Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[--Pete]

Hi,

A Swede? You're suggesting I might be a Swede?? Don't even get me started on that scrofulous, potato-eating, gangsta-faking, pustulent excuse of a Scandanavian nation.

I see, you're an equal opportunity Nordic basher;)

Well you took that a bit better than I thought you might.;)

It's a difference of opinion, not a war. There's no animosity, at least on my part.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

Van is gonna jump you, you used a MPQ without labeling it as a MPQ -- that might even get old Barn out of his grill;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

A Swede? You're suggesting I might be a Swede?? Don't even get me started on that scrofulous, potato-eating, gangsta-faking, pustulent excuse of a Scandanavian nation.

Turnips, yes. Rutabagas, yes. Carrots, yes. But, potatoes require a growing season. On good years they get potatoes in the south (Skåne, Västra Götaland, Halland and Östergötland). Their finest delicacy, lingonberries (cowberries) are found in a swamp. The Fins, they have poronkäristys! What can I say? I'll have to consult with my Sami relatives in Umeå...

About your other descriptions... By scrofulous, I assume you mean morally degenerate... which is true. If you sat in the dark for 9 months of the year, you'd get ripping scrofulous too. Gangsta-faking... Well, yes, in Sweden even the gansta tags are done very neatly, and in vivid colors. It would be too depressing to get all wicked about it. And, pustulent is that byproduct of the lack of sun shine, which they remedy by sun bathing in the nude... ALL summer... All six weeks of it. The zits are replaced with a mild sun burn by August.

[Thecla]

Guess now we can only hope that Jarulf never finds this thread and discovers what we really thought of him all these years.

[kandrathe]

Guess now we can only hope that Jarulf never finds this thread and discovers what we really thought of him all these years.

Not just him... :lol:

[Vandiablo]

Van is gonna jump you

*nudge* *nudge*
;^)
;^)

[eppie]

Hi,
All you needed to do is click the link I gave you. No time to get your facts straight but plenty of time to write incorrect and inflammatory posts. You are almost down to the bottom of that ladder, and slipping fast.

--Pete

I checked your post a few reactions after the one you linked to. Even if you didn't mean to push a group/religion verbally in a corner that is what the popular media and populist politicians do with exactly these kind of statements. My reaction was not much different only the fact that I used christians instead of muslims. Statements often seem to be a lot more shocking or disturbing if you change a single name.
(take the words of eg dutch politician Geert Wilders when saying Jew whereever he says muslim).

SO like your statement was juts giving a fact and not implying anything (I believe you) so did mine. And as I felt that I needed to react on your post you felt that you needed that on mine.

[eppie]

Hi, kandrathe's point was that he felt that Islam was, overall, a positive influence in spite of its bad reputation in the West.

--Pete

If that really is Kandrathe's point I think I really have been attacking the worng thing,

Of course if this is his point I still disagree (:)) because I see very little good influence of religion in general.:)


ps. Sweden is great

[--Pete]

Hi,

Of course if this is his point I still disagree (:)) because I see very little good influence of religion in general.:)

I'm not supporting religion, which I consider the greatest evil ever perpetuated on humanity, I'm supporting clear logic.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And believing that a guy comes back from the dead instead is healthy reasoning. Finally the difference between thinking you are Napoleon, and believing in miracles, horoscopes and hand reading is not so big.

Something as common as a modern flashlight would be a miracle to people 2000 years ago. Is it so hard to conceive of a person who seemingly dead to be "resurrected"? The deification of Christ is something that happened a couple hundred years after his time of walking around performing the "miracles" of healing. Look at the myths that have arisen around Saint Nicholas. When these events were transpiring 60 some generations ago, your and my ancestors were building henges and huddling around fire pits in crude huts afraid of the dark.

If you change your perception of "miracle" to something not yet explained by our current understanding, you will begin to understand better. I've witnessed things I cannot explain with science first hand, which does not mean anyone should quit their job and become a hermit. But, I do think that limiting the scope of reality to what you believe is a bit restrictive. I feel that you consider anyone who speculates on a reality that is more complex than yours is being foolish. I think it is the opposite. A seeker of truth will open their mind to any possibility if it leads to a better and higher understanding of the truth. This is not a blind adherence to any dogma, of science, or of religion.

The second after the big bang occurred space and time began to exist. We are bounded by a 3 dimensional space, and are bounded by time. How many dimensions are there? The Kaluza–Klein theory predicts there are five dimensions. According to string theory and M-theory there may be 10 or 11 dimensions, but no physical proof of them exists. My point being that the universe is a pretty big complex place, and neither of us know a whit about it or even how we got here in the first place. The big bang seems pretty miraculous to me.

My statement about religion is that as a social construct that when properly used leads to building people of morality and good character. The atheist version of this as far as I can tell is the Unitarian Universalist denomination. It is human nature to be anti-social, or immoral, and so blaming the failure of people on the various positive social constructs, like religion, is wrong headed. For example, if a vegetarian eats a hamburger does it permanently undo their belief, or can they be redeemed? If it happens all the time, well, then they aren't a very good vegetarian. Were it not for certain societal constructs bringing out our better nature, we'd be 6 billion monkey's flinging poo at each other.

[Jester]

The question was, are their Christians who see it as a consequence of their religious belief, that they must go out and kill their religious enemies? It seems to me to be obvious that the answer is yes, and not just a tiny handful, either, but a substantial number, many of whom are serving in militaries that afford them exactly that opportunity, in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Can a soldier be moral at all? Can a bombardier be moral?

The question is not about ideal soldiers. The question is about the ones that are actually out there. And it is abundantly clear that there is a non-trivial portion of the military that see their operations as part of advancing an overtly Christian agenda. Jesus Kill Mohammed?

As for the government buying gun sights with Bible verses stamped in an unnoticed place... It's a non-issue.

But they weren't unnoticed. They were used for proselytizing, not only by some who used them, but by some who issued them. "Spiritually tranformed firearms of Jesus Christ?" We're talking about people who see themselves essentially as crusaders, killing the infidel and spreading the good word from inside the military.

The government buys many products with religious codes on them. We've probably discussed this before, but people have the freedom to express their religious speech and I'd say even government speech is protected as long as it does not "establish" a preferred religion. Does the government have any restrictions on buying products from Muslims, Jews, or Christians? Does the government buy copies of the Bible, copies of the Koran, copies of the Torah for governmental use?

Does the government buy combat knives with "Om mani padme hum" inscribed on them? Body armour painted with Quetzalcoatl? Menorah-shaped anti-missile systems? Didn't think so. This (not-mysteriously) seems to be restricted to one religion in particular, the one that all the presidents have been, the one that the vast majority of the population adheres to. That's establishment.

"The scripture references were begun more than 20 years ago by Trijicon's founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who died in a 2003 plane crash in Alabama." Pentagon: Bible-verse gunsights don't violate rules

I would sharply disagree that those scopes do not violate the establishment clause. I hope someone takes them to court for it. The Pentagon mentions "In God We Trust," which itself should be removed from the currency, except that nobody has the fortitude to do it.

Ever seen any of these on a product?

Link's broken. If, guessing from the name of the link, this is just the symbolism used to mark whether something is Kosher, that's hardly in the same class. I would also presume that there is no such thing as a Kosher scope, although the Israelis might have something else to say on the issue.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The question was, are their Christians who see it as a consequence of their religious belief, that they must go out and kill their religious enemies? It seems to me to be obvious that the answer is yes, and not just a tiny handful, either, but a substantial number, many of whom are serving in militaries that afford them exactly that opportunity, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The question is not about ideal soldiers. The question is about the ones that are actually out there. And it is abundantly clear that there is a non-trivial portion of the military that see their operations as part of advancing an overtly Christian agenda.

I think you should talk to some current and former US military about what they believe. I've never met one that believes they are doing anything more or less than serving their country when called.

But they weren't unnoticed. They were used for proselytizing, not only by some who used them, but by some who issued them. "Spiritually transformed firearms of Jesus Christ?" We're talking about people who see themselves essentially as crusaders, killing the infidel and spreading the good word from inside the military.

Proselytizing? Exactly how was that done? You have a pretty low threshold on what constitutes proselytizing. There might be biblical micro dots on your bowling ball... You never know.

This (not-mysteriously) seems to be restricted to one religion in particular, the one that all the presidents have been, the one that the vast majority of the population adheres to. That's establishment.

No. Establishment is not practice or speech. Establishment is when the government declares a state religion, or prohibits one.

I would sharply disagree that those scopes do not violate the establishment clause. I hope someone takes them to court for it. The Pentagon mentions "In God We Trust," which itself should be removed from the currency, except that nobody has the fortitude to do it.

Fortitude? No. I think its because there is only a small minority that disagree. Besides, the US governments position on religion should be intentionally neutral. Neither supporting or restricting. By requiring "zero" religious speech or expression, they would be endorsing or implementing an atheist world view.

Link's broken. If, guessing from the name of the link, this is just the symbolism used to mark whether something is Kosher, that's hardly in the same class.

The point being that we live with religious icons, phrases, and symbols from many religions all around us. In this case, we've lived with the small stamped code on rifle sights for twenty years. Now, because some atheists discovered it and the press published it, it's suddenly an issue. If I bought an Uzi and found it had the star of David etched upon it, or even a verse from the Talmud or Torah would I be surprised or amused?

[Jester]

I think you should talk to some current and former US military about what they believe. I've never met one that believes they are doing anything more or less than serving their country when called.

No doubt, most of the military is secular, and keeps its religion to itself. This is a marvellous tradition. Sadly, it is being eroded in some very disturbing places. There are many who obviously believe that "serving their country" involves serving their religion - they see America as a Christian nation, fighting Islamic enemies, and that this is the fundamental basis for the conflict. That's dangerous, to say the least.

Proselytizing? Exactly how was that done? You have a pretty low threshold on what constitutes proselytizing. There might be biblical micro dots on your bowling ball... You never know.

Well, I know, because I don't have a bowling ball. However, there was clearly a group of soldiers and gun enthusiasts who knew about this, and who claimed this was one of the scope's good qualities. This is not a totally unknown series of microdots - this is a known religious marking that acts to forward a religious goal, not only in spreading that religion, but in implying the connection between military power and religion. The less any military goes in that direction, the better.

Establishment is not practice or speech. Establishment is when the government declares a state religion, or prohibits one.

We've been here plenty of times before. Your interpretation of the establishment clause is not supported - not by the courts, and not by the relevant founders, notably Madison. The establishment clause is a wall between the government and religion - it binds both speech and practice for anyone acting officially for the government. Even then, whatever the standard may be for ordinary politics, surely it should be far higher for the military, a place where any religious entanglement at all could lead to dire consequences.

Besides, the US governments position on religion should be intentionally neutral. Neither supporting or restricting. By requiring "zero" religious speech or expression, they would be endorsing or implementing an atheist world view.

That's ludicrous. "Endorsing or implementing an atheist world view" would involve explicitly *denying* that there is a God. Keeping government from interfering with religious matters through word or deed absolutely does not promote that viewpoint, or any other. It is simply silent on the issue, which is what the Establishment clause should enforce. Individuals are free to express whatever opinions they like, but the military is not free to purchase religiously-branded weaponry.

The point being that we live with religious icons, phrases, and symbols from many religions all around us.

Surely a libertarian does not need this point explained to them. In your own words, if individuals feed the poor, it's charity. If the government does, it's socialism. If an newspaper prevents you from publishing in their paper, that's their right. If the government does the same, it's censorship. If an individual displays a religious symbol, it's freedom of religion. If the government does it, it's a violation of the establishment clause.

There is a world of difference between what private people can do, and what the government can. This is the most elementary libertarian principle possible. It's what the whole Constitution is about, enumerating exactly what the government is allowed to do, and what it is forbidden from doing - religion being very high on that list.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Would we condemn the brewer of beer, or distiller of spirits, or the manufacturer of guns or gun sights?

Well, would you, if you found verses like this on liquor bottles?;)

Isaiah 24:9
They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it.

Or perhaps you would object to this one?

Isaiah 56:12
Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.

The government buys many products with religious codes on them.

You don't see the irony of weapons with religious references? That the founder of the company was such a devote Christian that he felt militairy equipment needed such additions?

For example, if a vegetarian eats a hamburger does it permanently undo their belief, or can they be redeemed?

You have odd views about vegetarians. There is no need for redemption, because there is no wrathfull God of Vegetarians who punishes. If someone who vowed never to swear, for personal reasons, fails in a situation of stress, would this person need redemption from some authority to pick up that vow again? It's the same thing.

If I bought an Uzi and found it had the star of David etched upon it, or even a verse from the Talmud or Torah would I be surprised or amused?

The best person to answer that question would be yourself, ofcourse. So, what would be your reaction?

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Israeli firearms do bear the 'Star of David'. After all, it's a symbol for the State of Israel as well, which wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the religion of it's population. Uzi's were developed in Israel, too, btw.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Besides, the US governments position on religion should be intentionally neutral. Neither supporting or restricting. By requiring "zero" religious speech or expression, they would be endorsing or implementing an atheist world view.

How is "In God We Trust" on our currency and in our state offices and courtrooms neutral? Consider all the implications of that statement:

First, and most obvious, it implies the existence of a singular god. This excludes atheists, true, but it also excludes people whose beliefs include a pantheon of gods or who have no clearly defined concept of god.

Second, it implies that god is someone or something we can trust in. That implies a personal god, one who somehow knows and cares about our doings. You know, the guy who determines the outcome of high school football games. This excludes those whos religion is based on some universal impersonal principle.

Pretty much, all that leaves are the religions descending from Abraham.

But it goes further than that. The god of the old testament, the god of Judaism, is a god you fear and obey. He doesn't do football games. And no true Muslim refers to his god by any name but Allah. So, to the rational mind, "In God We Trust" is an establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the USA.

Besides, your argument is logical nonsense. If, for instance, I do not tell you that I love my wife, are you then entitle to assume I hate her?

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Something as common as a modern flashlight would be a miracle to people 2000 years ago.

Clark's third law. However, I don't see the parallel. Are you implying that Christ was resurrected by some advanced technology that existed two thousand years ago but which we don't understand?

Is it so hard to conceive of a person who seemingly dead to be "resurrected"?

No. People mistakingly thought dead have 'come back to life' on many occasions. This is common in cases of death by hypothermia, hence the expression, "they're not dead till they're warm and dead." However, think it through; if he was only "seemingly dead" then he wasn't "resurrected". If that is what you intended to imply by the quotes around 'resurrected', then you are accepting the possibility that the central thesis of Christianity (that Christ, be he man or god, died for our sins) is false. How can any belief system founded on a false thesis be true? If it contains truths, then isn't that in spite of rather than because of its basis? And shouldn't it be replaced with a new system, one that is based as much as possible on truth and that incorporates the truths of the discredited system?

The deification of Christ is something that happened a couple hundred years after his time of walking around performing the "miracles" of healing. Look at the myths that have arisen around Saint Nicholas.

Again, you seem to be implying, quite strongly, that Christianity is false, based on myths. Apparently, your definition of 'Christianity' is as idiosyncratic as your definition of 'Christians'. Perhaps you are thinking in terms similar to Jefferson's? I think that, while his opinions were very advanced for the start of the nineteenth century, he lacked the foundation of modern science to give him an alternative basis for his world view.

When these events were transpiring 60 some generations ago, your and my ancestors were building henges and huddling around fire pits in crude huts afraid of the dark.

Actually, my ancestors of that time were living in centrally heated houses with running water. They were growing grapes and making wine on homesteads, many of which were granted to them as a reward for military services under one Gaius Julius Caesar.

If you change your perception of "miracle" to something not yet explained by our current understanding, you will begin to understand better.

There you go again, redefining terms to suit your opinions. While it is common to use the word in colloquial phrases like "It's a miracle the Red Sox won the series.", the strict definition of a miracle is a supernatural occurrence which cannot be explained by natural causes (even if we don't know what those causes could be). For things which are not yet explained by our current understanding, I prefer 'ignorance', it's more honest, since it doesn't imply the pseudo-knowledge that 'miracle' does.

I've witnessed things I cannot explain with science first hand, which does not mean anyone should quit their job and become a hermit.

I had a friend who would sometimes answer a question sarcastically with, "I don't know. Nobody knows." Since you couldn't explain a phenomenon with science, that phenomenon was not explicable by science is an implication that should only be made in jest.

But, I do think that limiting the scope of reality to what you believe is a bit restrictive. I feel that you consider anyone who speculates on a reality that is more complex than yours is being foolish. I think it is the opposite. A seeker of truth will open their mind to any possibility if it leads to a better and higher understanding of the truth. This is not a blind adherence to any dogma, of science, or of religion.

First, a belief in the supernatural is not more complex, it is less so. Rather than trying to understand the universe, it is sufficient to attribute everything to a god. Lightning? Which is the complex answer? Zeus? Or the static charges built up by the movement of air molecules until the potential difference is enough to overcome the dialectic constant of the intervening air? And, incidentally, which leads to a lightning rod?

Second, a mind needs to be open, yes, but it also needs to be skeptical. The bigger a claim, the bigger the proof needed to substantiate that claim. I don't reject pyramid power because it is paranormal, I reject it because, in every controlled test reported, it has failed. Very similarly, I reject cold fusion. If either is ever supported by a repeatable successful test, then I will revise my opinion.

The second after the big bang occurred space and time began to exist. We are bounded by a 3 dimensional space, and are bounded by time. How many dimensions are there? The Kaluza–Klein theory predicts there are five dimensions. According to string theory and M-theory there may be 10 or 11 dimensions, but no physical proof of them exists. My point being that the universe is a pretty big complex place, and neither of us know a whit about it or even how we got here in the first place. The big bang seems pretty miraculous to me.

Sorry, this is the god of the gaps argument. In grad school, we used to jokingly describe problems as 'impossible' and 'trivial'. As soon as an impossible problem was solved, it became trivial. You appear to be doing the same thing with 'miracle' and 'scientific'. When something is explained, it transitions.

You are right, we don't know what caused the big bang, or even what it really was. Many people are thinking about it, trying to get a better answer than 'god did it'. An answer that may be testable, that may lead to something like a lightning rod. That might actually increase our knowledge rather than keeping us in the comfort of our superstitious ignorance. As for the rest, we have a pretty good handle on how our universe evolved, how our galaxy formed, how the solar system came to be, how the earth moon system happened, how life started, how we got to where we are now. The broad strokes are pretty clear, many of the details are fuzzy. But as for god, I'll go with Lagrange, I have no need for that hypothesis.

My statement about religion is that as a social construct that when properly used leads to building people of morality and good character. The atheist version of this as far as I can tell is the Unitarian Universalist denomination.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how teaching people a world view based on a lie can be good. What it does do is give the resulting people a false sense of certainty in their beliefs. Unlike the scientific viewpoint which is built on uncertainty and doubt and which allows for the existence of conflicting viewpoints, religious indoctrination allows no contradiction. Once one is truly convinced that he is doing god's will, then any opposition must be destroyed and any action is justified. The stronger the belief, the less room there can be for tolerance, for acceptance, for mercy.

It is human nature to be anti-social, or immoral, and so blaming the failure of people on the various positive social constructs, like religion, is wrong headed.

Where do you get this crap? Most primates are social. Everything we know of primitive man indicates that he lived in groups, at least family sized and often bigger. Every primitive society we've come into contact with has been social. As to immoral, that is a religious concept. Is human sacrifice immoral? I know of no cases of it other than by psychopaths and the religious. The only reason anything is 'immoral' is because there is a consensus, and most of the things considered immoral are so considered on the basis of religion.

For example, if a vegetarian eats a hamburger does it permanently undo their belief, or can they be redeemed? If it happens all the time, well, then they aren't a very good vegetarian.

Why is this person a vegetarian? For religious reasons? If so, then unless his religion has some form of atonement and forgiveness, he can't be redeemed. For respect for animal life? No redemption necessary. For health reasons, such as fear of transmitted diseases or a need to reduce cholesterol? Get real.

Were it not for certain societal constructs bringing out our better nature, we'd be 6 billion monkey's flinging poo at each other.

Funny, I seem to have missed that part of the social life of chimps and gorillas. Or have they all converted to Christianity?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

First, you are not eppie, but your arguments are more lucid so it was gracious of you to answer in his stead. :)

Clark's third law. However, I don't see the parallel. Are you implying that Christ was resurrected by some advanced technology that existed two thousand years ago but which we don't understand?

No. My point is that we've learned a bunch, and what is common to us would be miraculous to even the sophisticated Romans of 2000 years ago.

No. People mistakingly thought dead have 'come back to life' on many occasions. This is common in cases of death by hypothermia, hence the expression, "they're not dead till they're warm and dead." However, think it through; if he was only "seemingly dead" then he wasn't "resurrected". If that is what you intended to imply by the quotes around 'resurrected', then you are accepting the possibility that the central thesis of Christianity (that Christ, be he man or god, died for our sins) is false. How can any belief system founded on a false thesis be true? If it contains truths, then isn't that in spite of rather than because of its basis? And shouldn't it be replaced with a new system, one that is based as much as possible on truth and that incorporates the truths of the discredited system? Again, you seem to be implying, quite strongly, that Christianity is false, based on myths.

This is for each person to decide for themselves, right. It's pretty hard to prove what did or did not happen to one hapless Jew some 2000 years ago. Many people have thought about it for the past 2000 years, and have come up with hundreds of variations on this one mans life and philosophy. It's more complicated than one Christianity that you (and Jester) keep trying to lump together. Your not trying to convince me that Atheism is the only correct belief, and I'm not trying to convince you that Christianity is the only correct belief. I just want people to have the right to believe what they like without "believers in a deity" being ridiculed as cretins, or likewise Atheists being labeled as immoral.

Apparently, your definition of 'Christianity' is as idiosyncratic as your definition of 'Christians'. Perhaps you are thinking in terms similar to Jefferson's? I think that, while his opinions were very advanced for the start of the nineteenth century, he lacked the foundation of modern science to give him an alternative basis for his world view.

Again, there is no need to focus on my particular beliefs. I'm describing the domain of beliefs surrounding Christianity, and there are some issues I have a strong opinion against (such as tying a creed to the power of government).

Actually, my ancestors of that time were living in centrally heated houses with running water. They were growing grapes and making wine on homesteads, many of which were granted to them as a reward for military services under one Gaius Julius Caesar.

Yes. But, eppie and my ancestors were still building henges and dancing around fires driving away evil spirits.

There you go again, redefining terms to suit your opinions. While it is common to use the word in colloquial phrases like "It's a miracle the Red Sox won the series.", the strict definition of a miracle is a supernatural occurrence which cannot be explained by natural causes (even if we don't know what those causes could be). For things which are not yet explained by our current understanding, I prefer 'ignorance', it's more honest, since it doesn't imply the pseudo-knowledge that 'miracle' does.

You use a scientific definition for miracle, while I reserve the right to be unscientific whenever I think science lacks the vocabulary. Such as in art, or discussing concepts beyond the natural world.

I had a friend who would sometimes answer a question sarcastically with, "I don't know. Nobody knows." Since you couldn't explain a phenomenon with science, that phenomenon was not explicable by science is an implication that should only be made in jest.

Yeah. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I mean things like the parapsychology research done at SRI. Their research has been inconclusive, and for scientists its considered mostly cuckoo. Meaning... No one seriously approaches the topic.

First, a belief in the supernatural is not more complex, it is less so.

Nice try. That is not what I said. I said that when approaching unanswered problems it is best to keep and open mind, which is not tied to any dogma of religion or science.

Second, a mind needs to be open, yes, but it also needs to be skeptical. The bigger a claim, the bigger the proof needed to substantiate that claim. I don't reject pyramid power because it is paranormal, I reject it because, in every controlled test reported, it has failed. Very similarly, I reject cold fusion. If either is ever supported by a repeatable successful test, then I will revise my opinion.

I agree that skepticism and discernment are needed in ample supplies.

Sorry, this is the god of the gaps argument. In grad school, we used to jokingly describe problems as 'impossible' and 'trivial'. As soon as an impossible problem was solved, it became trivial. You appear to be doing the same thing with 'miracle' and 'scientific'. When something is explained, it transitions.

Not really. This is keeping non-overlapping magisteria. I might look at a fractal and see the math, or I might see the beauty, or I might see both simultaneously.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how teaching people a world view based on a lie can be good. What it does do is give the resulting people a false sense of certainty in their beliefs. Unlike the scientific viewpoint which is built on uncertainty and doubt and which allows for the existence of conflicting viewpoints, religious indoctrination allows no contradiction. Once one is truly convinced that he is doing god's will, then any opposition must be destroyed and any action is justified. The stronger the belief, the less room there can be for tolerance, for acceptance, for mercy.

Who said anything about lying? Teach them the truth. Teach them to hold that truth skeptically, and practice it with wisdom.

As to immoral, that is a religious concept.

We have a code of mores. Where did it come from? Why? How do we continue to imprint it on our children? How do we enforce it? These are not scientific questions. These are questions of social cohesiveness. Blaming all "bad" behavior on certain positive philosophies is pretty much crap. When people stop caring about what is right, and what is wrong, then we'll be living in a very selfish, brutal world. Even with humanities 10000+ year quest to build civilizations, our worst natures emerge and repeatedly destroy what we've built. From Eastern cultures, to African, to European, to Pre-Columbian new world ones (including the ones without deities). I blame the "bad" on human nature, because without civilization in general we are selfish and brutal.

Why is this person a vegetarian?

I don't know, but they feel really very guilty when they disappoint their other vegetarian friends. Maybe they love animals, maybe they've been to a slaughter house. I used the example to describe belief systems other than religiously based ones, where a person seeks to adhere to a particular set of behaviors. Within the adherence to any belief system, you will have posers, people who do it to be cool, true believers (for all kinds of reasons), as well as those who do it well, and those who suck at it.

Funny, I seem to have missed that part of the social life of chimps and gorillas. Or have they all converted to Christianity?

No. Most are atheists, or bad examples of whatever creed they believe in. :) My opinion is that without the human pursuit of bettering ourselves, or the boundaries of social mores, we degenerate into poo flinging apes. In other words, yes, I did live one year in the same dormitory as the college football team.

If eppie replies to the previous post, I'm going to refer him to the answers I gave you. :)

[kandrathe]

No doubt, most of the military is secular, and keeps its religion to itself. This is a marvellous tradition. Sadly, it is being eroded in some very disturbing places. There are many who obviously believe that "serving their country" involves serving their religion - they see America as a Christian nation, fighting Islamic enemies, and that this is the fundamental basis for the conflict. That's dangerous, to say the least.

One article in Harpers doesn't really amount to any statistical basis in thinking that our military has become a Crusader army. It works well for the spin-meisters who hope to see Western interests fail in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, I know, because I don't have a bowling ball. However, there was clearly a group of soldiers and gun enthusiasts who knew about this, and who claimed this was one of the scope's good qualities. This is not a totally unknown series of microdots - this is a known religious marking that acts to forward a religious goal, not only in spreading that religion, but in implying the connection between military power and religion. The less any military goes in that direction, the better.

Many soldiers carry their "holy book" into battle. So what? Mountain... meet molehill.

We've been here plenty of times before. Your interpretation of the establishment clause is not supported - not by the courts, and not by the relevant founders, notably Madison. The establishment clause is a wall between the government and religion - it binds both speech and practice for anyone acting officially for the government. Even then, whatever the standard may be for ordinary politics, surely it should be far higher for the military, a place where any religious entanglement at all could lead to dire consequences.

No, this is how its treated...<blockquote>The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.--wiki</blockquote>Particularly note the last sentence.

That's ludicrous. "Endorsing or implementing an atheist world view" would involve explicitly *denying* that there is a God. Keeping government from interfering with religious matters through word or deed absolutely does not promote that viewpoint, or any other. It is simply silent on the issue, which is what the Establishment clause should enforce.

First of all, technically, soldiers actually have no Constitutional rights. They give them up for the uniform code of military justice, while they are in the service. As of July 1, 2002, Army Regulation 670–1 section 1-7b has been amended to mostly prohibit soldiers from displaying religious ornamentation. If Obama wants to order the sites changed, then he can order it to be so. The sites have been this way for 20 years, for the past 4 administrations. Trijicon sells great scopes for more than the military. If you read their website (like the about section) its pretty clear who you are dealing with.

Individuals are free to express whatever opinions they like, but the military is not free to purchase religiously-branded weaponry.

Why not? Can the US government buy Bibles? They do. Can they buy copies of the Koran? They do. The government can do whatever it needs to do to cater to the needs of the people it serves. Did they buy the rifles just because of some arcane symbology? No. They bought the best product that met their specifications at the lowest price.

Surely a libertarian does not need this point explained to them. In your own words, if individuals feed the poor, it's charity. If the government does, it's socialism. If an newspaper prevents you from publishing in their paper, that's their right. If the government does the same, it's censorship. If an individual displays a religious symbol, it's freedom of religion. If the government does it, it's a violation of the establishment clause.

See above. It becomes establishment when they tell you what you can or cannot do. Not when they acquiesce to someone being sworn into office with their hand on a Bible, Torah, the Koran, or whatever the person desires. If a government employee exercises their free exercise, it is not trumped by establishment. Establishment requires the implementation of law, not of personal preference. I choose to believe the military bought the sights because they were good in spite of the little extra stamps in the serial number, rather than because of them.

There is a world of difference between what private people can do, and what the government can. This is the most elementary libertarian principle possible. It's what the whole Constitution is about, enumerating exactly what the government is allowed to do, and what it is forbidden from doing - religion being very high on that list.

I know that is how you read it. But, that is not how it is written. You have the right to express your religiousness or lack of it (even if you work for the government (except soldiers as noted above)), and to be free from having the government thrust any religion or lack of it upon you, and the government when making laws should remain neutral with respect to favoring any or none.

Now if the bullets had little bible verses... Then, we'd be in trouble. :lol: I hope they don't check what is written inside their boots. Oops... Nevermind.

I think the whole thing is pretty ridiculous. Both the need for a gun sight maker to do this ridiculous thing, and for people pathologically raising a brouhaha about it.

Edit: One more thing... I wanted to revisit your last point, "It's what the whole Constitution is about, enumerating exactly what the government is allowed to do, and what it is forbidden from doing - religion being very high on that list." <blockquote>The United States Constitution creates a positive space for government. The federal government is delegated specific powers. The governments of the states retain those powers not delegated to the federal government or otherwise retained by the people.

However, the United States Constitution also creates negative space for government. What happens when a changing world, changing social values, or new technologies cause the public to demand an expansion of government into spaces that fall in neither the delegated powers of the federal government nor the traditional realm of the states? Typically in our nation’s history, this has occurred in response to a crisis that implicates a national economic interest or a national security interest, making reliance on the individual state governments for solutions inadequate. Examples would include the Great Depression and the response to the September 11 attacks. In these situations, the federal government rushes in to fill the negative space, despite the fact that a strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for the federal authority to do so. -- Searching for Negative Space in the Constitution</blockquote>I don't know that the framers of the Constitution thought about the procurement of optical scopes from a Christian business with secret codes on them being used by soldiers fighting a slim set of fanatics on the other side of the world. I think they would be shocked that the US was projecting force beyond its own borders frankly. If we apply the Lemon test, my read is that I don't think the military has much to worry about in violating the establishment clause, or any other part of the Constitution. Now that ABC has made a spectacle of a 20 year old product, we probably have violated the sensabilities of the Arab street. Yup, hope ABC got some good ratings for that one.

[Occhidiangela]

Just stay away from the healthcare though. It riles up the others.

Why should I pay for your abortion, unless it is retroactive?

[Occhidiangela]

This, I'm afraid, is complete and utter nonsense --- whether or not it's due to plain ignorance or bloody-minded willfull ignorance. You might as well advocate teaching in chemistry classes along side the atomic theory of matter the idea that matter is made up of earth, water, air, and fire.

It is interesting that among a selection western/european nations, the US is next to Turkey at the bottom in its disbelief of evolution --- surely in part due to the strong fundamentalist religious beliefs in both countries:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/...VO_GRAPHIC.html

Sdick to erectile dysfunction.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Jester on this one. If any group acts at all, it does so by the action of the individual members since the group is a collective, abstract, entity. Thus, it is trivially true that no group has ever done anything, good or evil. But, ultimately, a group 'does' what its members do. So, to say that something was done by Christians but not by Christianity is both trivially true and totally wrong.

No -- that just doesn't fly.

--Pete

Seque to the piece by Mel Brooks in History of the World, Part I

The Inquisition
The Inquisition

Lovely Vaudeville and swimming pool synergy there ...