side religious fanatics who tolerate nothing of the sort. Welcome to the hotpot that creates newspaper flashes like the above. Immigration of muslims is rapidly failing, muslim youth criminality is reaching absurdly high levels, the people scream murder that something needs to be done, the politicians do nothing except dab at it with a soft cloth and soothing words, (extremist-) right anti-Islam politicians are rapidly gaining support and the world will surely end in 2012 after these nutjobs have been in power for a year.

Oh, and the War on <strike>Islam</strike> Terror isn't helping at all.

[kandrathe]

... So over here Christianity is rapidly in decline and being sarcastically ridiculed as a relic of the past by most of the younger generations, where unwashed masses were kept dumb by the church so they could be kept under the thumb better. (We're missing roughly 800-1000 years of scientific advance thanks to Christianity).

...

Well, Pete and I discussed this at length a couple years ago.

What about religion as a social system of transcendent idealism focused on concepts of unity of world culture, bringing principles, mores and a code of conduct? I think there is room in our society for aspiring to abstract ideals of productive behavior versus that notion of ALL religion as simple super-naturalism. Also, socially, I feel there is a need for aspiring towards higher levels of achievement and self-awareness, or a "higher consciousness." Or, as Buddhists would say, a correct way of thinking and acting, versus the fundamentalist (pick a religion) who proselytizes for manipulation, conquest and promotes the worship of supernatural beings.

I see that society has certain fabrics, like "family", "culture", and "traditions". When you destroy them, you leave a void that is filled with... What? Moral bankruptcy? Egoism? Narcissism? Lady Gaga? A return to barbarism? What do you think happens? Does everyone get more scholastic suddenly? I think generally, it turns out more like Russia after the fall of the totalitarian state, (i.e. drugs, crime, and sex). I don't care what the mechanism is, but I feel people need social fabrics with which they build societies.

The Dark Ages came after the descent of Rome into decadence, and thus weakened they were overwhelmed by their intrepid barbarian former allies. The Roman empire collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy, and failure to continue expanding. Its economy and decadence were fueled by conquest, where nations were pillaged and the booty carted off to Rome. Once the conquests ended, the coffers dried up, but the appetites did not, and thus the empire crumbled leading to barbarian dominance in Europe for the next few hundred years. If anything, the tendency for monasteries to collect and translate the few books that were around preserved knowledge and led to the eventual rediscovery of the Greek and Roman philosophies, and thus the age of enlightenment and preservation of western civilization.

What scientific advances have been thwarted? I mean consider Darwin, studying Theology at Cambridge who started his journey as a part of this exploration. Or, Mendel and his discovery of genetic inheritance.

Finally, about Islam. I wouldn't have a problem with Islam if it were a peaceful voluntarily selected social construct (such as Sufism), but that is not how radical Islam (Wahabism, or Salafism) works. As is happening in places like Sudan, or France, or Holland, they grow to a critical mass, then seek to dominate regionally, and eventually displace the non-Islamic people through implementation of Sharia law or outright violence(e.g. Darfur, Somalia). The non-Islamic people are subjected to the rules of dhimmitude, where it becomes easier to convert to Islam than to remain a virtual slave with few rights. Terrorism is just the tip of the sword, the sharp edge is the jihad (struggle) to dominate the world. I don't see that these people who are hiding bombs in their panties are very willing to sit down and discuss peaceful strategies for constructive engagement. The Obama (Hope and Change) message has been lost on them, and the lack of Bush-Cheney doesn't seem to have changed their strategies, or tenacity at all. We might capitulate and retreat to our caves(ostrich strategy), and hope they choose to just leave us alone. But, then again, when global dominance is the jihad, then this probably just advances their agenda. Right? This latest attempted bombing reveals that the US has returned to the failures of 2001, and it will embolden the terrorists for another big hit soon. The lesson we seem to have learned from Gitmo is... take fewer prisoners.

The way to win is not to go kicking their butts around Waziristan, Af-Pak, Iraq, or Yemen, but to isolate them there and let the locals deal with them where possible aided where we can. I'm getting tired of the US getting the bad reputation of being the worlds police force, paid for by us with borrowed money. As far as Holland, France, London, Detroit, or other front lines facing internal assimilation goes, the only successful strategy will be a total intolerance for Islamification, which is not an intolerance for Islam, but rather an intolerance for displacing the rule of law, or radicalization and subsequent violence. This means we need to get tough on treasonous behavior committed by our own citizenry, and deportation for resident aliens/non-citizens. We suppress the wrong headed ideas of skin heads by being intolerant of their racist rhetoric, and exposing the fallacy of their wrong headed ideas. The same needs to be done with the wrong headed ideas in radical Wahabbist/Salafist Islam.

[Jester]

What scientific advances have been thwarted?

Galileo?

As for the rest of your post, it really rather scares me, and probably not in the way it was intended to.

-Jester

[eppie]

Well, Pete and I discussed this at length a couple years ago.


The Dark Ages came after the descent of Rome into decadence, and thus weakened they were overwhelmed by their intrepid barbarian former allies. The Roman empire collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy, and failure to continue expanding. Its economy and decadence were fueled by conquest, where nations were pillaged and the booty carted off to Rome. Once the conquests ended, the coffers dried up, but the appetites did not, and thus the empire crumbled leading to barbarian dominance in Europe for the next few hundred years. If anything, the tendency for monasteries to collect and translate the few books that were around preserved knowledge and led to the eventual rediscovery of the Greek and Roman philosophies, and thus the age of enlightenment and preservation of western civilization.

Which is the official written history.....to me the main problem of the roman empire was that they converted to christianity....then the chaos started.

As is happening in places like Sudan, or France, or Holland, they grow to a critical mass, then seek to dominate regionally, and eventually displace the non-Islamic people through implementation of Sharia law or outright violence(e.g. Darfur, Somalia).

For Holland I am not afraid....there are virtually no educated islamic extremists....just a bunch of street thugs.....no way they will be able to convert the Dutch to Islam.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Which is the official written history.....to me the main problem of the roman empire was that they converted to christianity....then the chaos started.

Sorry, the problems with Rome, and its decline, started even before there was a Christianity. Look at the civil wars at the time of Julius Caesar which eventually led to his assassination and the eventual rise to power of Octavius. In that evolution from a republic to an empire, indeed even in the events leading to that evolution, are the seeds of the eventual downfall of Rome. Many factors contributed and by the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion, the fall was well under way.

As you've probably noticed, I'm no great defender of religion, but to blame Christianity or any other religion for the fall of Rome is wrong. Equally wrong is to attribute the survival of the ancient knowledge to the monks. They destroyed much more than they preserved, scraping manuscripts of ancient writings to reuse the vellum and parchment for their endless copies of the Bibles, Lives of the Saints, and other superstitious nonsense. Recently some previously unknown work of Archimedes was found by examining an old religious manuscript under UV light.

What little preservation of the ancient works that did happen was because of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire which lasted a millennium longer than the Western. And these works were reintroduced into Western Europe by returning crusaders and later traders who acquired them from the Muslims. Until Genghis Kahn devastated the Islamic world, its civilization and society were far in advance of the west.

Credit where credit is due, and the same for blame. Not all that we do is right, not all that our enemies do is wrong.

--Pete

[Crusader]

Well, Pete and I discussed this at length a couple years ago.

What about religion as a social system of transcendent idealism focused on concepts of unity of world culture, bringing principles, mores and a code of conduct? I think there is room in our society for aspiring to abstract ideals of productive behavior versus that notion of ALL religion as simple super-naturalism. Also, socially, I feel there is a need for aspiring towards higher levels of achievement and self-awareness, or a "higher consciousness." Or, as Buddhists would say, a correct way of thinking and acting, versus the fundamentalist (pick a religion) who proselytizes for manipulation, conquest and promotes the worship of supernatural beings.

I see that society has certain fabrics, like "family", "culture", and "traditions". When you destroy them, you leave a void that is filled with... What? Moral bankruptcy? Egoism? Narcissism? Lady Gaga? A return to barbarism? What do you think happens? Does everyone get more scholastic suddenly? I think generally, it turns out more like Russia after the fall of the totalitarian state, (i.e. drugs, crime, and sex). I don't care what the mechanism is, but I feel people need social fabrics with which they build societies.

here you suggest that Atheism equates to moral bankruptcy. preposterous. A society can create rules of conduct without the presence of a deitific power. If people embrace Athiesm they can still strive for ideals, like making the world an utopia for all, or for further scientific progress, to name a few. Why can't a society based on Atheism not have fabrics like "family", "culture", and "traditions"? I mean, you worry about drugs, crime, lady gaga and whatnot, but may I remind you that these plague the highly religious USA far, far more then they do the more Atheist Netherlands?

The Dark Ages came after the descent of Rome into decadence, and thus weakened they were overwhelmed by their intrepid barbarian former allies. The Roman empire collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy, and failure to continue expanding. Its economy and decadence were fueled by conquest, where nations were pillaged and the booty carted off to Rome. Once the conquests ended, the coffers dried up, but the appetites did not, and thus the empire crumbled leading to barbarian dominance in Europe for the next few hundred years. If anything, the tendency for monasteries to collect and translate the few books that were around preserved knowledge and led to the eventual rediscovery of the Greek and Roman philosophies, and thus the age of enlightenment and preservation of western civilization.

Barbarian dominance? We're talking about the Middle ages (500AD-1500AD) here. The Church was the greatest power out there for the most part of that time period. Sure, by current standards the people lived barbarically in good parts of Europe in the first centuries but by the year 1000 that was certainly no longer the case.

What scientific advances have been thwarted? I mean consider Darwin, studying Theology at Cambridge who started his journey as a part of this exploration. Or, Mendel and his discovery of genetic inheritance.

Surely you kid me. I am talking about the middle ages. Darwin lived 1809–1882. Mendel in 1822–1884, both in the age of enlightenment. It was in the period 500-1500AD that science was greatly hampered. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) was mentioned and was in the period when the church finally was losing it's grip. Everything before then that did not fit the strict christian teachings was branded heretical and would land the scientist in no ends of trouble, often including death. The earth was the center of the universe and everything, sun, stars and all, revolved around it. Because Earth was created by God. And of course it's flat. Oh yes. You can fall off at the end. Try to say otherwise and you are a heretic. you will be branded, your jaw dislocated for speaking heresy and you would be burned at a stake. No, the church preferred the flock to be dumb and in absolute terror of them, for they were the only ones who could save them in the afterlife.

Finally, about Islam. I wouldn't have a problem with Islam if it were a peaceful voluntarily selected social construct (such as Sufism), but that is not how radical Islam (Wahabism, or Salafism) works. As is happening in places like Sudan, or France, or Holland, they grow to a critical mass, then seek to dominate regionally, and eventually displace the non-Islamic people through implementation of Sharia law or outright violence(e.g. Darfur, Somalia). The non-Islamic people are subjected to the rules of dhimmitude, where it becomes easier to convert to Islam than to remain a virtual slave with few rights. Terrorism is just the tip of the sword, the sharp edge is the jihad (struggle) to dominate the world. I don't see that these people who are hiding bombs in their panties are very willing to sit down and discuss peaceful strategies for constructive engagement. The Obama (Hope and Change) message has been lost on them, and the lack of Bush-Cheney doesn't seem to have changed their strategies, or tenacity at all. We might capitulate and retreat to our caves(ostrich strategy), and hope they choose to just leave us alone. But, then again, when global dominance is the jihad, then this probably just advances their agenda. Right? This latest attempted bombing reveals that the US has returned to the failures of 2001, and it will embolden the terrorists for another big hit soon. The lesson we seem to have learned from Gitmo is... take fewer prisoners.

The way to win is not to go kicking their butts around Waziristan, Af-Pak, Iraq, or Yemen, but to isolate them there and let the locals deal with them where possible aided where we can. I'm getting tired of the US getting the bad reputation of being the worlds police force, paid for by us with borrowed money. As far as Holland, France, London, Detroit, or other front lines facing internal assimilation goes, the only successful strategy will be a total intolerance for Islamification, which is not an intolerance for Islam, but rather an intolerance for displacing the rule of law, or radicalization and subsequent violence. This means we need to get tough on treasonous behavior committed by our own citizenry, and deportation for resident aliens/non-citizens. We suppress the wrong headed ideas of skin heads by being intolerant of their racist rhetoric, and exposing the fallacy of their wrong headed ideas. The same needs to be done with the wrong headed ideas in radical Wahabbist/Salafist Islam.

A bit nationalist extremist, but I fear you're right as far as the extremists are concerned. However, there are many, many, many moderate muslims who have in fact successfully integrated in countries like The Netherlands (We're not Holland, that's only two provinces of the Netherlands). They are most welcome indeed and contribute to the country. But they are overshadowed, sadly, by the actions of the few. the extremists and the poor integrators and the jobless profiteers of our more than kind social system.

Hi,
Sorry, the problems with Rome, and its decline, started even before there was a Christianity. Look at the civil wars at the time of Julius Caesar which eventually led to his assassination and the eventual rise to power of Octavius. In that evolution from a republic to an empire, indeed even in the events leading to that evolution, are the seeds of the eventual downfall of Rome. Many factors contributed and by the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion, the fall was well under way.

As you've probably noticed, I'm no great defender of religion, but to blame Christianity or any other religion for the fall of Rome is wrong. Equally wrong is to attribute the survival of the ancient knowledge to the monks. They destroyed much more than they preserved, scraping manuscripts of ancient writings to reuse the vellum and parchment for their endless copies of the Bibles, Lives of the Saints, and other superstitious nonsense. Recently some previously unknown work of Archimedes was found by examining an old religious manuscript under UV light.

What little preservation of the ancient works that did happen was because of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire which lasted a millennium longer than the Western. And these works were reintroduced into Western Europe by returning crusaders and later traders who acquired them from the Muslims. Until Genghis Kahn devastated the Islamic world, its civilization and society were far in advance of the west.

Credit where credit is due, and the same for blame. Not all that we do is right, not all that our enemies do is wrong.

--Pete

Rome actually fell due to a lot of reasons and indeed, Christianity was named as one.

Reasons for the Fall of Rome

By N.S. Gill, About.com Guide

In A.D. 476 the last Roman emperor to rule the western Roman Empire was kicked out of office. Edward Gibbon and others pick this for the date of the fall of Rome. The Sack of Rome in 410 is also popular as a date for Rome's fall. Some say the Roman Empire never fell. But assuming it did fall, why did it fall? There are adherents to single factors, but more people think Rome fell because of a combination of such factors as Christianity, decadence, and military problems. Even the rise of Islam is proposed as the reason for Rome's fall, by some who think the Fall of Rome happened at Constantinople in the 15th Century.

1. Christianity
Over time, Church leaders became influential and took away power from the emperor. Christian beliefs conflicted with the working of empire.

2. Barbarians and Vandals
Rome embraced the barbarians but also lost territory and revenue to them, especially in Carthaginian Africa, which they lost to the Vandals.

3. Decay
"Marble 1st century A.D. Roman Naval Soldier"CC Joe Geranio
One can spot decay in many areas going back to the crises of the Republic under the Gracchi, Sulla and Marius, but in the imperial period and in the military it meant men were no longer trained right and the invincible Roman army was no longer.

4. Inflation
By the time of Claudius II Gothicus (268-270 A.D.) the amount of silver in a supposedly 100% silver denarius was only .02%. This led to or was severe inflation, depending on how you define inflation.


5. Lead
The presence of lead in the drinking water leached in from the water pipes, from glazes, and food preparation could have contributed to heavy metal poisoning. Lead was associated with contraception and recognized as a deadly poison.

6. Economic
Economic factors are cited as a major cause of the fall of Rome. Some of the major factors, like inflation, are discussed elsewhere. But there were also lesser problems with the economy of Rome that combined together to escalate financial stress. These include:

* Poor management,
* The dole (bread and circuses), and
* Hoarding.

7. Division of the Empire
"Map of Constantinople (1422) by Florentine cartographer Cristoforo Buondelmonte "Public Domain. Courtesy of Wikipedia.
The Roman Empire was split not just geographically, but culturally, with a Latin Empire and a Greek one, the latter of which may have survived because it had most of the population, a better military, more money, and better rule.

8. Hoarding and Deficit
Causes of the fall of Rome include economic decay through hoarding of bullion, barbarian looting of the treasury, and trade deficit.

[Ashock]

Galileo?

-Jester

This is a bit dated, no? The difference between Christianity and say Islam, is that Christianity evolved and Islam didn't. Whereas in the Middle Ages Christianity was intolerant and often enough malicious, and Islam was tolerant and somewhat open-minded, at least relatively speaking, the roles have reversed completely.

I am sick and tired of hearing about how Christianity was responsible for such and such evils....... 500 years ago. This is a sign of someone not having a valid argument.

Oh and btw, I am an atheist.

[kandrathe]

here you suggest that Atheism equates to moral bankruptcy.

Actually, I never mentioned atheism. Is it an organized social construct?

Everything before then that did not fit the strict Christian teachings was branded heretical and would land the scientist in no ends of trouble, often including death.

Myth. The not so dark ages.

Rome actually fell due to a lot of reasons and indeed, Christianity was named as one.

Who is N.S. Gill, and why would I trust anything posted at About.com? I see she has a graduate degree from the University of Minnesota, and does freelance writing.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/romefal.../fallofrome.htm

The article is actually a review of about a dozen sources all of which do not agree on why the Roman Empire fell. Only a few list Constantine's transformation as a root cause, but it probably does have some merit in that it caused schism's throughout the empire. The empires disintegration began well before Constantine's rise to power with the decisions of Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, which resulted in outright warfare between rivals. The Christian (Catholic) church that emerged from the 4th century was far more authoritarian, hierarchical and strayed pretty far from the various paths of early Christianity. Politicians were in positions to select the bishops for political, rather than spiritual reasons. A condition not remedied until the reformation, which unfortunately was a bloody mess in Europe as well.

It was the 1000 years of state sponsored intolerance (in the name of religions) which prompted the founders of the US to opt for the wall of separation between matters of the church and matters of the state. The danger is not any one religious philosophy for all their backwardness, but the marriage of religious intolerances to the government apparatus of power. The danger is when the state uses its power for the moral good of us all. In the case of the US, it means literal bankruptcy (which being impossible for a nation, will result in the Treasury printing many trillions of dollars to pay off our debts -- which will devalue all of the US.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . And of course it's flat. Oh yes. You can fall off at the end. . . .

Actually, this is a misconception. That the Earth was a sphere was known, at least, to the ancient Greeks of about 500 BCE. Augustine of Hippo introduced these ideas into Christian philosophy about the start of the fifth century CE.

Rome actually fell due to a lot of reasons and indeed, Christianity was named as one.

Yes. My statement was in reply to eppie's claim that the fall of Rome was due entirely to Christianity. By the time Christianity became a power in the empire, the empire was well into decline. How much Christianity actually contributed to the fall is still a subject for debate. Given that the Eastern Empire was also Christian and outlived the Western by about a millennium, it is hard to see how Christianity could be a cause, much less a major cause. There is nothing in Christianity as it is practiced that weakens a society militarily or politically. So, while it is true that some consider Christianity one of the causes, it is difficult to see just how it could be -- by what mechanism it could contribute to the fall of Rome. Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has a lot to answer for. It is easy to blame it for more than its fair share, and there are many who, in their blind hatred for it, are willing to voice and believe those claims.

--Pete

[Jester]

This is a bit dated, no?

Granted, but Kandrathe's question said "ever".

I am sick and tired of hearing about how Christianity was responsible for such and such evils....... 500 years ago. This is a sign of someone not having a valid argument.

Okay. Who's trying to keep the theory of evolution out of schools?

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

This is a bit dated, no? The difference between Christianity and say Islam, is that Christianity evolved and Islam didn't. Whereas in the Middle Ages Christianity was intolerant and often enough malicious, and Islam was tolerant and somewhat open-minded, at least relatively speaking, the roles have reversed completely.

I am sick and tired of hearing about how Christianity was responsible for such and such evils....... 500 years ago. This is a sign of someone not having a valid argument.

Oh and btw, I am an atheist.

Yes, but Christianity didn't evolve on it's own accord. The reason Christianity has "evolved" and Islam, for the most part, hasn't is because Christianity has developed in primarily secular societies. There are still large parts of the Christian following that believe, much like Islam, that the United States should be made into a Christian state and non believers should be denied citizenship. Not the majority, but the Middle Age mentality is still alive and well within the Christian faith. You don't have to look back 500 years to see this. Christianity along with a whole lot of racisim had a pretty large impact on Africa not 100 years ago with European Colonization. And even now in America, Fundementalist Christians utilize terrorism against abortion doctors to further their beliefs. Fundementalism of any kind is detrimental to society because it inherantly suppresses growth and evolution.

The reason you are seeing such bombast out of the Islam faith at present is because the fundementalist believers are losing their grasp on power. There are letters between Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden which state clearly that the greatest enemy to thier movement is not the United States but liberalized Muslim nations. The secularization of many Arabic Muslim nations is starting now and the best thing we can do is support this process while doing our best not to add fuel to the fundementalist's fire.

[Ashock]

Granted, but Kandrathe's question said "ever".
Okay. Who's trying to keep the theory of evolution out of schools?

-Jester

Is that Christians as a whole or certain groups? Do you see a massive, organised effort by the christian church to ban teaching evolution? I sure don't. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the theory of evolution has almost as many holes in it as does creationism. Therefore, I see as much validity in teaching creationism in public schools as I see in teaching evolution. Since creationism is NOT taught in public schools, I could not care less if evolution is. As far as I'm concerned, they should both be presented as exactly that..... theories, and not as reality.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is that Christians as a whole or certain groups?

Certain Christian groups.

Do you see a massive, organised effort by the christian church to ban teaching evolution? I sure don't.

No such thing as 'the christian church'. Whole bunch of denominations out there, some of whom accept evolution in one form or another, others who do not.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the theory of evolution has almost as many holes in it as does creationism.

Creationism has no holes in it. One simple statement covers everything: god made it all. He could have done it by setting up the initial conditions in the big bang or by creating the whole universe a nanosecond ago, complete with you, me, and all our perceived memories. It is totally untestable, totally unfalsifiable, and has absolutely no predictive power. It does not explain anything, not hybrid vigor, not breeding for characteristics, not the tail of the peacock, nor the change of the coloration of tree moths during the industrial revolution.

As far as I'm concerned, they should both be presented as exactly that..... theories, and not as reality.

Then you are clueless of what a scientific theory is. Creationism is not a theory at all. It is simply an immutable claim that explains nothing and predicts nothing. And there is no 'reality' in the sense you are using the word. Our explanations of the world are all simply models that are useful over some domain -- nature does not study calculus.

--Pete

[Jester]

Is that Christians as a whole or certain groups? Do you see a massive, organised effort by the christian church to ban teaching evolution? I sure don't. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the theory of evolution has almost as many holes in it as does creationism. Therefore, I see as much validity in teaching creationism in public schools as I see in teaching evolution. Since creationism is NOT taught in public schools, I could not care less if evolution is. As far as I'm concerned, they should both be presented as exactly that..... theories, and not as reality.

An Atheist repeating Christian fundamentalist talking points. That's novel.

There is most certainly a "massive, organized effort" by a number of Christian groups, to overturn the teaching of evolution in schools, or where that is no longer a realistic goal, to muddy the waters as far as possible by teaching creationism (or warmed-over "intelligent design") alongside it. The Discovery Institute tends to be the public face of this push, but it has the support of dozens of major Christian Right lobby groups.

The idea that the theory of evolution "has as many holes in it" as creationism is absurd. Dip into any part of biology you like: anatomy, genetics, metabolism, zoology, paleontology, take your pick. Evolutionary theory explains them, and links them all together. It is the cornerstone of modern biology, tested by countless experiments and supported by more evidence than you could review in a lifetime. Creationism is a series of ancient myths, dreamed up millennia ago when we hadn't got the first clue about the natural world. What little of it is testable, has already been falsified, and the rest is simply mythology or wishful thinking.

Likewise, the notion that creationism should be taught alongside evolutionary biology is ridiculous. This is like saying that alchemy should be taught alongside chemistry, or that the four humours should be taught alongside molecular biology. One is contemporary science (and a "theory" in the testable, scientific sense) and the other is outdated nonsense (a "theory" only in the sense that it's an idea someone had.) Feel free to believe whatever crazy ideas you like, but they should not be taught in schools.

However, the mere fact that you are advancing these arguments at all speaks clearly to how unfinished the fight between science and religious dogma is, all the way to the present.

-Jester