The snipers in the church tower

[LouiseBrookslover]

This story illuminates a great problem with religion. People can attack, demean, degrade, advocate, and oppose from the pulpit and be protected against retaliation by simply hiding behind their "faith" when the return fire comes. They can throw out "ideas", but they do not proffer them for discussion as much as absolute adoption. When the ideas are discussed or debated or, worse, opposed, the dogmatic hide behind their faith and accuse those who don't accept their idea as hostile to faith and in violation of human rights. You can't attack what a person believes in this country, and they know this. But that is just the problem. Until EVERY belief, attitude, and idea are subject to analysis we are going to continue having problems like this. Until you can call bs on everyone from the most milktoast Methodist minister to Fred Phelps to your gay neighbor, humanity has no chance of advancing.

Why is belief in a God entitled to a greater respect and less examination than any other strongly held idea someone else might have? If conviction is sacrosanct, why isn't all conviction not liable to question? It is because religion was established by the powers-that-be to reinforce social control and stability, not to promote change and progressive evolution. To question it is to destroy it. Perhaps this is the time to do so.

If Edwards caves on this, he will never get my support. EVER.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_bloggers2008

[NorthBiEast]

I agree. It sounds like this Donahue guy speaks just as, if not more, strongly as the young women. The problem is that, as a public presence, his bigotry does a LOT more damage (or progress, from the perspective of the speaker) than two college students with a blog.

From a campaign standpoint, I think Edwards would be a fool to fire them. I see this as the opportunity for him to prove his dedication to free speech, one of the founding tenants of the nation, and one of the values that sets us apart from the nations we choose to "liberate." One of the other basic beliefs of our forefathers is the separation of church and state.

If Edwards is willing to back down in the face of religious controversy, what is to stop him from rolling over on other American values?

:2cents:

[LouiseBrookslover]

Here's another quote from Billy

“The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done.” --Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League.

This guy is nuts, but he firmly plants a flag on an American center that thinks religion cannot be criticized.

[spartca]

Kucinich is running, and he's got a great voting record on LGBT issues:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500731.html

http://kucinich.us

[LouiseBrookslover]

As "fringe" as I am, I used to think that a fringe candidate couldn't, and shouldn't, win in a country as big and diverse as the USA. I'm starting to have my doubts about my former position, as examples such as this prove what a rotten foundation American centrism might actually rest on.

[LouiseBrookslover]

Come out in support of removing the tax-exempt status of politically active churches (Rep and Dem) and he's got my support. The fight against religion and in favor of reason is the coming fight of the 21st century.

[coyotedude]

Dude, you do realize that I get to question your beliefs and assumptions just as you can question mine, right? tee hee :)

I'm not questioning the power of reason. But I disagree that religion is always the enemy of reason, or that religion is necessarily the root cause of the world's ills. In fact, your assertion that "religion was established by the powers-that-be to reinforce social control and stability" (emphasis added) is an exaggeration.

I would agree that religion has been used all too often in human history to reinforce social control and stability. But religion has also played a vital role for the powerless - not merely as an "opiate of the masses", as Marx contended, but as a source of strength to sustain against the oppression of the powerful.

Don't forget, my friend, that Martin Luther King, Jr. had the title "Reverend" attached to his name for a reason. Indeed, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was not driven by atheists, but by believers - Christians, no less - who sought to shine the light of reason into the darkness of hatred and prejudice. (I might note that Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War and his interest in economic justice along with civil rights were also a function of the convictions of his faith.)

Similarly, Gandhi in India was not only a political and social leader, but also a spiritual leader. His spiritual convictions gave him the strength to challenge not only British colonialism, but also the ingrained biases of Hindus against the vast untouchable classes.

I am not a Christian myself, but I'd like to cite the founding of Christianity as another example. I'm not talking here about the conversion of Constantine and the establishment of the Christian church as the Roman state religion; I'm referring to Christ's actual ministry as portrayed in the Christian Gospels. Even acknowledging that the Gospels are second and third-hand accounts (being written decades after Christ's death), they still contain a remarkable view of a ministry that focused on the poor rather than the powerful - a man who preferred to "dirty" himself with the masses rather than with the elite, a man who proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth and that a camel would have a easier time walking through the eye of a needle than a rich man would at attaining heaven.

I confess that I am no expert in Islam. But as I understand it, certain elements of Islamic tradition that we in the West find backward today were in fact introduced as powerful and remarkable reforms among the Arabian tribes of the 7th century. While Europe languished in darkness in the thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was the Islamic world that offered advances in mathematics, medicine, and the sciences. Ever wonder why the word "algebra" sounds so, well, Arabic? Perhaps because it is.

I'm not writing these things to excuse Fred Phelps and his ilk. Far from it. Those of us who do maintain faith in the spiritual have even more reason to dislike his brand of religion than you do.

But the sad truth is that religion does not have a monopoly on irrationality. Ask someone who lived in the former Soviet Union during the years of communism whether state-sanctioned atheism led to a more rational, more progressive, and more highly advanced human civilization. (Okay, that's not entirely fair. It was an improvement on the bumblings of the later czars. But that's not saying much.) I'm not entirely sure that you could accuse the current leadership of China - where atheism is also state-sponsored - of being entirely rational and progressive, either.

Yes, religion has been misused and abused far too often in our history. But religion is not alone in this. Even science has been misused on occasion. For evidence of this statement, I merely submit the atomic bomb as exhibit A.

I look forward to your rebuttal!

Peace

[NorthBiEast]

Rather than rebutting, I'm going to agree with a large portion of what you've said. I especially appreciate your global and historical approach.

In any group of people, there are are going to be opposites. Martin Luther King Jr. and Fred Phelps are both men who have used their religious positions to further political agendas. The main difference, however, is the level of tolerance and respect they have (or don't have) for other perspectives. Some religious leaders use the pulpit to "snipe" from and push people away, and others use it to cast nets, to pull people into the fold. (sorry, i mixed metaphors) :2cents:

[12voltman59]

The problem I have with so many of the contemporary Christian groups is that they lay claim to being righteous and all of that--but I do not trust their true beliefs and they they are simply one more group that wants to take the reigns of power---

So many of these groups want to make America a Christian Theocracy---they do not care much for the democratic ideals that are supposed to be a hallmark of this country---I have heard some of those leaders specifically state things like "people don't deserve freedom--they can't handle freedom--the only freedom they need is to accept the Salavation offered by Jesus!!!

Some of them also have very clearly stated that people such as gays and others who don't live on the straight and narrow as they define it and don't accept Jesus are going to hell anyway, so they can and should be killed.

I don't have any problem with people worshiping in the way they so desire--except when that form of religious worship threatens the way I want to be free to live and to curtail my seeking my version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

[Herbwoman39]

I don't have any problem with people worshiping in the way they so desire--except when that form of religious worship threatens the way I want to be free to live and to curtail my seeking my version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....

I agree completely. It isn't religion that's the enemy here. The enemy is, as I believe the original point stated, those that use belief in a higher power to further their own biased agendas.

I'm a big believer in the freedom to choose how/who/what we worship...as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. In other words, I've got no problem with Christians...until they tell me I'm going to hell because I'm bisexual. I have no problem with Muslims....until I'm told that I should submit or die. I have the freedom to believe, not believe or create my own belief system. Ain't it grand :bigrin:

Something to keep in mind is that our founding fathers wrote into the constitution a freedom "FROM" religion, not a freedom "OF" religion. Those who are using religion to further their agendas have forgotten that one of the primary foundations of the US is the separation of church and state.

Dunno about anybody else, but *I* don't wanna live in a theocracy.

[coyotedude]

Even with my post above (sorry, I like to think and write!), it has always offended me terribly when people invoke God to defend and spread their own hatred and prejudice. Do they even pay attention to their own scriptures?

Let's see... I pulled out a copy of the Bible (since that seems to be the focus of our discussion) just to get the exact wording of this one passage from John:

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him [Jesus] a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, 'Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?'

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.' And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, 'Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?'

"She said, 'No man, Lord.' And Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.'"

Hmmm.... I'm no religious scholar, to be sure. But even with the archaic language, the message seems clear enough to me.

You know, I don't actually remember seeing any reference of Christ condemning gays in the Gospels. But he rails against "hypocrites and fools" all over the place.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[wanderingrichard]

Even with my post above (sorry, I like to think and write!), it has always offended me terribly when people invoke God to defend and spread their own hatred and prejudice. Do they even pay attention to their own scriptures?

Let's see... I pulled out a copy of the Bible (since that seems to be the focus of our discussion) just to get the exact wording of this one passage from John:

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him [Jesus] a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, 'Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?'

"This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.' And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

"When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, 'Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?'

"She said, 'No man, Lord.' And Jesus said unto her, 'Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.'"

Hmmm.... I'm no religious scholar, to be sure. But even with the archaic language, the message seems clear enough to me.

You know, I don't actually remember seeing any reference of Christ condemning gays in the Gospels. But he rails against "hypocrites and fools" all over the place.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

look thru some of the other books of that book.[ thessalonians maybe?].i think you'll find the references to intolerance of "homo sexuality"....

after having been subjugated most of my younger life by the methodist church, i finally "came to my senses" and for a time denounced all western religions.. fact my army dog tags said atheist on them..i could have really cared less how a borrowing, polyglot religion that got started by a bunch of rebels fared or not.. but, something was missing in me, and i started searching for it, and came across the realization that it was a guiding faith... so i am still in search of that, and maybe have found it....

back on track, [sorry]

freedom from religion was there because the founders of many of the original colonies came here to get away from state sponsored religions.. namely the holy romans and the anglicans and calvinists... they wanted to be left to worship, or not, as they pleased....

will refrain from further ranting

[SLIMES]

Similarly, Gandhi in India was not only a political and social leader, but also a spiritual leader. His spiritual convictions gave him the strength to challenge not only British colonialism, but also the ingrained biases of Hindus against the vast untouchable classes.

I am not a Christian myself, but I'd like to cite the founding of Christianity as another example. I'm not talking here about the conversion of Constantine and the establishment of the Christian church as the Roman state religion; I'm referring to Christ's actual ministry as portrayed in the Christian Gospels. Even acknowledging that the Gospels are second and third-hand accounts (being written decades after Christ's death), they still contain a remarkable view of a ministry that focused on the poor rather than the powerful - a man who preferred to "dirty" himself with the masses rather than with the elite, a man who proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth and that a camel would have a easier time walking through the eye of a needle than a rich man would at attaining heaven.

I confess that I am no expert in Islam. But as I understand it, certain elements of Islamic tradition that we in the West find backward today were in fact introduced as powerful and remarkable reforms among the Arabian tribes of the 7th century. While Europe languished in darkness in the thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was the Islamic world that offered advances in mathematics, medicine, and the sciences. Ever wonder why the word "algebra" sounds so, well, Arabic? Perhaps because it is.

I'm not writing these things to excuse Fred Phelps and his ilk. Far from it. Those of us who do maintain faith in the spiritual have even more reason to dislike his brand of religion than you do.

But the sad truth is that religion does not have a monopoly on irrationality. Ask someone who lived in the former Soviet Union during the years of communism whether state-sanctioned atheism led to a more rational, more progressive, and more highly advanced human civilization. (Okay, that's not entirely fair. It was an improvement on the bumblings of the later czars. But that's not saying much.) I'm not entirely sure that you could accuse the current leadership of China - where atheism is also state-sponsored - of being entirely rational and progressive, either.

Yes, religion has been misused and abused far too often in our history. But religion is not alone in this. Even science has been misused on occasion. For evidence of this statement, I merely submit the atomic bomb as exhibit A.

I look forward to your rebuttal!

Peace

First you refer to ghandi without realising that he wasn't the pleasant guy we all like to think of. He disowned his son for getting married so don't have any illusions about how he would view you.

Religion has been misused and so has science. The difference is that as science is based on evidence, it can be challenged on the basis of evidence. Religion however is based on myuth an personnal conviction: far more dangerous.

Exhibit A, the atom bomb, was not dropped because of science it was made with science but it's use was down to the secular decisions of its creators. And this is where your comparison falls down. science is not an ideology in the way that religion is. It's not meant to guide us. Our thoughts guide us and that is different.

Had president Truman been considering the decsion to develop/drop the bomb from a religious perspective, reasoned debate would have been impossible. Analysed from a secular perspective, however,a clear debate is possible.

[SLIMES]

Rather than rebutting, I'm going to agree with a large portion of what you've said. I especially appreciate your global and historical approach.

In any group of people, there are are going to be opposites. Martin Luther King Jr. and Fred Phelps are both men who have used their religious positions to further political agendas. The main difference, however, is the level of tolerance and respect they have (or don't have) for other perspectives. Some religious leaders use the pulpit to "snipe" from and push people away, and others use it to cast nets, to pull people into the fold. (sorry, i mixed metaphors) :2cents:

Martin Luther King was still using superstition and irrationality. Just because those beliefs happend to be drifting in the right direction doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the route of those beliefs.

One other question. Does anyone here like the God described in the bible?

[Solomon]

Dude, you do realize that I get to question your beliefs and assumptions just as you can question mine, right? tee hee :)

I'm not questioning the power of reason. But I disagree that religion is always the enemy of reason, or that religion is necessarily the root cause of the world's ills. In fact, your assertion that "religion was established by the powers-that-be to reinforce social control and stability" (emphasis added) is an exaggeration.

I would agree that religion has been used all too often in human history to reinforce social control and stability. But religion has also played a vital role for the powerless - not merely as an "opiate of the masses", as Marx contended, but as a source of strength to sustain against the oppression of the powerful.

Don't forget, my friend, that Martin Luther King, Jr. had the title "Reverend" attached to his name for a reason. Indeed, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was not driven by atheists, but by believers - Christians, no less - who sought to shine the light of reason into the darkness of hatred and prejudice. (I might note that Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War and his interest in economic justice along with civil rights were also a function of the convictions of his faith.)

Similarly, Gandhi in India was not only a political and social leader, but also a spiritual leader. His spiritual convictions gave him the strength to challenge not only British colonialism, but also the ingrained biases of Hindus against the vast untouchable classes.

I am not a Christian myself, but I'd like to cite the founding of Christianity as another example. I'm not talking here about the conversion of Constantine and the establishment of the Christian church as the Roman state religion; I'm referring to Christ's actual ministry as portrayed in the Christian Gospels. Even acknowledging that the Gospels are second and third-hand accounts (being written decades after Christ's death), they still contain a remarkable view of a ministry that focused on the poor rather than the powerful - a man who preferred to "dirty" himself with the masses rather than with the elite, a man who proclaimed that the meek shall inherit the earth and that a camel would have a easier time walking through the eye of a needle than a rich man would at attaining heaven.

I confess that I am no expert in Islam. But as I understand it, certain elements of Islamic tradition that we in the West find backward today were in fact introduced as powerful and remarkable reforms among the Arabian tribes of the 7th century. While Europe languished in darkness in the thousand years after the fall of Rome, it was the Islamic world that offered advances in mathematics, medicine, and the sciences. Ever wonder why the word "algebra" sounds so, well, Arabic? Perhaps because it is.

I'm not writing these things to excuse Fred Phelps and his ilk. Far from it. Those of us who do maintain faith in the spiritual have even more reason to dislike his brand of religion than you do.

But the sad truth is that religion does not have a monopoly on irrationality. Ask someone who lived in the former Soviet Union during the years of communism whether state-sanctioned atheism led to a more rational, more progressive, and more highly advanced human civilization. (Okay, that's not entirely fair. It was an improvement on the bumblings of the later czars. But that's not saying much.) I'm not entirely sure that you could accuse the current leadership of China - where atheism is also state-sponsored - of being entirely rational and progressive, either.

Yes, religion has been misused and abused far too often in our history. But religion is not alone in this. Even science has been misused on occasion. For evidence of this statement, I merely submit the atomic bomb as exhibit A.

I look forward to your rebuttal!

Peace

Hey, watch it with the knocking becoming rich!

"a camel would have a easier time walking through the eye of a needle than a rich man would at attaining heaven"

This quote has been SERIOUSLY taken out of context!

what he's referring to here are the ones that have been GIVEN riches (inheritances, lottery, sound familiar?) as opposed to the ones who EARNED wealth, and know how to make it all over again if need be.

This quote is part of the story of Christ asking the rich man to give up all that he owned and follow Jesus.

and guess what? the numbers PROVE me right when you look at the lottery winners that are worse than broke after what 2 years anymore?

Another thing, I don't believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was above being wealthy.... I did just read a newspaper article (somewhere on USA Today) that left me with the impression that financially his surviving family is still doing pretty well.

I also don't agree that organized religion has done such a grand job over the centuries, but you do have a point that the church doesn't have a monopoly on irrationality.

Of course, the church has had a monopoly on so many things they didn't need to insist on that one too now did they?

Another thing, I am a Christian and I have ex-communicated the churches because they don't understand the bible, Christ didn't go to church either, he didn't like the pharisees either. :cool: :cool: :cool:

[Solomon]

Martin Luther King was still using superstition and irrationality. Just because those beliefs happend to be drifting in the right direction doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with the route of those beliefs.

One other question. Does anyone here like the God described in the bible?

I don't recall God asking me if I liked him or not. I don't recall God saying to me "put your best face forward to me".

That maybe what the pharisees would preach but I say to them that if it's true that God created all things, and God is only good, then ALL things must be good.

[Solomon]

First you refer to ghandi without realising that he wasn't the pleasant guy we all like to think of. He disowned his son for getting married so don't have any illusions about how he would view you.

Religion has been misused and so has science. The difference is that as science is based on evidence, it can be challenged on the basis of evidence. Religion however is based on myuth an personnal conviction: far more dangerous.

Exhibit A, the atom bomb, was not dropped because of science it was made with science but it's use was down to the secular decisions of its creators. And this is where your comparison falls down. science is not an ideology in the way that religion is. It's not meant to guide us. Our thoughts guide us and that is different.

Had president Truman been considering the decsion to develop/drop the bomb from a religious perspective, reasoned debate would have been impossible. Analysed from a secular perspective, however,a clear debate is possible.

The truth of religion has always been to show us how to direct our thoughts.

[Solomon]

I agree completely. It isn't religion that's the enemy here. The enemy is, as I believe the original point stated, those that use belief in a higher power to further their own biased agendas.

I'm a big believer in the freedom to choose how/who/what we worship...as long as it doesn't interfere with my life. In other words, I've got no problem with Christians...until they tell me I'm going to hell because I'm bisexual. I have no problem with Muslims....until I'm told that I should submit or die. I have the freedom to believe, not believe or create my own belief system. Ain't it grand :bigrin:

Something to keep in mind is that our founding fathers wrote into the constitution a freedom "FROM" religion, not a freedom "OF" religion. Those who are using religion to further their agendas have forgotten that one of the primary foundations of the US is the separation of church and state.

Dunno about anybody else, but *I* don't wanna live in a theocracy.

I believe that Christ would say that what you wrote is actually a PROFOUND statement of belief!

[Solomon]

look thru some of the other books of that book.[ thessalonians maybe?].i think you'll find the references to intolerance of "homo sexuality"....

after having been subjugated most of my younger life by the methodist church, i finally "came to my senses" and for a time denounced all western religions.. fact my army dog tags said atheist on them..i could have really cared less how a borrowing, polyglot religion that got started by a bunch of rebels fared or not.. but, something was missing in me, and i started searching for it, and came across the realization that it was a guiding faith... so i am still in search of that, and maybe have found it....

back on track, [sorry]

freedom from religion was there because the founders of many of the original colonies came here to get away from state sponsored religions.. namely the holy romans and the anglicans and calvinists... they wanted to be left to worship, or not, as they pleased....

will refrain from further ranting

He has guided you away from the pharisees.

[wanderingrichard]

He has guided you away from the pharisees.

dude,
i truly do not give a care where you personally think something has guided me... christianity is not the answer for me that it seems it is for you... i look at it as a farce propagated by rebellious malcontents fed up with the same b.s. that we are now addressing in this thread...only several thousand years later.

what better way to lie than to take the lies fed to the masses as truth and fundament and turn it into another lie?

with this, i hereby withdraw from this discussion...

[SLIMES]

The truth of religion has always been to show us how to direct our thoughts.

If that's your idea of truth, i hope you never appear in court.

[coyotedude]

look thru some of the other books of that book.[ thessalonians maybe?].i think you'll find the references to intolerance of "homo sexuality"....

Uh, dude? I specifically mentioned Christ in the Gospels - not Paul and his disapproval of certain, er, "quirks" of the Hellenic world!

Mind you, I doubt Christ the historical figure would have been approving of homosexuality, given the context of his time and place. (I did think about that before writing that sentence.) But then, he wasn't particularly fond of adultery, either - yet had no problem calling the hypocrites on the carpet in the "let him without sin cast the first stone" story.

So my point still stands: too many folks (whether Christian or otherwise) spend too much time casting aspersions on others when in fact they should be cleaning up their own house, so to speak.

Of course even homophobic, misogynist Paul wrote one of the better descriptions of love, as I recall. So go figure....

Peace

[coyotedude]

First you refer to ghandi without realising that he wasn't the pleasant guy we all like to think of. He disowned his son for getting married so don't have any illusions about how he would view you.

Religion has been misused and so has science. The difference is that as science is based on evidence, it can be challenged on the basis of evidence. Religion however is based on myuth an personnal conviction: far more dangerous.

Exhibit A, the atom bomb, was not dropped because of science it was made with science but it's use was down to the secular decisions of its creators. And this is where your comparison falls down. science is not an ideology in the way that religion is. It's not meant to guide us. Our thoughts guide us and that is different.

Had president Truman been considering the decsion to develop/drop the bomb from a religious perspective, reasoned debate would have been impossible. Analysed from a secular perspective, however,a clear debate is possible.

Actually, my friend, you have no clue how Gandhi would view me. Nor do I care. The fact that Gandhi was not perfect does not diminish the fact that his spirituality was a key component of his life and his many accomplishments. It simply means that he, like the rest of us, was human.

You are absolutely correct that the scientific paradigm is one hell of a powerful set of tools for understanding the physical world.

You are absolutely incorrect when you state that reasoned debate from a religious perspective is impossible. In fact, religions are living things, not monoliths. Religion is not God, but rather our understanding of God or spirit. As such, religions grow and change as human perceptions of the world change. In such a context, reasoned debate within and among religious communities is absolutely vital if religions are to remain healthy over time.

(Incidentally, as far as I am concerned, there is only one truly valid argument against religion: does God or spirit actually exist? Whether the God of the Old Testament is a nice guy or an asshole - or whether Fred Phelps is a nice guy or an asshole - is really beside the point. But if there is no God, then religion has one hell of a problem - pardon the pun.)

Don't confuse the absolutism of certain religious adherents to the practice of religion as a whole. All walks of life contain absolutists - even the sciences. And this despite the self-correcting nature of the scientific paradigm, which relies on cold, hard evidence for advancement of knowledge.

This is not a flaw of science itself, but of its human practitioners. Human beings are fundamentally irrational, illogical creatures. And this is where your own argument breaks down. As you yourself point out, science cannot tell us how to live our lives; it merely shows us the likely consequences of a given set of actions within the physical world. Yet how then should we make decisions? Your answer: "Our thoughts guide us." Our thoughts - based not solely on reason, but also on morals, values, and beliefs. In other words, the very personal convictions that you condemned religion for.

Ironically, dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a reasoned, rational decision on the part of Truman. His calculus: he could order a ground invasion of Japan that could kill a million people on both sides of the war. Or he could drop an atomic bomb that would kill tens of thousands rather than a million and potentially bring the war to a faster conclusion.

Rational? Reasonable? Completely. Moral? You tell me.

Peace

[Solomon]

Slimes,

I have appeared in court. I won.

wanderingrichard,

You're the one that said you felt guided. If I said that Christianity's any kind of answer for me then I apologize 'cuz I lied.

I do believe that Jesus did set an awsome example for people to duplicate. But Christianity has twisted what he was trying to teach, because they don't understand it themselves. Jesus' own disciples didn't understand him, so to expect Christianity to is foolish.

The result is that Christianity has absolutely lied to the masses, and created a farce of Jesus, and probably the biggest mistake that Christianity has made was to discount science.

Jesus did NOT discount science. He applied it.

[Solomon]

coyotedude,

I believe that Truman's decision to drop the bomb was the most moral of the choices that he could make at the time.

[Long Duck Dong]

i love religion, its the biggest crock of hypercritical bull on the face of the earth

now, I am not gonna sit here and slam Christians, as I don't see a belief in god, as a issue, its the way that belief is used, that is the issue

as many of the Christians that I meet, say, jesus returned to earth to wipe the slate clean, hence the old testament became the OLD testament, something that was not working in the best interests of gods children.....

YET they use the old testament as the rule of thumb, to condemn about 90% of the world.... instead of simply smiling and leaving it to god to sort out

in past threads I have clearly showed how the modern bible condemned homosexuality, and how the ancient Greek and Hebrew never mentioned condemnation..nor homosexuality, ( a word that never existed til the 19th century )

what christians need to understand is that 95% of their * beliefs * are not written by god, but by man claiming to speak gods word... and it rises serious issues....the gospels are predominately the areas of the bible that people should use as practising Christians as it lays out the teachings that jesus wanted for the world, as its the only area of the bible that clearly shows how jesus acted, and how HE SET THE EXAMPLE FOR CHRISTIANS to follow in his footsteps

let he who is without sin, cast the first stone...... indeed we are all sinners, yet, christians will judge others yet claim they themselves are not perfect......if they are not prefect, then what gives them the right to judge the imperfect.....its called ego and self righteousness.....

many, many old cultures and faiths have died under the * christian * truth....
any person with a vague degree of interest, can research and see that holidays, festivals etc, are not what they were originally....and its got nothing to be with them begin against god or anything, apart from they were simple groups of people expressing their freedom of beliefs, until christianity took that right away from them

[Solomon]

Long Duck,

You really nailed the hammer on the head of the nail!

Just to clarify, what I mean when I say that I am a christian, is exactly that, I do my best to duplicate what Jesus and Solomon taught for my own life.

NOT what the church would have me believe.

And that IS what Jesus taught, don't follow the church. He actually countered the church almost every time he had talked with them. He wanted people to find the answers for themselves, in other words to THINK vs. blindly following.

Jesus himself even said he did NOT come to wipe the slate clean or to bring world peace, and yet Christianity as a whole clings to the idea that he did???

But then he did answer that one too when he said that they look and look never see and listen and listen and never hear.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol its a sad day for christianity when a wiccan witch like myself can speak better for the christian faith, than most christians can lol

[bigregory]

The truth of religion has always been to show us how to direct our thoughts.
__________________
Sol & Flex

And to keep us in-line.

I like to be my own GOD

Please do not tell me there is no SANTA CLAUS............

[bigregory]

Sorry that i have no intelligent response to this link.
There may be a devil but there aint no god.. :eek:

[Solomon]

Long Duck Dong lol is true, I can't speak very well about some of the shit that's taught. :cool:


bigregory good point, I wasn't thinking of the religions out there when I said about directing thoughts. :cool:

[darkeyes]

Sorry that i have no intelligent response to this link.
There may be a devil but there aint no god.. :eek:

Am never sure that u can ever have a truly intelligent response when it comes to a debate on religion. It is all so personal and those who believe in myth and much superstition. Any evidence of an omnipotent being is anecdotal and this makes a truly reasoned discussion and conclusion impossible.

As an athiest who long since lost any belief in a God, even I am shaped so much by the predominant religion of my country, as the society in which I have been raised is based on the tenets of that religion. My attitudes and beliefs in the real world are substantially shaped by the teachings I received as a child and by the overwhelming nature of the society in which I live. Yet as one raised a presbyterian in a small country where that is the established religion, my beliefs and attitudes are differently shaped from those who live in our southern neighbour and UK partner where Anglicism is the predominant basis of society and from France or Italy where Catholicism is.

I have tried as much as I can to seperate the insidious from that which I think to be right, but with such strength is the cast set when we are young this is a difficult and probably impossible task.

People believe what they believe spiritually, sometimes by experience, more often by having it drummed into them when young, and it is not for me to stand and say with definite certainty that they are wrong, but to debate the issues with them as reasoningly as I am able. Yet how can we do this? How is it possible when faith is so personal and based as it is on ancient myths and anecdote? I am not sure that it is or ever can be.

[Solomon]

For me personally, I went through a long stage of believing that I was an athiest. But then it kinda smacked me on the head one day that it wasn't that i don't believe that there's a god (or whatever anyone chooses to call him) I hated him and I hated myself for hating him.

Quantum science has actually reached a point that they can no longer support the great divide between religion and science. Or so they think currently.

It's very complicated but they're able see all the way down to 10 to the negative 33. And what they see there seems to actually see them back, travel forward and backward in time, and be superpositioned (more than one position at the same time), not to mention reacting differently seemingly depending on observation.

They are really scratching their heads. Of course most of'em are men..... lol

I don't know what any of that means on a religious scale to anyone, but it's mind boggling to me lol. I still want nothing to do with organized religion thanx.

[bm_jim]

This story illuminates a great problem with religion. People can attack, demean, degrade, advocate, and oppose from the pulpit and be protected against retaliation by simply hiding behind their "faith" when the return fire comes. They can throw out "ideas", but they do not proffer them for discussion as much as absolute adoption. When the ideas are discussed or debated or, worse, opposed, the dogmatic hide behind their faith and accuse those who don't accept their idea as hostile to faith and in violation of human rights. You can't attack what a person believes in this country, and they know this. But that is just the problem. Until EVERY belief, attitude, and idea are subject to analysis we are going to continue having problems like this. Until you can call bs on everyone from the most milktoast Methodist minister to Fred Phelps to your gay neighbor, humanity has no chance of advancing.

Why is belief in a God entitled to a greater respect and less examination than any other strongly held idea someone else might have? If conviction is sacrosanct, why isn't all conviction not liable to question? It is because religion was established by the powers-that-be to reinforce social control and stability, not to promote change and progressive evolution. To question it is to destroy it. Perhaps this is the time to do so.

If Edwards caves on this, he will never get my support. EVER.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070208/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_bloggers2008

The problem I see here is this, these two girls are were not discussing Christianity as we are in this post. They had portrayed the Virgin Mary in sexual context, and are adamit anti Christian. Would you as supportive of a candidate that was supporting a person on his staff that was an active KKK member? The press and the world was appalled when pictures of the prophet Muhamed were released in the Danish press and demanded apologise from the "offenders". How quickly would he have removed someone who claimed the Halocaust did not happen or was a good thing? As a possable Presidential candidate he did need to come out and show he does not promote or condone Hate speech. Hate speech is wrong, period, not just against Gay, or Muslum, or Jew, or Blacks. It is just as wrong against Christians and the non-minorities as it is against the focus groups of traditional segregation and bigotry.

[Solomon]

Actually from what I understand, organized religion started with Constantine and his "Counsil of Nicea" as well as his rule being the first to legalize christianity.

I'm not sure if he was the first to officially legalize any religion as such or not.

However, right around the time of his counsil of nicea, he was at war and probably looking to rally his people to one banner, his. His enemy at the time Leviticus (I think) was a pagan. Constantine himself was a pagan but used Christianity as a means to fight an enemy. The minister who 'baptized' Constantine on his deathbed is still in much dispute over his authority to baptise anyone even for those times lol.

I do however think that for the governments at the time, these changes were actually very progressive, and they more that likely did believe that it would lead to positive changes.

I also believe that putting every belief attitude and idea under analysis would be a little Hitleristic and quite invasive not to mention right next to being impossible for us, don't ya think?

I'm also a bit doubtful that just questioning something is to destroy it, nor do I believe that humanity's simply going to just stop advancing because of these idiotical preachers lol.

Not to mention that believing in a God actually has always been getting examined thoroughly but I do agree that it's very influential in governments.

[jamiehue]

Kucinich is running, and he's got a great voting record on LGBT issues:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500731.html

http://kucinich.us
He is my man.

[12voltman59]

coyotedude,

I believe that Truman's decision to drop the bomb was the most moral of the choices that he could make at the time.

Solomon ---I just got finished reading a great book about one small part of events in the "Pacific Theater" in World War II.

The book is "Flyboys" by James Bradley----he is the person who wrote "The Flags of Our Fathers" about the taking of Iwo Jima and inside scoop on the raising of the flag atop Mt Suribachi that has become an iconic scene from WWII.

In "Flyboys" Bradley details a series of events that took place in the final days of WWII when pilots were sent on missions to knock out Japanese radio sites on Chichi Jima--an island just north of Iwo Jima----as part of the firebomb raids we unleashed upon Japan.

Bradley talks about how the US Army Air Corps started firebombing Japanese cities---that relatively short period of those bombing raids were devastating and destroyed more homes, buildings and killed far more of the Japanese populace than did the A-bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They would send in hundreds of B-29s loaded with thousands of pounds of incendiary bombs--when those bombs fell--they unleashed copious amounts of napalm that generated huge firestorms that incinerated everything---each oone of those fire bombing missions would kill far more people each time they took place than did the dropping of the A-bombs.

Bradley included reports from our military and from the Japanese leadership in the post war period that it was the firebombing raids that really turned the tide and forced the Japanses leadership to finally seek peace--they hardly mentioned the A-bomb drops at all.

You do have to wonder why we dropped those nukes--some commentators over the years have theorized we used the nukes not to impress the Japanese but the Soviets since a strong enmity between the west and the Soviets was already growing strong and it was pretty much the feelling we would probably soon be at war with Stalin.

[Solomon]

That doesn't mean that he didn't make the most moral decision he could at the time.

I think there is probably some weight to the theory that he dropped the bombs to impress the Soviets. According to the movie on Patton, the general certainly seemed to think that they needed to be knocked down a peg or two.

And I have very little doubt that while the japanese may or may not have been on the ropes already, but the dropping of the a-bomb would certainly have solidified things.

Besides, it could very well have been payback time Pearl Harbor as well.

I haven't read any books on WWII and I'm certainly no expert on the issue of dropping the a-bomb. I just don't buy without hard evidence that dropping the a-bomb was a mistake or less than moral.

Of course we also then get into who's morals too lol.

[SLIMES]

Actually, my friend, you have no clue how Gandhi would view me. Nor do I care. The fact that Gandhi was not perfect does not diminish the fact that his spirituality was a key component of his life and his many accomplishments. It simply means that he, like the rest of us, was human.

You are absolutely correct that the scientific paradigm is one hell of a powerful set of tools for understanding the physical world.

You are absolutely incorrect when you state that reasoned debate from a religious perspective is impossible. In fact, religions are living things, not monoliths. Religion is not God, but rather our understanding of God or spirit. As such, religions grow and change as human perceptions of the world change. In such a context, reasoned debate within and among religious communities is absolutely vital if religions are to remain healthy over time.

(Incidentally, as far as I am concerned, there is only one truly valid argument against religion: does God or spirit actually exist? Whether the God of the Old Testament is a nice guy or an asshole - or whether Fred Phelps is a nice guy or an asshole - is really beside the point. But if there is no God, then religion has one hell of a problem - pardon the pun.)

Don't confuse the absolutism of certain religious adherents to the practice of religion as a whole. All walks of life contain absolutists - even the sciences. And this despite the self-correcting nature of the scientific paradigm, which relies on cold, hard evidence for advancement of knowledge.

This is not a flaw of science itself, but of its human practitioners. Human beings are fundamentally irrational, illogical creatures. And this is where your own argument breaks down. As you yourself point out, science cannot tell us how to live our lives; it merely shows us the likely consequences of a given set of actions within the physical world. Yet how then should we make decisions? Your answer: "Our thoughts guide us." Our thoughts - based not solely on reason, but also on morals, values, and beliefs. In other words, the very personal convictions that you condemned religion for.

Ironically, dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a reasoned, rational decision on the part of Truman. His calculus: he could order a ground invasion of Japan that could kill a million people on both sides of the war. Or he could drop an atomic bomb that would kill tens of thousands rather than a million and potentially bring the war to a faster conclusion.

Rational? Reasonable? Completely. Moral? You tell me.

Peace

Ghandi was not just far less than perfect he was an apologist for Adolf Hitler and treated his family in a way that would disgrace any so-called spirituality that he was following.

The fact that religions change is not to suggest that they allow reasoned debate. You prove that reasoned debate within religion is impossible by reffering to it as an understanding of God. There is no substantial evidence for any god and if religion is an understanding of a fictional and self-contradictory god, then there can be no reasoned debate as the initial premis of that religion is false. You are not reffering to debate at all you are simply referring to pragmatism which is a very different thing.

You suggest that whether or not God is a nice guy or an asshole is beside the point. When millions are worshipping an arsehole it's actually quite a serious problem.

I can asure you that there is nothing more absolute than religious belief. Even the most absolutist scientists are ipen to criticism. It didn't take until the seventies for scientists to accept basic facts about the universe. The Vatican however took a different view.

Religion often prevents people from considering the consequences of our actions. Take sexuality as just one example. The irratiolity of human beings does not have to be projected into works of fiction such as the Bible. That is a key problem with religion.

As for Truman's decision, if were alive toady he would be able to discuss this with rational reasons. A religious leader would be less inclined to do so except with refferences to a politicla/fictional work.

[coyotedude]

Ghandi was not just far less than perfect he was an apologist for Adolf Hitler and treated his family in a way that would disgrace any so-called spirituality that he was following.

The fact that religions change is not to suggest that they allow reasoned debate. You prove that reasoned debate within religion is impossible by reffering to it as an understanding of God. There is no substantial evidence for any god and if religion is an understanding of a fictional and self-contradictory god, then there can be no reasoned debate as the initial premis of that religion is false. You are not reffering to debate at all you are simply referring to pragmatism which is a very different thing.

You suggest that whether or not God is a nice guy or an asshole is beside the point. When millions are worshipping an arsehole it's actually quite a serious problem.

I can asure you that there is nothing more absolute than religious belief. Even the most absolutist scientists are ipen to criticism. It didn't take until the seventies for scientists to accept basic facts about the universe. The Vatican however took a different view.

Religion often prevents people from considering the consequences of our actions. Take sexuality as just one example. The irratiolity of human beings does not have to be projected into works of fiction such as the Bible. That is a key problem with religion.

As for Truman's decision, if were alive toady he would be able to discuss this with rational reasons. A religious leader would be less inclined to do so except with refferences to a politicla/fictional work.

My friend, we may just have to agree to disagree.

Gandhi was not an apologist for Hitler. The "Quit India" movement was neither an embrace of the Nazis nor a rejection of democratic ideals. In fact, Gandhi was opposed to fascism. (I would point out that Gandhi opposed the efforts of Bose to solicit Nazi and Japanese support for the violent overthrow of British rule in India.) As an advocate of democratic ideals, however, Gandhi was also opposed to British imperialism. And that really was the crux of the issue for the nationalists: they saw little difference between Nazi totalitarianism and the realities of British colonial rule.

Mind you, I understand that the UK was not fighting for abstract principles but rather for survival. So I wish that Gandhi had stuck by his initial notion (as outlined in some references) to offer "non-violent moral support" to the British war effort. Gandhi had acted in a similar capacity during the Boer War by organizing an ambulance corps and serving with the Red Cross.

Yet the Boer War example is illuminating. For their service in the Boer War, Gandhi and the Indian community in South Africa were rewarded by even more oppression afterward by the British government. Given that experience - not to mention the sorry history of British policies in India - I can understand why Gandhi and the nationalists decided to pursue the "Quit India" campaign instead.

One last point. I know that the British during the war accused Gandhi of supporting and even organizing from prison the outbreaks of violence against British rule. However, I find these accusations not to be credible, especially given Gandhi's demonstrated commitment to non-violence both before and after the war.

I've rambled on so much about Gandhi that I'm going to wait till later to address your arguments about religion and rational debate. Needless to say, I find your arguments to be less than persuasive. But that debate will have to wait for another day!

Peace

[SLIMES]

"How can I, who as always advocated the renunciation of sex encourage you to gratify it". -Gandhi blocking his son's marriage. He then proceeded to disown him. (His son became a homeless alcoholic)

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." -Gandhi, May 1940

[JohnnyV]

So what if he said one thing good about Hitler? Lots of people have. Do you expect an Indian fighting against the British to heap loads of praise on Winston Churchill instead? If an Indian person maligned every American who at some point said something less than denunciatory about Churchill, would that make sense to you?

I'm no fan of Hitler, but you can see why lots of people would view him favorably in the 1930s and 1940s, based on who their enemies were. If you lived in the Belgian Congo, Java, or Indochina, you might get a little satisfaction from seeing Hitler pummel King Leopold, the Dutch royalty, and the Third French Republic -- because those were your colonizers! Even if you hated being invaded by Japan.

Some people on this thread have been apologists for Harry Truman dropping the atomic bomb on Japan and ushering in the nuclear race that threatens all of us -- but I don't think those people are horrible for their beliefs. It's baffling to me that people always put Hitler in these categories of pure evil and then expect debate to come to a screeching halt whenever his name is brought up.

Just the other day, I heard lots of my friends here in NY singing odes to Rudy Giuliani and overlooking the semifascist police state he created in poor neighborhoods in the outer boroughs. The Diallo case? Sodomy with a plunger? Thousands of missing homeless people? Racial profiling at random checkpoints? Secret prisons for suspected terrorists where the Bill of Rights was suspended and torture flourished? No problem! Who can complain with America's mayor? The guy got us through 9/11 and made the trains run on time.

"He got the trains to run on time" was a popular refrain for Hitler and Mussolini too. But don't freak out -- that doesn't mean that Giuliani is therefore sheer evil and going to Hell. Just that people and events are complicated, and it doesn't help to define them in moral absolutes. Didn't this thread begin with a general distrust of moral absolutes?

J

[coyotedude]

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." -Gandhi, May 1940

My friend, there is a saying:

Text, without context, is pretext.

In other words, you're taking words out of context to promote your own irrational, biased views.

Take Hitler, for example. Yes, it is true that Gandhi opposed war against Germany. But that does not mean that Gandhi was therefore an apologist for Hitler.

In fact, Gandhi - the master of non-violent struggle - opposed all war, for any reason. Yet even Gandhi acknowledged in his letter to the Jews of Germany and Palestine in 1938:


If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified.

The fact that he opposed a war with Germany did not make him an apologist:


But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both?

Indeed, his observation of Hitler's Germany was an indictment of the evils of violence:


Germany is showing to the world how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. It is also showing how hideous, terrible and terrifying it looks in its nakedness.

And so we come to Gandhi's quote above, along with his letters to Hitler of 1939 and 1940. Indeed, both letters address Hitler as "My friend" - shocking words to those of us with 60 years of hindsight. Yet Gandhi offers insight into his reasoning for this in his second letter:


That I address you as a friend is no formality. I own no foes. My business in life has been for the past 33 years to enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

And immediately following this, the second letter takes a turn:


I hope you will have the time and desire to know how a good portion of humanity, who have been living under influence of that doctrine of universal friendship (viz: non-violence) view your action.

Yes, it is true that the letter stated:


We have no doubt about your bravery or devotion to your fatherland, nor do we believe that you are the monster described by your opponents.

But Gandhi goes on to write:


But your own writings and pronouncements and those of your friends and admirers leave no room for doubt that many of your acts are monstrous and unbecoming of human dignity, especially in the estimation of men like me who believe in human friendliness. Such are your humiliation of Czechoslovakia, the rape of Poland and the swallowing of Denmark. I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts degrading humanity.

Thus, Gandhi goes on to conclude:


Hence we cannot possibly wish success to your arms.

And:


I therefore appeal to you in the name of humanity to stop the War.

Gee, a call from a pacifist to stop a war? Impractical, perhaps, in the case of Nazi Germany.

An effort to use reason and compassion to convert Hitler to the cause of non-violence? Completely and utterly hopeless, in my own view.

But not evil. And not deserving of your condemnation.

Peace

[coyotedude]

"How can I, who as always advocated the renunciation of sex encourage you to gratify it". -Gandhi blocking his son's marriage. He then proceeded to disown him. (His son became a homeless alcoholic)

You are talking about Gandhi's eldest son Harilal.

There's no question that Gandhi's relationship with his sons was difficult - especially his relationship with Harilal. Sadly, Gandhi's accomplishments as an activist and spiritual leader did not translate into success as a family man. As a father, Gandhi applied the same high expectations and strict discipline which governed his own life to raising his sons. And his accomplishments as the "father of India" all too often came at the expense of his own family.

But again, there's a bit more to the story than you let on. Again, you use quotes out of context, simply to justify your own bias and prejudice. (So much for your advocacy of "rational debate.")

This particular quote dates from 1918, when Harilal wished to remarry after the death of his first wife, Gulab.

It is true that by this time Gandhi had embraced the ascetic lifestyle known as brahmacharya - which among other things required a renunciation of one's sensual desires for sex, food and taste, and materialism. And Gandhi insisted that his sons make the same life choices that he did. (Ironically, however, each of his sons married and had children.)

But Gandhi's feelings about Harilal's second marriage were not solely influenced by brahmacharya. By 1918 the relationship between father and eldest son was already strained. In fact, Harilal was the rebellious prodigal son of the family. He had been unfaithful to his first wife - a fact well known to his father. By this time Harilal had also stolen 30,000 rupees from a businessman in Madras. So the father had some reasons for being unhappy with the son - even though the son similarly had good reasons for being unhappy with the father.

Yes, Harilal ultimately became a homeless alcoholic, disowned by his father, consumed by his own inner demons. That does not necessarily mean that Gandhi caused Harilal's downfall. (I would insist on seeing solid evidence rather than relying on your skewed conclusions based on out-of-context quotes.) But no, Gandhi certainly did not help his son, either.

To me, it's a tragic story - proof that Gandhi was as fallible and flawed as any human being who ever lived. But then, Gandhi never claimed to be anything other than human, as I recall.

And it does not negate the great accomplishments of Gandhi's life.

Peace

[but that's my name!!]

please don't flame me; this is NOT meant to be anti US, just an observation.

"the democratic ideals that are supposed to be a hallmark of this country"

America (note I am refering to the nation not the people) has always struck me dumb with the level of patriotism and "land of the free" idealism in one hand and a hatred for anything and everyone diferent and a serious lack of respect for everything and a blood thirsty quest for world mastery in the other, oh and don't forget some of the shity laws.
My point is that these democratic ideals don't seem at all evident so has anyone in power ever really had these ideals? or are they just the nice nice kiss the baby public image.
This is of course only one face of America but it is a major one as viewed from this side of "the pond".

I don't seem to be able to explain myself very well, please don't take offense. This is a serious point and I'm open to debate.

Do I like god? The Christian "God", certainly not, I have met many a mortal far superior in every way.

[Solomon]

please don't flame me; this is NOT meant to be anti US, just an observation.

"the democratic ideals that are supposed to be a hallmark of this country"

America (note I am refering to the nation not the people) has always struck me dumb with the level of patriotism and "land of the free" idealism in one hand and a hatred for anything and everyone diferent and a serious lack of respect for everything and a blood thirsty quest for world mastery in the other, oh and don't forget some of the shity laws.
My point is that these democratic ideals don't seem at all evident so has anyone in power ever really had these ideals? or are they just the nice nice kiss the baby public image.
This is of course only one face of America but it is a major one as viewed from this side of "the pond".

I don't seem to be able to explain myself very well, please don't take offense. This is a serious point and I'm open to debate.

Do I like god? The Christian "God", certainly not, I have met many a mortal far superior in every way.

You seem to have alot of opinions that can't possibly be proven right or wrong, would ya be a bit more specific about what you're trying to say?

However, i think i do have some measure of respect, and i can't be sure but i don't believe that i've hungered for much blood, and i'm too busy trying to master myself let alone the whole bloody world lol!

As far as the government goes, i don't agree with alot of the things they do either, and it's always been no secret that politicians lie like hell to get in office so they can pass the buck while they're in office, and then they get to retire as being known as a cheat lol.

It's always been well known that politicians make some very stupid laws too.

I would agree that somewhere the ideals of our founding fathers seems to have gotten lost, although i'm not sure where it went either.

I do believe in God, and I despise all organized religions.

Oh, btw I am american even though i reside in Canada with my wife (she's the canadian flexuality, or sexy flexy, or flexilicious as some say hehehee)

[darkeyes]

I too have a lot of opinions Sol hun. And from this side of the Atlantic while I woudnt quite use the flowery language of "but thats my name" in general I think I do agree with the gist of his argument. As far as I can see it is the present US administrations intention to to do exactly as buts claim says.. to dominate and control the planet and will not wear any oppostion. It is an unpleasant arrogance not uncommon in the greatest powers of any age and the US is no exception. My own state is no exception and did a century ago exactly what the US is trying to do now.

I do veer away from buts argument when he states the nation and not the people are dumb. The nation, any nation is its people, and while I do not believe Americans to be dumb, I do think them short sighted and a bit too unquestioning at times of their Government,and more so too deferential of the office of President. I understand that it is the office to which respect and deference is meant to be shown, but I think many of your fellow countrymen and women confuse that with the person himself and too often the President is considered untouchable. Luckily of late things have swung a little and we can but hope we see the start of a more questioning and critical period.

I do believe that the US has lost so much of its ideals, the ideals for which your country fought a revolution against my country and my ancestors, and ideals I believe that were and remain a beacon for civilised humanity. They have become tainted and abused by successive administrations, and increasingly only lip service and platitude is the order of the day for the powers that be in the US.

With regard to American dominance and control of the world, the intentions of the US government can be seen by its lack of respect for other nations who disagree, its contempt for other nations who wish to take a different path and peoples who believe in different things from that Government.. Bush's Presidency is not alone in deserving criticism it is merely the most recent and arguably most contemptible example. American arrogance in destabilising any possible opposition in any country, of any country, of entering and trying to impose its will on any such opposition has not made the world safer nor can it. On the contrary the world is a much more dangerous and unstable place than just a few short years ago, and its "war on terror", its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, its sabre rattling over Iran have each contributed to making us all less safe. There is more certainly that just the Bush administration has done to earn the US the mistrust of almost all peoples, even its allies. Its contempt for France in the lead up to the last gulf war was appaling and all americans should feel shame for that. Friends argue and have different opinions for whatever reason. The anti French hysteria of that time was an unnecessary abuse of arrogance, influence and power, and a disgraceful way to treat a friend. To my shame my own country has hung on american coat tails almost without question in some mistaken belief in a "special relationship" which exists purely in the minds of deluded British politicians of all persuasions. It seems to me that my country has signed up to be the junior partner in this mistaken American adventure, and for that Blair and his government may soon pay the ultimate price.

I have no intention of ranting about American capitalism and its insidious affect on american policy..on policy of all nations, merely to remark that much of American policy is decided not by government, but in the board rooms of massive US conglomerates who pay huge sums to the candidate and party of their choice to get what they want. It happens here too and in every industrialised country, but it is the US and its overwhelming wealth and power, and its frequent abuse of both which is the major problem.

I do not believe in God. But even if I did, I would find Bush and his incessant ranting about God sick making even more than I do. I try not to ridicule the religion of others and hope I am not doing so now. There is too much certainty in his claims, just as there is among many Islamic groups and some Islamic nations which is unsettling, and reminscent of the ancient cry of the medieval crusades. He, no one else, has turned the world on its head and created such mistrust between the so called Islamic and Christian cultures that I doubt true peace between them can be settled until long after most of us are long dead. And to be honest, I am not sure that is not exactly what Bush and his cronies want. And he, more than any previous President is responsible for the suspicion, loathing and contempt many peoples in every nation feel for the United States, and he more than anyone else will be responsible should all of this really turn nasty!

[Solomon]

Eyes, I absolutely agree with alot of your opinions, and I also feel that there are many many issues that aren't questioned enough, especially when the matter comes to the U.S. government.

I'm certainly not going to take any responsibility for anything the Bush administration has done, but I do seem to hold a different perspective on some things.

Yes, alot of american policy is decided not in the governments, but in the boardrooms of the U.S. But is that necessarily a bad thing?

The spirit of most businesses is very aggressive and competitive that is true, but I see that as being a double-edged sword. The big balancer on that would be the competition. The biggest positive reward I see with that is that it motivates people to find solutions and share resources, the biggest downfall would be that someone's going to ultimately lose sometimes. Then again, if there is no business then everyone loses by default.

I also agree that Bush goes on about God too much for a politician that's leading a country founded on freedom of religion. And I certainly don't agree that taking a stand against gay marriages or stem cell research based on his religion spells a good leader either.

However, for his part in issues like Afghanistan and Iraq I do believe that alot of his arguments make sense. I have no idea what he's been doing as far as opening the channels of commerce globally (think I'm going to look into that), but ultimately that is the way to go towards a truly peaceful world, and I believe that that is what Bush is working towards but as I said, I also need to investigate that a bit more.

I would also say that didn't the terrorists become jealous of the resources that the U.S. enjoys to the point of attacking us and claiming to be ordained by God or Allah? Sometimes it is very unfortunate that commercial ties it seems, need to be established or strengthened at the point of a gun barrel. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I don't get to make those decisions either.

I believe that the history of the Crusades actually is a prime example of this. Many historians say that the Pope of the time pushed for the Crusades because Europe at the time was economically sinking while the Middle East of that time was definately thriving.

From what I understand of the Quran that the terrorists seem to love, it was put together by one of their leaders many centuries ago so that he also could go to war and take other societies resources too. I could be off base on saying that, but given the similarities between the Quran, and the Bible I highly doubt that I'm off by much.

When we think of Canada and U.S. going to war, it's a ridiculous thought. why? because the commercial ties are so strong that they create and/ or strengthen bonds of sharing and utilizing resources for the good of that particular commerce. The same could be said of Britain and many other countries as well.

Sort of like between you and us for example, if we were to create an international business, and we work together and we get rich together and share resources that otherwise we would not because quite simply we don't have any reason too, then that would tend to create a bond where the only reason to even think about retribution or along those lines would be if something were to happen to interfere in that business relationship to the point of hardships and whatever. However, if we're both enjoying alot of success with a mutual business then we instantly have a big something in common.

The more commercial ties that happen like that would be the more bonds created, and fairly soon it becomes out of the question to war against those countries. Take Iran for instance, I speculate that one of the big reasons there's been no military action would be that Russia has some commercial ties to Iran.

Does that make sense? I might be oversimplifying a bit on some things, but I'm simply trying to illustrate the principles that I see as being involved.

Unfortunately, I would agree that the ideals that the founding fathers had for the U.S. have been twisted and abused and I believe that that does create an even deeper emotional void for everyone.

[darkeyes]

Sol..didn expect us 2 disagree 2 much here but maybe more than me expected. Just in from wage slavery an not fresh enuff 2 give ya full considered ansa! However jus say this ... its no secret that I am a socialist an hate the concept of capitalism an loathe right wing philosophies of ne kind. There r those that feel socialism an democracy r mutually exclusive an point to the ole soviet union as proof..but taint so is it? We both know it.. now Fran is a democrat..mayb not the kind mos peeps on ur side of the pond wud agree with but do believe decisions shud b made by the people. Whether that be under a parliamentary democratic system or a more radical revolutionary system where every 1's voice counts more than 1ce every blue moon or sumthin in between, its that system an the people, themselves or their representatives who shud make decisions wich affect us all...boardrooms of multinationals or ne other unelected body of self interested selfish an greedy tossers shud hav no say whatever in decisions made within the democratic political system of ne nation. Do that an democracy ceases 2 b or is undermined an once they r let in they wont go away an we will all pay the price!

Me has passions otha than me own selfish interests an tryin 2 c the world bettered happens 2 b 1. Sumhow jus cant c how the planet an all the various forms of life that hav 2 live on it are benefitted by decisions made in multinational boardrooms which are all 2 often in conflict wth the interests of the vast majorty of people who make up the worlds electorates!

Not gonna say much more jus now cos me tryin 2 wind down..but gimme a chance... tee hee. Flex..hit 'im!

[coyotedude]

please don't flame me; this is NOT meant to be anti US, just an observation.

"the democratic ideals that are supposed to be a hallmark of this country"

America (note I am refering to the nation not the people) has always struck me dumb with the level of patriotism and "land of the free" idealism in one hand and a hatred for anything and everyone diferent and a serious lack of respect for everything and a blood thirsty quest for world mastery in the other, oh and don't forget some of the shity laws.
My point is that these democratic ideals don't seem at all evident so has anyone in power ever really had these ideals? or are they just the nice nice kiss the baby public image.
This is of course only one face of America but it is a major one as viewed from this side of "the pond".

I don't seem to be able to explain myself very well, please don't take offense. This is a serious point and I'm open to debate.

Do I like god? The Christian "God", certainly not, I have met many a mortal far superior in every way.

Hmmm... my friend, I will not flame you - I understand this is the perception of much the world. And to be honest, the world has reason to be cynical of certain aspects of America, American capitalism, and American culture.

But hatred of anything and everyone different? That, my friend, is a bit of an exaggeration! A nation made up primarily of immigrants may not always be comfortable with differences and diversity, but we handle those differences at least as well - if not better than - many more homogeneous societies, such as Japan and some European nations.

Think about the Muslim communities of Europe and the Muslim communities of the US. (American Muslims make up about 4-5% of the US population - roughly the same as American Jews!) Yes, American Muslims face considerable discrimination. But I would argue that they have greater opportunities in the US than they appear to have in much of Europe. I suspect this is why the US has not had the level of unrest among Muslims that you find in France or other European nations.

During the recent burqa debate in the Netherlands, I found it ironic that many Dutch politicians and citizens appeared to be less tolerant and open-minded about religious and cultural differences than our very own George W. Bush - whom I utterly despise as a political leader. (Frankly, I found it to be very scary.)

In school, we sometimes hear the phrase "the great American experiment" applied to our home-grown brand of democracy. I think that is a perfectly appropriate title for a number of reasons. Certainly democratic ideals and principles in the US have evolved significantly throughout our history. After all, we were unique among nations when we adopted our federal Constitution in the 1780's. Yet only white male landowners could vote - a decided minority, don't you think? It's taken two centuries and more of struggle (including a four-year bloody civil war) to get where we are today. And we continue to grow and evolve into a new century.

Sorry... I'm rambling again. Sometimes, like yourself, I also get cynical - especially given our current pathetic excuse of a president and the overwhelming power of the corporations. Yet I have a friend - an immigrant from Vietnam, now an American citizen - who keeps reminding me that there are a lot of places in this world that are far worse than the utterly maddening place I've always called home.

Peace

[flexuality]

Not gonna say much more jus now cos me tryin 2 wind down..but gimme a chance... tee hee. Flex..hit 'im!

Wap!! :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

ta flex! Gud girl..tee hee.....make it really hurt next time!!! :bigrin:

[Solomon]

groggily gets back up. still in one piece! kewl! heheheee :cool:

[darkeyes]

me's glad...my job 2 chop bits off!! ;)

[Solomon]

my bits'll come back to haunt ya! :cool:

[spartca]

He is my man.

Now if we could get the rest of the country to take a look at Kucinich for president:

http://www.kucinich.us

[darkeyes]

my bits'll come back to haunt ya! :cool:

not 1ce me finished wiv an they diced an stuffed :tong: in the pickle jar!! :bigrin:

[Solomon]

great, they get to haunt a pickle jar??? LOL!! :cool:

[but that's my name!!]

I too have a lot of opinions Sol hun. And from this side of the Atlantic while I woudnt quite use the flowery language of "but thats my name" in general I think I do agree with the gist of his argument. As far as I can see it is the present US administrations intention to to do exactly as buts claim says.. to dominate and control the planet and will not wear any oppostion. It is an unpleasant arrogance not uncommon in the greatest powers of any age and the US is no exception. My own state is no exception and did a century ago exactly what the US is trying to do now.

I do veer away from buts argument when he states the nation and not the people are dumb. The nation, any nation is its people, and while I do not believe Americans to be dumb, I do think them short sighted and a bit too unquestioning at times of their Government,and more so too deferential of the office of President. I understand that it is the office to which respect and deference is meant to be shown, but I think many of your fellow countrymen and women confuse that with the person himself and too often the President is considered untouchable. Luckily of late things have swung a little and we can but hope we see the start of a more questioning and critical period.

I do believe that the US has lost so much of its ideals, the ideals for which your country fought a revolution against my country and my ancestors, and ideals I believe that were and remain a beacon for civilised humanity. They have become tainted and abused by successive administrations, and increasingly only lip service and platitude is the order of the day for the powers that be in the US.

With regard to American dominance and control of the world, the intentions of the US government can be seen by its lack of respect for other nations who disagree, its contempt for other nations who wish to take a different path and peoples who believe in different things from that Government.. Bush's Presidency is not alone in deserving criticism it is merely the most recent and arguably most contemptible example. American arrogance in destabilising any possible opposition in any country, of any country, of entering and trying to impose its will on any such opposition has not made the world safer nor can it. On the contrary the world is a much more dangerous and unstable place than just a few short years ago, and its "war on terror", its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, its sabre rattling over Iran have each contributed to making us all less safe. There is more certainly that just the Bush administration has done to earn the US the mistrust of almost all peoples, even its allies. Its contempt for France in the lead up to the last gulf war was appaling and all americans should feel shame for that. Friends argue and have different opinions for whatever reason. The anti French hysteria of that time was an unnecessary abuse of arrogance, influence and power, and a disgraceful way to treat a friend. To my shame my own country has hung on american coat tails almost without question in some mistaken belief in a "special relationship" which exists purely in the minds of deluded British politicians of all persuasions. It seems to me that my country has signed up to be the junior partner in this mistaken American adventure, and for that Blair and his government may soon pay the ultimate price.

I have no intention of ranting about American capitalism and its insidious affect on american policy..on policy of all nations, merely to remark that much of American policy is decided not by government, but in the board rooms of massive US conglomerates who pay huge sums to the candidate and party of their choice to get what they want. It happens here too and in every industrialised country, but it is the US and its overwhelming wealth and power, and its frequent abuse of both which is the major problem.

I do not believe in God. But even if I did, I would find Bush and his incessant ranting about God sick making even more than I do. I try not to ridicule the religion of others and hope I am not doing so now. There is too much certainty in his claims, just as there is among many Islamic groups and some Islamic nations which is unsettling, and reminscent of the ancient cry of the medieval crusades. He, no one else, has turned the world on its head and created such mistrust between the so called Islamic and Christian cultures that I doubt true peace between them can be settled until long after most of us are long dead. And to be honest, I am not sure that is not exactly what Bush and his cronies want. And he, more than any previous President is responsible for the suspicion, loathing and contempt many peoples in every nation feel for the United States, and he more than anyone else will be responsible should all of this really turn nasty!
What she said.

[darkeyes]

Sol, I think Ive answered some parts of your thread in the main already though may touch on them again. But I do think it niaive to think that by having channels of commerce between nations is a way to lessening or creating peace betwen nations. History proves this repeatedly because in the end such links are transient and last only until one party or other decides to end them. They can certainly help create a temporay lull and easing of tension but can never be a guarantee of making things better. Many of the stresses in the world are because of american insistence in tarding poliicies being implemented by other trading blocs and nations which have an inbuilt balance in favour of the US. Pressure exerted on states and blocs over patent law for instance. Powerful nations do not like being pushed aside in trade by lesser states and many was the occasion Great Britain for instance took umbrage and used a bit of gunboat diplomacy to effect trading superiority. The Opium Wars with China being a prime example of the 19th century. The US repeatedly exerts its overwhelming strength in much the same way to get its own way in trade and this creates emnity between itself and the rest of the world. Wars over commerce are historically common. I seem to remember that the US and Great Britain once almost went to war over a pig.

In commerce also multinational corporations can be a dangerous thing because of the undue pressure they can often bring to bear not just on small weak states but on even the greatest. They are an inevitable result of the capitalist system and it is arguable that their growth and increasing power within our world can ever be a good thing. They are secretive covert and dangerous and subvert not only democracy but the human rights of human beings throughout the world and such is their power individually and more so collectively that I believe we stand on a precipice.. either humanity reasserts its democratic will on its own future and makes nations and corporations subservient to the will of the people...or the world shall become that horror of horrors..the world corporate state..where democracy such as it is exists purely in the hands of shareholder and director. There shall be no peace because humanity will either be completely crushed by the corporate state or such shall be the upheaval we shall slowly slide back into te primitive slime of long ago.

The reason the US has not attacked Iran is not because it has ties with Russsia...but because so far it has not decided to do so... Iraq for instance had many ties with Russia commercially and threat did not stop the war. The reason the US has not attacked so far is because it is so stretched elsewhere, which Bush certainly did not believe would be the case when he declared the war was over, but I am sure some form of military action against Iran is on its way. Also the UK is very unhappy about an attack and I do not believe that as yet the US is prepared to go it alone. Iran is a nation of 60 or 70 million. If the US could not pacify a nation of 17 million in 4 years, how the devil can it expect to do it a nation of close on 70 million? But I remain sure something will happen and I dont think it will be to the benefit of the wider world.

The reasons for the crusades isnt that relevant..what is relevant is that they happened and what they became, and did to relations between Europe and the Islamic World. I do not deny that early Islam was a fearsome an warlike beast... it had huge success in its early years even to the point of winning much of Spain. But what it had that early Christianity lacked was a tolerance of others. Its defeat in Spain and the decision of Europe to flock to the cross and begin the first crusade was probably less to do with economics than simple fear of "moorish" conquest. And what reason to rally did people then need more than love and fear of their God, and the black propoganda of Islamic brutality and the lie of loss of their own God? The brutality of the crusades and their failure have both left an enduring resentment in both so called christian and islamics psyches... the creation of the state of Israel didnt help ease that tension as no equivelant Palestinaian state was established and we live with that also.

The history of the middle east of the last 60 years is one of tragedy and chaos and reflects the historical misunderstanding between two cultures, and the events since the attack on New York has only served to exacerbate that situation. The attacks did not happen because of envy of American wealth and power. They happened because of the feeling of hopelessness felt by many Palestinians and moslem people that the US continually refused to deal even handedly with Israel and the Palestinians, and a perception rightly or wrongly that most of the middle east's problems stemmed from American interference in their affairs, and is intended to prop up the Israeli state who are now perceievd as the american proxy in dealing with many little local issues, and to keep the flow of oil going to the west in general and the US in particular. Al quaeda have used this simmering resentment very successfully and now instead of their aim being the fall of the Saudi Royal family and the destruction of the Saudi state as we no it, it and other "islamic" groups use US cak-handedness as a stick to brow beat us all with and hence we have the appalling mess of today.

I am all too aware this is but a very simplified analyisis of why we are where we are. I think we agree on many things Sol, but we do differ on our analysis of what we do. That stems from you being an American and me not, and our differing perceptions of our world, and from my background being that of a socialist tradition and yours probably and you will correct me if I am wrong of coming from a laissez faire liberal one. We both think about the problems even if we differ, and somehow doubt we would be prepared to come to blows over them (I'll get Flex 2 do my dirty work for me!! tee hee). If only states, politicians and assorted tosspot extreme terror groups could do the same.

[but that's my name!!]

"laissez faire" not a term I often hear though I heard it used late last year in an apalling lecture about "leadership and managment styles", Ghastly lecture; I just had to leave after 20 minutes of heavily biased authoritarianist bullshit.

[Solomon]

darkeyes and but that's my name!!,

As far as the Bush Admin. I do NOT agree with his stand on same sex marriages, nor his stand against stem cell research.

I do agree with Bush's stand on the Iraq war though. Let's be honest. Hussien, everyone including the United Nations agreed he was not a nice guy that worked and played well with others. Everyone also agrees that the amount of bloodshed on his account would curl Hitler's toes. Everyone was in total agreement that he should allow Iraq to be inspected. Everyone agreed that he did not allow Iraq to be satifactorally inspected. Everyone else did nothing to step in and enforce the matter timely. Now wonder above all wonders Iran has nuclear capabilities. Why was nothing found in Iraq, when intel said it would be there? Is it just possible that Iran had something to do with it?

Jerusalem has been a violent place ever since the crusades with or without Israel or the U.S.

The United Nations unanimously agreed that Iraq should never amass the big bombs. The United Nations unanimously agreed that Iran should not amass the big bombs. The United Nations agreed that North Korea should not amass the big bombs. The United Nations agreed that Afghanistan should oust the Al-Quida and the United Nations still has troops there to assure success.

Why is the United States of America taking all the heat? When is the U.N. actually going to assume at least SOME responsibility?

Are these actually people that anyone wants to have the big bombs?? Do they strike anyone as people that would simply say "we have nukes? oh well nice, hat hangars."??

I too used to have a blatant hatred of capitalism, and while i could never bring myself to consider socialism, I probably would have had alot more enthusiasm about it at the time had it not been for being on this side of the cold war.

Since then I have come to realize and accept the fact that it simply doesn't work well for one good reason, and one good reason alone. And this is probably the biggest problem as to why the U.S. is becoming less and less about free enterprise than ever before.

People at their very core are simply greedy. And that's a good thing, we're supposed to want more. We've been given talents, skills, and etc. so that we do something with'em. The only problem with greed is that people think there's a problem with greed, hence the reason that the U.S. becomes more and more of a socialist type democracy.

Trying to mix greed and socialism into a workable society that doesn't end up being over bearing and communistic, might work for a select few true leaders but there's always the next leaders that may need more from a system of government. But with free enterprise the system works much moreso, because the people are greedy enough to work it more.

The only sociallism that I know of takes all competition out of the system by governmentalizing industry. Wouldn't that be even more blatant of a board of directors running the country? lol Taking all of the competition out of the picture leaves people feeling empty... Who wants to be a part of something where there truly is no way to get ahead? It's not as if industry's going to go anywhere.

I will and do fight for the concept of freedom of enterprise, but as this country turns more and more away from the spirit of it's inception i find myself more and more frustrated and disillusioned... more so than i can express here.

There is one thing that I've always found with what the founding fathers had in mind, hope. Hope that I can be more than what I am always and I don't need to depend on my bloodline as a resource to be more.

I think without that hope... we are lost as a nation and a world leader. And quite frankly, I can't see very much hope in socialism as I know it, would you care to expand on what you see with it?

<steps down off of soap box> ok, am ready for my beating now lol.

[coyotedude]

darkeyes: I'm American myself, but I happen to agree much more with your analysis than with sol's. I might have a few quibbles here and there with your analysis - but by and large I think you have a much better understanding of the history and issues involved than sol does. (Sorry, sol!)

One quibble is that the Pig War (which happened just 150 miles or so from me and is a part of local lore) had little to do with trade and commerce. The US and UK had been jostling each other for the Oregon country for years and had finally agreed to the 49th parallel as the dividing line between British and American holdings in our region. But there was still a dispute over a small group of islands claimed by both sides.

It really wasn't that big a deal until some farmer's pig wandered onto another farmer's homestead one day and promptly became ham dinner. Since one homestead was British and one was American, well....

The number of actual commissioned soldiers involved was ridiculously small. And the only casualty of the entire "war" was, well, the pig.

As it happened, the US got its way (yet again) and ended up with possession of most of the islands. On the American side of the border, the islands are known as the San Juans; on the Canadian side, they are the Gulf Islands.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Seattle area in the summertime, you should take the opportunity to spend a few days in the San Juans. They are beautiful and still not heavily populated. (Probably more tourists than locals certain times of the year....)

Peace

[flexuality]

darkeyes: I'm American myself, but I happen to agree much more with your analysis than with sol's. I might have a few quibbles here and there with your analysis - but by and large I think you have a much better understanding of the history and issues involved than sol does. (Sorry, sol!)


"History repeats itself until the lessons are learned."

I believe that there is a lot more to changing these issues than simply a knowledge of historical fact. While that is important, I believe that it is also vital to know one's players, and in this case that would be people.

I think that Sol and darkeyes both bring very valid thoughts to the table on this and while I do not agree with all of the conclusions presented, I do respect the differences as it causes me to THINK, rather than to just blindly accept what the "great out there" would have me believe.

Personally, I do not know all the political ins and outs, nor am I familiar with all the history (though I am learning!) but what I DO find is that gives me another vantage point with which to perceive these issues that strikes me as sorely lacking in the political world: COMMON SENSE.

[coyotedude]

"History repeats itself until the lessons are learned."

I believe that there is a lot more to changing these issues than simply a knowledge of historical fact. While that is important, I believe that it is also vital to know one's players, and in this case that would be people.

I think that Sol and darkeyes both bring very valid thoughts to the table on this and while I do not agree with all of the conclusions presented, I do respect the differences as it causes me to THINK, rather than to just blindly accept what the "great out there" would have me believe.

Personally, I do not know all the political ins and outs, nor am I familiar with all the history (though I am learning!) but what I DO find is that gives me another vantage point with which to perceive these issues that strikes me as sorely lacking in the political world: COMMON SENSE.

Common sense in the political world? Flex, that's an oxymoron! :) heh heh... But seriously, history really is about people, not just events. If we simply cite an event without considering its context, too often we lose sight of the real significance of an event. (cite... sight... haha) I thought that darkeyes considered context in her analysis, and I believe she did a damn fine job with it.

That's not to say that I don't think sol makes some good points as well, however. He does. And I should clarify that even if I disagree with sol on some things (and likewise he with me), I can and do still learn something from our exchange - much as you noted above.

That's why I like these kinds of discussions and appreciate folks who are willing to bring their own views to the table. These discussions help me keep my thinking fresher and sharper.

Actually, I was going to address the main discussion - but I got all excited that someone outside of our part of the world had heard of the Pig War! (What kind of geek that makes me, well, I'd rather not think about it....)

So Iraq, Iran, and the rest of it will have to wait for another night.

And on a bisexual-focused web site, no less!

Hope that helps....

Peace

[darkeyes]

darkeyes: I'm American myself, but I happen to agree much more with your analysis than with sol's. I might have a few quibbles here and there with your analysis - but by and large I think you have a much better understanding of the history and issues involved than sol does. (Sorry, sol!)

One quibble is that the Pig War (which happened just 150 miles or so from me and is a part of local lore) had little to do with trade and commerce. The US and UK had been jostling each other for the Oregon country for years and had finally agreed to the 49th parallel as the dividing line between British and American holdings in our region. But there was still a dispute over a small group of islands claimed by both sides.

It really wasn't that big a deal until some farmer's pig wandered onto another farmer's homestead one day and promptly became ham dinner. Since one homestead was British and one was American, well....

The number of actual commissioned soldiers involved was ridiculously small. And the only casualty of the entire "war" was, well, the pig.

As it happened, the US got its way (yet again) and ended up with possession of most of the islands. On the American side of the border, the islands are known as the San Juans; on the Canadian side, they are the Gulf Islands.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Seattle area in the summertime, you should take the opportunity to spend a few days in the San Juans. They are beautiful and still not heavily populated. (Probably more tourists than locals certain times of the year....)

Peace

Small quibble (tee hee). Cant it be argued that a land dispute is about trade an commerce.. an didn the brits an americans agree 2 an arbitration? An werent the French the arbiters? Great luvvers of the british (well the english ..they luv we north british for real.. :bigrin: ) as they r how else wos it gonna go?

By the way..me has an old schoolm8 lives in Seattle..so who knows...mayb u an me an Sol an Flex cud meet up an get sozzed an sort out the world! :tong: ;) o yea an between the three of us we can sort out Sol..tee hee :bigrin:

[darkeyes]

"History repeats itself until the lessons are learned."

I believe that there is a lot more to changing these issues than simply a knowledge of historical fact. While that is important, I believe that it is also vital to know one's players, and in this case that would be people.

I think that Sol and darkeyes both bring very valid thoughts to the table on this and while I do not agree with all of the conclusions presented, I do respect the differences as it causes me to THINK, rather than to just blindly accept what the "great out there" would have me believe.

Personally, I do not know all the political ins and outs, nor am I familiar with all the history (though I am learning!) but what I DO find is that gives me another vantage point with which to perceive these issues that strikes me as sorely lacking in the political world: COMMON SENSE.

Knew there wos a reason me luvved ya!..An 'im! :bigrin: None of us r all rite an none all wrong..all we can do is try an say it as we see it.. :tong:

[darkeyes]

darkeyes and but that's my name!!,

I think without that hope... we are lost as a nation and a world leader. And quite frankly, I can't see very much hope in socialism as I know it, would you care to expand on what you see with it?

<steps down off of soap box> ok, am ready for my beating now lol.


Fran will get up on the soap box..but not on a shoppin day... me needs sexy new knickers an stuff! :tong: K Flex..ya knows wot 2 do!!! :bigrin:

[flexuality]

As it happened, the US got its way (yet again) and ended up with possession of most of the islands. On the American side of the border, the islands are known as the San Juans; on the Canadian side, they are the Gulf Islands.

If you ever get a chance to visit the Seattle area in the summertime, you should take the opportunity to spend a few days in the San Juans. They are beautiful and still not heavily populated. (Probably more tourists than locals certain times of the year....)

Peace

My dad lived on Orcas Island after he and my mother divorced, then he moved to Saltspring Island. We had many vacations while I was growing up (well, while my father worked building houses lol) on Saltspring and also on Gabriola, my fave. :) Not sure if Gabriola is considered a Gulf Island, but it's in the same vacinity. It might as well be!

Been to all 3 - you're right they are beautiful! :)

Oh, and I see you like to talk religion, spirituality and politics? Uh oh...some of me and Sol's favorites. lol! (sigh...I may never get the keyboard....)

I wonder how much server space Drew has here...LOL!!

[flexuality]

That's why I like these kinds of discussions and appreciate folks who are willing to bring their own views to the table. These discussions help me keep my thinking fresher and sharper.
Peace

Sol and I ended up in a kind of "strange" situation, but definately one that keeps us thinking. Long story short, we meet with a couple every 2 weeks or so that are Jehovah's Witnesses (hear me out lol!!). Normally if the JW's come to the door, I just nod, smile and say "no thanks" etc. This couple is very different from most of them. He's a lawyer and a pretty good debater.

They are fully aware that we think what they believe is complete idiotic nonsense (to be nice hehe) and that we have absolutely no intention of "converting" or anything but they (particularily him) are very into debating religion among other things with us - without it becoming nasty.

It's the oddest pairing of couples...but it is fun and keeps me thinking, mainly about where I stand on a lot of things.

[flexuality]

Fran will get up on the soap box..but not on a shoppin day... me needs sexy new knickers an stuff! :tong: K Flex..ya knows wot 2 do!!! :bigrin:

Yep!http://www.geocities.com/leeforgy/anishark.gifI do! Tee hee!! :tong: :bigrin: :tong:

http://www.geocities.com/leeforgy/redsparklekiss.gif

[Solomon]

coyotedude,

Don't worry if ya don't agree now, it'll get clearer someday lol, it's not like i can write a book here, and i tend to go off on tangents, even when i'm trying to focus. lol.

I think the concept of commerce being a way to peace is a sound concept, and gets alot sounder if you multiply the long term connections... sorta like the internet.

As far as the percieved dominance of the U.S. It was mentioned that the reason that the U.S. hasn't attacked Iran is simply because it's decided not too.... doesn't that actually build more of case against the suspicion of dominance, or am i just out to lunch? darkeyes don't answer that last part lol :bigrin:

As far as the military being stretched, I don't think it's stretched so far that it couldn't respond to events as needed. And they have yet to even tap into the draft, although it has been under consideration.

I think i actually have more in the way of questions than I do of any sort of analysis per se.

btw, a land deal would certainly be seen as a commerce deal, however it's kind of a one time, one shot deal. And I highly doubt that there was enough of it repeatedly to encourage any sort of long term relationship.

And I'd love to find a bar (preferrably with a pool table, helps me think, maybe the long sticks with sliding action who knows?) an convert ya'll.... i mean have a few good drinks an alota laughs! :bigrin: :cool: :cool:

[darkeyes]

As far as the percieved dominance of the U.S. It was mentioned that the reason that the U.S. hasn't attacked Iran is simply because it's decided not too.... doesn't that actually build more of case against the suspicion of dominance, or am i just out to lunch? darkeyes don't answer that last part lol :bigrin: :

Wot a bloody smart arse ya r Sol. Wot I sed wos because SO FAR it has decided not to do so.. not that it had decided not to. Not quite the same thing! An' since I'm tarted up and about 2 go out you are delaying the Franhunt! An' that deserves more than jus a wee thump!. Luff ya! Flex..get on wiv it! An very hard! No powder puff this time! So wipe that bloody cheesy grin offya chops Sol! Me aint finished wivya yet! tee hee

[bicomrade]

It's interesting to see how religious cults turn into mainstream religion. I wonder how Scientology, Moonies, Children of God, etc.. will be looked upon in a hundred years. Will they have managed to go mainstream like the Mormons did in the 20th century? I look at these groups and see major league scams espoused by religious nutcases or outright conmen. Could it be christianity is also a major scam that has honed it's pitch over the milenia? Maybe Jesus was bi as some scholars have theorized. Oh that would be a hoot!!

[but that's my name!!]

You have nukes, we have nukes, who are we to say Iran can't have nukes? (though I don't particularly like the idea) Oh yeah, we're the ones with the nukes.
I wouldn't call America a "world leader" just a country with a lot of influence (until we all decide to stop listening then it comes down to America wanting its own way and who has the nukes)

[but that's my name!!]

The world is a playground.

[Solomon]

lol! The U.N. decided that it doesn't want Iran having nukes. That means the majority of the world has decided. NOT just the U.S.

CNN calls the U.S. a world leader probably a benefit of being influential.

[darkeyes]

The UN as such decides nothing for itself. Nations decide. Usually the big nations through the security council. Odd isnt it that when the UN agrees and does what for instance the US wants its all hunky dory. Not so when they don't. Then, and this is again more so an american thing than anywhere else, the UN then becomes the devil incarnate and a waste of time space and money. The UN has been castrated by the security council, in particular its constitution, where the 5 permanent members each have their veto and can block anything which is the will of every1 else. But then big countries such as the 5 permanent members like it that way, and thats why their veto exists. Who wants a global organisation interfering with their shenanigans anyway?

And Sol dear, I feel wonderfully well disposed 2 the world today so for now, Flex can rest her weary arms! :bigrin:

[but that's my name!!]

darkeyes, I'm now officially a fan :)

[Solomon]

sigh... ok you win, you're right and the U.S. is the big bad evil guys of the world and we're all doomed to be slaves to the Bush administration. Every nation on earth should have nuclear weapons stockpiled. And we should all be grateful to be blown to dust as a result, PRAISE ALLAH!

Capitalism sucks out the ass, and is actually enslavement to all populations on the planet, and Bill Gates is the biggest boogey man to ever live, right up there with Hitler ok?

so what?? doesn't change a bloody thing.

I'm personally sticking with what i'm learning from people that have what it is I want, financial independence. I'm not really into twisting arms over opinions lol. Nor am I apparently very good at expressing what it is I do believe.

so go ahead and trash the U.S. and capitalism and don't even think twice about the fact that at least you can.

[12voltman59]

Lot's of good stuff on this thread--I like that it has people talking.

I could make comment on so much that has been said here.

I just want to put down a few of my thoughts on the (dis) Honorable George W. Bush.

If it is not clear from other posts I have made over time on this site--I do not care one iota for Mr. Bush.

Prior to his running for U.S. president in the 2000 election cycle---I did not know much about him save an incident that came up down in Texas when he was governor regarding the death sentence of one young woman.

I no longer recall her name, but many years before this situation made the news back in the '90s, this lady admitted to being a messed up druggie. Amidst a drug induced craze, this lady brutally murdered someone.

By the time her execution date approached--she had cleaned up her act in prison. She had gotten off the drugs--not necessarily something prison helps with, because in many correctional instutions--you can find more drugs in those places than you can out on the street.

She had become a "born again Christian." As a former probation/parole officer--I had seen many such "jail house conversions" and with a skeptical nature bred by dealing with felons--my reaction to such claims was often "yeah--right!"

With this gal--I believed she was sincere and genuine and that she had undergone a conversion of sorts---she had certainly seemed--at least from what one can glean from interviews on television--that she was truly "rehabilitated".

Rehabilitiaton of offenders is one of the thing that prison is supposed to be about. She freely admited "I killed someone--I did that crime, but I am a different person now than I was then!"

I believed her. She did not ask to be let out of prison--she did ask to not be put to death and did agree--she deserved a life sentence. She wanted to serve as role model to others to show that it is possible for those who have done something evil such as the killing of another in a drug crazed state--can be redeemed. She had a nearly perfect behavior record in prison.

That is a feat in and of itself for a prisoner can look crossways at a pissed off correctional officer and get "a ticket." Getting a ticket for doing nothing at all is enough to set a prisoner off a bad road--get too many tickets--they go into "ag seg" or solitary and it just goes from there. You get a badly behaving prisoner who wants to kill correctional officers because he or she feels "what the fuck!! they dick me around anyway!!"

This gal became a cause celeb of sorts by people of all stripes---those opposed to the death penalty and evangalical conservatives who normally favor the death penalty in such cases, came together to argue in this lady's favor including Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell and other prominent evangelical figures.

They appealed to Bush, who in his role as Texas governor, to consider granting her a stay of execution and commuting the sentence to life in prison.

Bush had the power to do so, but he chose not to do that--and I remember watching the video coverage of him signing her death warrant--what I saw chilled me to the bone --for I swear--as he signed the papers that sent this lady to her death----there was almost a sense of glee on his face that he was sendinng this woman to her death. It was a very subtle thing Bush did--something on his face, but it just gave me the heebie-jeebies!

When Bush began his run for president--I hoped and yes --I prayed--that this man would not become our president, but figured since he was the son of a former president--he had a pretty good shot.

Well--we know the way the 2000 election came out--that left a bitter taste in my mouth --one that still lingers--and don't tell me to get over that--I feel to my bones to this day, that this was a very clearly improper election outcome! In the case of the 2000 election--the results came down not to a vote of "the people" but of five United States Supreme Court justices.

There are many reasons why I believe Bush is a dreadful president--I rate him as the absolute worst president in the history of this country---I believe that much of what he and his administration has done or has failed to do very likely will lead to the eventual failing of America.

To sum up this ramble--as much as anything--I think that the worst of Bush's negative legacies he will leave is the fact that in spite of his hollow words "That I am a uniter, not a divider"--Bush --thanks to cold political calculations by Bush's "politicial mind" Karl Rove--(a figure who will go down in history to take his place in the halls of infamy with the likes of Rasputin and Machiavelli as political puppet masters) actually played upon and exacerbated the divisions in this country to get to their goals -- and that as much as anything he and his cohorts have done---this has ill served our country and the world---

We cannot get a new president soon enough--hurry 2008!!!!

[coyotedude]

But sol, dude, you are out to lunch - at least when it comes to the Middle East and US policy. LOL

I was against the Iraq war in March 2003 not because I am an America-hating tofu-loving airhead hippie. (Tofu ain't bad, though, when it's cooked right. But that's another story.) I was against launching an attack in Iraq because when I truly looked at the array of threats - imminent and potential - facing the US in 2003, Iraq was pretty damn low on the list.

* We were at war with Al-Qaeda - an organization with a demonstrated willingness and ability to strike at American citizens both in the US and abroad

* We were at war in Afghanistan. The Taliban had been soundly defeated on the battlefield, but they had not been eliminated completely. And we had yet to consolidate our military victory into a lasting and just peace for the Afghan people - or to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

* We had North Korea not only developing nuclear weapons but also developing the capability to deliver said weapons to the US west coast.

* We had the aggressively metastasizing cancer known as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has continued to feed instability in the Middle East for nearly half a century

* We had the conflict between reformers and hardliners in Iran, with the potential of a hardliner victory to worry about.

* We had nuclear proliferation on the Indian subcontinent. (If you aren't scared shitless of the Pakistanis having the bomb - given the pressure cooker that is modern Pakistan - you aren't paying attention.)

* We had the continuing saga of nuclear, biological, and chemical munitions and precursors being poorly secured in the nations of the former Soviet Union.

* We had the looming threat of China, with its aspirations of being a great power (with all the baggage that entails).

And what did you have in Iraq? An admittedly brutal dictator (like many current US allies on the war on terror!) with a severely degraded military capability that had been surprisingly well contained by American and British military and diplomatic efforts since the early 1990's. (Not perfectly, I'll grant you. But a hell of a lot more effective than I ever would have predicted in 1992.)

Now, I can understand why the US was concerned that Iraq might have a couple of lingering chemical and biological warheads lying around. After all, we still had the receipts from the chemical and biological precursors that we sold Saddam in the 80s to use against Iran.

But even in March 2003, credible evidence of Iraq's capability and possession of WMDs simply wasn't there. Neither was there credible evidence of Iraqi involvement in 9/11. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

And given the history of colonial conflict in Iraq, it was clear even in March 2003 that winning the initial battle to remove Saddam wasn't going to be the hard part; winning the peace after Saddam's removal was.

The reality is that given the array of threats facing the US in March 2003, committing the bulk of our resources and attention to regime change in Iraq was a geopolitical blunder of the first magnitude. Events in Iraq and across the globe have certainly borne that assessment out

Your turn!

Peace

[Solomon]

believe what you will, and you're accurate about one thing, i do have hours everyday to pay attention to details of everything going on with everyone else in the world. Or i have hours everyday to focus on my own life lol.

i'm sorry but the bush admin just doesn't counsel with me about tactical maneuvers that they're considering on making, so i'm kinda forced to trust that they might, JUST MIGHT have one itsy bitsy piece of vital information that i'm lacking in.

they say that they counsel with the Generals that are actually over there and in command.... i could be wrong about that too, but they said that the generals are saying that it's still winable, even with our forces 'stretched'.... i don't know if that means anything to anyone, but there again, i probably don't have access to knowing each every little tactical piece of information that the generals have going on in their minds. perhaps you do?

as far as the Iraqis winning the peace, i keep reading that they keep trying to let'em, but the generals (bastards they may be) think that it's still too soon.

as for even going over there, again the assholes just did not drop by my house with the briefcase containing the evidence for my personal inspection, not even a phone call to ask my opinion of the idea, let alone sharing all the military relevant info such as troop strength, positioning etc.

I don't have a clue as to what drugs they're on that they neglected doing that, but there ya have it.

Of course, i am reminded of a situation that happened many moons ago, when a man was called two faced at a party, he turned to the lady and said "Ma'am, if i had two faces do you think i'd choose this one?"