Why Is The Usa So Backwards? [Archive]

Ronagon

10th November 2005, 08:07 AM

The problem with the United States is that it is chiefly populated by peoples geographically cut off from their historical sources of identity, wisdom, and connectedness. Their ancestries are all across vast oceans, and most of them cannot afford to easily traverse the distance and "find themselves".

White Americans and black Americans are basically cultural orphans, having to reinvent their ideological "wheel" because of this. America as a culture has very little to draw upon, and has even forgotten most of what might have been useful traditional information, because of their lost histories.

In South America, the peoples there have never had to relocate. They have never been relocated, and so they largely know who they are: their Mayan, Incan, and Aztec traditions are easily drawn upon, because they still inhabit the same geographical proximity.

The advantage to America is that, because of its isolation, it has been given a clean slate to draw upon, and can invent a whole new culture. The disadvantage is that it's having to make a lot of mistakes along the way.

Finally, "backward" depends on your vantage point. In many respects, America is backward with respect to the rest of the world, which is doing certain things better, such as taking life at a more reasonable pace, and with its citizens having a much better sense of connection to those around them than Americans do.

But in many respects, the rest of the world is backwards with respect to America. America's greater emphasis on achievement and individualism allows it to take the lead in much-needed actions, whereas the rest of the world would sit around posturing, "Who are we to think we're leaders?" In the War on Terror, America has never stood idly by, whereas most of the rest of the world has.

It may be hard to admit, but most of the much-needed progress in the world is due to America overachieving and embarrassing the other nations and peoples of the world to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make the world a better place.

venom mama

19th November 2005, 07:31 PM

america should take over the world

all should pay homage to the usa

yes

world america

InfiniteKnot

29th November 2005, 01:02 PM

Hello, Newbie here.
I'm also from the states so I thought I'd like to interject something here.
:dunno:
The problem with the United States is that it is chiefly populated by peoples geographically cut off from their historical sources of identity, wisdom, and connectedness. Their ancestries are all across vast oceans, and most of them cannot afford to easily traverse the distance and "find themselves".
Sounds interesting. I've never thought about it in this way before. I sometimes feel like I'm trapped in the center of this quagmire of ignorance and I can't figure out a good plan of escape. Other times I feel I should stay and attempt to reason with the religious fundamentalists. Unfortunately, you can't reason with these people. There is something so "fundamentally" different in their worldview that they just don't grasp the sillyness of intelligent design as a science.
and what's wrong with that? a study done by men gives nothing to what a supreme intelligence is capabale of. we're not backwards here. we just haven't given up on god yet. american's know no bounds. we're allowed to believe how we will.

my personal opinion....evolution is only a tool in creationism. there is a supreme entity, no matter how you all choose to deny their existence.
:shakehead:
Comments like this are so feeble, yet they don't realize how ridiculous it sounds. I find it tedious even trying to explain it to them anymore. Unfortunately the ones in power right now fall into this category, and they are multiplying in this country. It's like that game with the hammer and groundhogs. You knock one back into its hole and another pops up somewhere else. Its been like that in this country for over 100 years (in regards to evolution). It's pathetic.

I think they know that evolution is real. The fear and religious superstition in this country is absurd. I mean, what does it say to the rest of the world when the USA spends countless months on the all-powerful-agenda of banning Gay Marriage?? How much more feeble can we get??

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Kether

30th November 2005, 02:14 AM

I agree. I hate it when you're trying to have a rational debate with someone and they answer with a stream of meaningless, if poetic, soundbytes.

InfiniteKnot

30th November 2005, 05:10 AM

I think another problem is...if we can't agree on what is real and what is not-real, then no rational debate can take place.

Like the other day I was having a conversation with my Dad (Christian). We were talking about the movie Contact (based on book by Carl Sagan).

I casually mentioned how I thought it was sad that Carl Sagan didn't get to see the completed film, having died before its release.

Dad said, "Well, maybe he did see it."

I said, "No, actually he died before it was released."

Dad just smugly said, "That's not what I mean."

I looked over at Dad and he had this silly grin on his face, like he has some inside knowledge on death.

So in the middle of our conversation, we couldn't agree on what was Real and what was Faith. That's what drives me nuts most of all. We need to agree on what is real. Otherwise we have no common ground.

Also---I'm tired of hearing fundamentalists complain that they are being "persecuted".

Give it up! You have the right to worship any religion you want in this country! Nobody is going to try to stop that!

However, we will try to stop you when you insist on forcing others to worship as you do. Intelligent Design is a deceitful way of plugging your worship into Science. You know what that's called when you do that? Persecution!

Knock it off!

sonrisa

2nd December 2005, 01:26 PM

hey ya'll! Check out Hypocrisy Today's Man Of the Year for 2005 (click here) (http://www.hypocrisytoday.com/2005motya.html)

Smurf

3rd December 2005, 07:10 AM

well i've been thinking not too much but perhaps because the USA is only around what 200? years old it is still pretty immature as a nation. the "gene pool" is immatre compared to Europe perhaps

Kether

3rd December 2005, 05:26 PM

The problem isn't genetic. It's to do with American society and culture.

Ronagon

4th December 2005, 03:19 AM

Kether,

I completely agree with you.

The "genetic" argument is a lazy catch-all argument that has become way too popular and has dictated far too much social policy. This world has made its greatest strides whenever human leaders and societies have put aside all cop-outs like genetic and religious explanations, and decided to operate on principles of logical cultivation and logical education... in essence, Logicism.

Kether

4th December 2005, 08:17 PM

In fact, saying that America lags behind Europe because of genes falls apart the minute you realise that most Americans have European genes - Europe's where most of their ancestors came from in the first place. Either there or Africa.

Smurf

5th December 2005, 05:52 AM

oh yes i realise that and that you have had a huge debate on genetics but i ask you this if the problem isn't with the people then who is it with? the birds? but society and culture are a result of the collective people's opinions and views their mental state of minds at that present point blah blah etc.

sonrisa

12th December 2005, 02:10 AM

Smurfie, isn't it Australia that's only around 200? Europeans have been coming to our shores (off & on) for around 1000 years now. Our oldest permanant cities, St Augustine & Santa Fé, date back to 1595 & 1598, respectively. At any rate, my point is that going by your logic, Australia is even more backwards than the United States. Is that what you meant? I don't think so.

The problem here in the United States is that we have a regime who has steam-rolled their way into power & is promoting junk science in order to line their own pockets. They've managed to get the press in their pockets to promote this junk stuff. They ridicule those scientists- & others- who speak out & cut their funding. They try to put their nonsense in school ciriccula & pass bogus education acts like the Every Kid Left Behind act to ensure that our students lag behind academically. They churn up alot of religious garbage to keep everybody stupid- remember Marx said that religion is the opium of the people. Well this regime is playing that up for their own greedy ends. These unfortunate circumstances could happen in any country- & have in the past. Currently, that unfortunate country happens to be the United States.

Smurf

12th December 2005, 02:29 PM

oh yes Australia is like this aswell, we are a nation of convicts for christs sake!

yes and i agree that it is all about money, unfortunately but your oldest cities yes that's still at least 400 years. i am talking about the whole country's society and mindset that is helped by the media is still immature compared to somewhere such as europe

Kether

15th December 2005, 11:45 PM

I agree with you totally, Sonrisa.

Religion is the only system of ethics 'available' to many people, in that they are familiar with it. Most other aspects of society are currently very amoral, so Christianity remains unchallenged by everyone except a few powerless intellectuals. Even non-religious people usually live, or at least think, according to Christian morality.

But some of Christian morality is wrong and dangerous, particularly its opinions on sexual ethics. People stress the less disturbing aspects of Christian doctrine to tone down its dangers - they talk about how 'reasonable' and 'liberal' the religion really is. They seem to forget that reforms within the churches only took place as a result of the actions of freethinkers, who were persecuted and tortured for centuries for questioning accepted dogma.

I know Jesus talked about love and forgiveness, but christianity is still responsible for revenge-based systems of "justice" and for the unnaceptable death toll from AIDS.

Certain branches of the religion, such as liberation theology, stress the 'love' part of the equation. But they don't abandon christianity's worse aspects.

Tying up ethics in a system of metaphysical doctrines is extremely dangerous; if people believe that the former cannot be followed properly without the latter, they will try to ensure that people are made to believe in the latter at all costs. Experience has taught us what those costs are.

todd

16th December 2005, 03:55 PM

I know Jesus talked about love and forgiveness, but christianity is still responsible for revenge-based systems of "justice" and for the unnaceptable death toll from AIDS.

That is not quite true. If you study the history of law you will see that the first type of social reaction against crime was "eye for an eye" . Next, humanity experienced the first codes and Christianity came much later, so you cannot blame it for the vindictive trends, which are innate.
Also, the monogamy is pre-Christian, and the fact that AIDS is sexually transmitted has nothing to do with religion. You cannot blame Christianism for the failure to develop a cure for this disease. The pharmaceutical industry is the second biggest business in the world after oil, and it is only ruled by financial interest. As long as an AIDS cure will not financially justify the development cost of a vaccine or antidot, we will not see any results. Why do you think the cure for H5N1 has been developed in a couple of years? Because today tens of billions of dollars are being spent by governments for stocking Tamiflu.

Kether

17th December 2005, 03:18 AM

If you study the history of law you will see that the first type of social reaction against crime was "eye for an eye" . Next, humanity experienced the first codes and Christianity came much later, so you cannot blame it for the vindictive trends, which are innate.

But Christianity, although a new system of morality, did not fundamentally attack the 'eye for an eye' doctrine, despite its emphasis on forgiveness. Its views on good and evil, apart from the whole 'love thy neighbor' thing, differ little from those of the society in which Jesus of Nazareth lived.
Christian ethics are not certain, but nor are they flexible. This may seem contradictory, but it basically means that the ambiguity of them means that the worse aspects can be emphasised so that they justify atrocities, and that Christianity claims a monopoly on the truth, so its ideas cannot be questioned.
Christianity has become a powerful social force, yet Jesus' ideas are not very progressive. They do not seek a different view on morality from the extremely irrational view of the Old Testament, but merely add on some more ideas about love.

Revenge is an immediate reaction for most animals, including humans who have not been suitably conditioned. Many religious ideas sprang up to justify basic instincts, and whether the instincts led to good or to bad was irrelevant. Judaism, of which Jesus was a part, reflects the moral views of the early Hebrew people. Their society was based around the patriarchal family. The clan-like groups of herders needed to stay together as families in order to live the way they wanted to. Men wanted their children to be faithful to them.
Their religion reflects this; any percieved "misdirection" of sexuality that did not further the clan's aims, like adultery and homosexuality, was considered evil. Religion was originally a means of explaining the world, and the religious explanation for non-family-oriented sex was that it was sinful, and disliked by Yahweh.
Jesus did not disagree with this; he believed that these ideas were divinely inspired.

Sexually transmitted diseases were seen as divine punishment for sexual "deviance", and still are by many Christians. Even if these sexual practices were evil, which they aren't, it is incredibly cruel to make so many people suffer for it. And anyway, they aren't evil.

The church says that the best way of preventing sexual transmitted diseases is celibacy and not contraception. The latter is seen as unnatural, while the former is.
But both are equally unnatural, and celibacy is impractical and frankly pointless in view of the existence of contraception.

Smurf

20th December 2005, 04:48 AM

Oh yes i hate those sort of people who object to anything different, saying it's unnatural but instead they could actually read up on it and learn about it. :angry:

venom mama

29th December 2005, 10:34 PM

i wish the usa would let the cuban baseball team play

Smurf

30th December 2005, 05:36 AM

oh so USA hasn't let anyone but them play baseball, how nice of them to do that :D

MidnightSun

30th December 2005, 11:14 PM

And u ask why they are arrogant... :lol:

Smurf

31st December 2005, 06:08 AM

:lol: :D

the greek

17th February 2006, 01:53 PM

The USA eventually relented and went along with Cuba in the World Baseball Classic. The main issue of contention was that any funds going toward the team, or coming as a result of the team's potential success, would not be diverted to the regime of Fidel Castro. Assurances were made.

As to why the USA is perceived to be arrogant or heavy-handed, there is always the "when you're #1, everybody is out to get you" theory. That I believe plays a small part in this. The other is that there exists much freedom of speech in America, to dissent against your government, almost limitless. Sure, there are reprisals. But mostly monetary reprisals against dissent, perhaps a loss of a job at a major university for a professor who speaks wildly unpopular and/or outrageous public statements. With that air of close self-examination, others look at the USA and say, the Americans themselves criticize from within. If they think their own country is bad, then they must truly be bad. Question: Do you think those Abu Graib torture pictures would have ever seen the light of day in a major Russian newspaper had it been the Russian military partaking in the torture of Chechnians? Maybe, maybe not. Has anyone ever been assasinated by the US government, or covert operatives, for their opinions? I'm not so naive to not recognize this. But mostly, you can call the president a big fat lying cheat, a scumbag and a philistine, but at the same time you can go home at night and for the most part not have to look over your shoulder and fear for your life. Now that's a great thing to have, no? As to the way the USA exerts its influence and power over other parts of the world, it can partially be rationalized by saying it's all a consequence of, or collateral damage resulting from, being the world's foremost superpower and still learning (after less than 300 years in existence) to equitibly exert that power in a manner condusive to all the world. This, my friends, is the impossible task. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Freedom is a wonderful thing. Fascism is not. If we here in the USA are not vigilent in education and continual improvement, the global economy will eventually relegate the USA to an economic also-ran - regardless of the erronious axiom "military might equals economic success." This last notion, history has taught well, does not always prevail. From the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Ottomans, one by one they all fell. All is in flux. Thus is nature, inherently entropic.

Kether

22nd February 2006, 01:43 AM

Most countries in Europe enjoy the same level of freedom of speech as the USA, if not more. In fact, the same could probably be said for much of Africa, some of Asia, all of Australasia, most of South America... Moreover, the degree of freedom enjoyed by Americans is much less than is often supposed.

The market system is global, and not confined to America. America was one of market capitalism's pioneers, but the acceptance of this economic system did not occur as a result of some kind of American evangelism, but of countries' own accord. Therefore, capitalism does not depend on the American military, or any particular government.

America is not fundamentally unique: it is just another Western capitalist nation. It differs from the others only in terms of prosperity and power, but this is not a result of some basic trait that only America possesses.

the greek

27th February 2006, 12:54 PM

In my last post, I firmly believe I distinguished clearly between America's economic position and that of capitalism in general. My reference was in regard to America's military might not having sole sway over America's economic might. Never did I imply that global capitalism is dependent upon America, or its military. I would, however, point out that America, even if only as a conduit for the global economy, does wield more influence than any other single country in the world when it comes to capitalism. This is not in dispute.

I think we would all agree that the question that started this discussion calls into question the propriety of America actions. And that's how I answered in my previous post.

As an American (for what it's worth, a Greek American), I feel duty-bound to say the following: Just asking "what is wrong" with anything is itself (in a reverse backhanded compliment kind of way) an indictment of the subject. Another question is, what's right with America?

MidnightSun

27th February 2006, 10:09 PM

Hmm not much.

MidnightSun

28th February 2006, 10:07 PM

Its not ur country.

Kether

1st March 2006, 05:09 AM

Much of what's wrong with America is essentially the same thing that's wrong with much of the rest of the world. Strong right-wing religious ideology; an economic system based on unequal ownership, leading to cultural stratification and a lack of freedom as well as the projection of the desires of a few onto the destinies of the majority - many charges are hurled at America by the rest of the world, and by Americans themselves, but these problems are shared with the rest of the capitalist, 'developed' world.
Still, there are many characteristics of America that are peculiar to it: a myopic outlook on the rest of the world, and a strong grasp by the religious Right in some areas.
Another question is, what's right with America?
America was founded on the cherished values that shape liberal and enlightenment sentiments today - a love of the truth and a belief in the importance of freedom.

the greek

1st March 2006, 06:00 AM

Funny, republicans and the Rush Limbaugh bombasts would have us believe America is overrun by liberals. And yet you seem to think America is rampant with right wing ideology. So, my friends from where I don't know because you America-bashers refuse to reveal your origins, kindly explain which one it is - right-wing fundamentalism or, more accurately, a healthy mix of all the world's various and numerous religious doctrine. The USA is extremely religious-tolerant. Granted, in recent times, most noteable since the fundamentalist, radical muslim 9-11-01 attacks on our soil, there has been less tolerance of Islamic peoples in this country. Go ask the Dutch about their own tolerance of those who would kill a Theo van Gogh because of his views expressed in a documentary, or those who would riot over ink (a cartoon charicature). Puleeze, spare me the bullshit, and now boringly cliche-ick anti-American rhetoric. Whether you're Christian, Jew, Islamist, agnostic, atheist or whatever, very few people in the United States of America are going to kill you over it. Might I inquire, Mr. or is it Mrs, Kether, your country of origin? And the same goes for the self-titled Midnight Sun, who replies with nothing but really lame and simple-minded comments. Your empty postings add nothing to the debate here in this forum. Do the world a favor, go away.

sonrisa

1st March 2006, 08:49 PM

yo Greek- could you please go a little easier on MidSun? The kid's what- 14, 15?- & English isn't his 1st language. Give the kid a little credit for being able to follow the discussions on this board. Could you follow the topics on a Lithuanian discussion board? Well maybe you can, I know I can't. :) I'm saying this in the friendliest possible way, btw. I don't mean to be bitchy at all.
Anyhow, the kid has a point- is it really our country anymore? It's been taken over by a group of mercenary thugs who don't give a rat's butt about govt of the people, by the people, or for the people. Greg Palast even wrote a book about it (click here) (http://www.frugalfun.com/greg-palast.html) Then there's this latest bs with the ports- the UAE gives dubya $1 million to establish a so-called library, & dubya gives the all clear for foreign control over our ports. These thugs will sell their own grannies to the highest bidder. As for what they would have us believe- repugs lie like rugs. You haven't figured that one out already?

Kether, you're on the right track, especially regarding the original topic at the start of this discussion- there's alot of holy garbage around that's masquerading as science & it's managing to find its way into our schools. Our students are already lagging behind the rest of the world in the sciences & this dumbing down holy roller nonsense only makes it worse.

Kether

2nd March 2006, 03:47 AM

Funny, republicans and the Rush Limbaugh bombasts would have us believe America is overrun by liberals. And yet you seem to think America is rampant with right wing ideology.
There are plenty of American liberals - I'm not so stupid and oversimplistic as to deny that, and didn't do so at any point. You're right, though: America is very tolerant, but no more tolerant than many other countries.
There is great ideological multiplicity within the USA, but the religious right is stronger than in some other places, and that's basically all I was saying.
I'm not as anti-American as many other people. Read through what I've said: America is much like the rest of the world. It's problems are similar, apart from a few of them. I focused on them because that's what this topic's about, if you remember.
Might I inquire, Mr. or is it Mrs, Kether, your country of origin? ...My friends from where I don't know because you America-bashers refuse to reveal your origins.
Really? Have you never heard of member profiles?
And another thing: please stop personally attacking anyone who does not agree with you.

the greek

3rd March 2006, 12:30 PM

Sorry, no time to check everyone's profile. It's enough spent here pounding away at the keyboard. As for personal attacks, it wasn't personal. It's an attack against a political position.

The only personal attack was against the kid. When I asked what's right with America and they respond with basically an answer of "nothing," they lose all credibility. I'm sure we can firmly agree that the truth falls somewhere in between, and not at the polar opposites.

In regard to `it's not our country anymore,' the great thing about America, and most democracies, is that we get to throw the bums out if they aren't up to the job. The Bush regime does not define what being an American is all about. Administrations are temporary. People and politics of all stripes endure. That's America. And that's at least one great thing about it.

Thomas Knierim

3rd March 2006, 12:40 PM

the greek: In regard to `it's not our country anymore,' the great thing about America, and most democracies, is that we get to throw the bums out if they aren't up to the job.

That didn't seem to have worked at the last election... :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

Smurf

3rd March 2006, 05:12 PM

That didn't seem to have worked at the last election...

hahah yeah!! :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

meh

Kether

3rd March 2006, 11:20 PM

The only personal attack was against the kid.
I know, and that was the personal attack I was referring to. I admit that I agree with the justification for it, but not with your assertion that he should not be allowed to speak.
People and politics of all stripes endure. That's America. And that's at least one great thing about it.
It's not just America. I understand what you mean, and of course I agree that democracy is more desirable than dictatorship, but I don't think that there is adequate representation in any existing governments. Are major political parties that different from each other? Most of the time the electorate is dissatisfied with politicians, voting for them because they are less bad than others.

sonrisa

4th March 2006, 10:01 AM

as usual Kether, you've made some good points :thumbsup:
the one I want to address has to do with who should & shouldn't be allowed to speak- or in this case, post:
surely, Greek, you agree with me that one of the greatest things about our country is the 1st Amendment. It's more than just alot of high-minded, principled claptrap- it's written down on paper, as part of the Law of the Land. That may or may not be the greatest thing about our country, but IMHO it's certainly the most precious. For you to tell MidSun- or anybody who wants to post here- to go away just flies in the face of the 1stA. As long as somebody is following the rules (not cussing, not spamming, etc..) then they should be allowed to express their pov's. If the posts are (considered by you to be) lame, well that is the way of the 1st Amendment- it allows for stupid stuff to be voiced as well as pearls of wisdom. :)

You whine that we are America-bashing. How so? Becuz we are discussing our country's problems? You have to identify what's wrong before you can attempt to make it right. You think we should simply goose step to this new world order? Thomas Jefferson said dissent is the highest form of patriotism.You say that administrations are temporary, but what about the ramifications from their actions? Look no further than New Orleans. That city won't be the same for a long time- if ever- & all becuz the bushits couldn't be bothered to give the Corps of Engineers the money they needed to shore up the levees. They were too busy funnelling the money into their greedy little war of choice (then there's the long term ramifications of that war on those people) & not just money, but resources (what the hell do they need with high water vehicles in a desert for christ sake?) & personnel who were stuck half way around the planet wringing their hands & feeling useless. The people of the Gulf Coast- & of Iraq- are going to be payng for this regime's stupidity long after the stupid regime is gone. If we want to discuss these things then that's our perogative, hell Jefferson would say it's our duty to discuss them so we can get the problems out in the open & fixed.

MidnightSun

4th March 2006, 02:45 PM

Midnight Sun, who replies with nothing but really lame and simple-minded comments. Your empty postings add nothing to the debate here in this forum. Do the world a favor, go away.

I really appreciatte it :P

Anyhow, the kid has a point- is it really our country anymore

Yes it was a deep thought.

Whats right with america? Law billy. Chasing tolerance.

Smurf

5th March 2006, 10:59 AM

Yeah too damn right, if it's one thing I have learnt from Philosophy forums that is to whatch out for the egos...

:thumbsup:

MidnightSun

5th March 2006, 10:15 PM

Nooo dun protect me :P He only said his opinion ,which i respect. Nothing to apology for..and that im 15 and a foreigner dont make any diffrence between me and anyone else. :)

Anyway nice to feel loved :lol:

sonrisa

6th March 2006, 01:20 AM

good point Psyche! :thumbsup:

MidSun- he may have been stating his opinion, but he had no call to tell you to leave the boards- that's Thomas' call not his, or ours. And he was going about his so-called defense of America in a very un-american way- somebody had to call him on that.

an apology- necessary or not- would be a display of good manners.... :)

MidnightSun

6th March 2006, 01:20 AM

No...mostly all americans here and the topic was kinda american..i can scrap the word anyway :P

the greek

6th March 2006, 02:48 AM

Sorry Midnight Sun. Or is it son? You are kinda young, which is actually refreshing. Most kids your age are off playing video games (I'm sure you do that too, as did I). But most kids your age don't take the time or effort to contribute to the political, or should I say public policy debate. For that, I praise you. I have no right to tell you to not post, of course. That goes without saying.

BUT, I do stand by my statement about simple mindedness. Dogmatism is the enemy of truth and understanding, and when you use absoulutes (E.g, to paraphrase, `there is NOTHING right with America'), you forfeit your `beneift of the the doubt' in regard to credibility.

My problem with the particular question that started this debate is it is the wrong question. Sure, let's probe what's wrong with America. Please, by all means do so. America is not perfect and will never be, by the way.

But, puleeze, spare me the "where was it you molested your sister" questions. You know, the ones that indict the subject as part of the question. You know, the ones like "Why is America so backward?"

sonrisa

6th March 2006, 10:04 AM

well, if you go back to the very 1st page, the question concerns evolution vs um, "intelligent" design, & in that context, to abandon evolution for what is basically dolled-up creationism would be a step backwards, dontcha think? Recently the Ohio Board of Education rejected teaching intelligent design in our schools on the grounds that it is not a true science, but a religious teaching & therefore violated separation of church & state. Sure enough, the local paper printed an op-ed diatribe about the decision, the author was whining about how evolution is now to be considered dogma by the schools & other religious stuff (this is not the paper's position, btw, but a guest columnist) basically he couched his whole article in religious terms & justified the Bd of Ed's ruling- without meaning to, of course! :D

Anyhow to get back to this discussion- it took on a life of it's own, (as the discussions tend to do around here) & by the time you joined it, the subject matter had become more general, so maybe the word "backwards" no longer applies. What would you name this discussion?

MidnightSun

6th March 2006, 10:05 PM

Dogmatism is the enemy of truth and understanding, and when you use absoulutes (E.g, to paraphrase, `there is NOTHING right with America'), you forfeit your `beneift of the the doubt' in regard to credibility.

Whats right with america? Law billy. Chasing tolerance

:P

the greek

7th March 2006, 12:19 PM

What is "law billy"? Or did you mean bully?

MidnightSun

7th March 2006, 10:00 PM

Actuattly dont know how to translate it... Primary US constitution after the war i suppose.

MidnightSun

8th March 2006, 10:12 PM

Ah yes yes, thats what i was trying to say.

Also united nations was a nice idea too.

Smurf

9th March 2006, 04:51 AM

^ yeah unfortunately it didn't work very well, perhaps we will see it disperse like the League of Nations did before it?

sonrisa

12th March 2006, 12:40 PM

this is on page 18 of the latest issue (April) of Discover magazine-
"the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter crashed on the Red Planet because the Jet Propulsion Laboratory used metric units, while engineers at Lockheed Martin used feet and pounds."

I hope this isn't their April Fools blurb.

otoh, even of it is, it points out another way the United States could be contsrued as backwards- here we are in the 21st century, a brand new millenium, & we're still using an old, outdated system of measurement. Why do we continue to cling to it, when the metric system is easier to use?

laziness? cussedness?

sure going metric will wreak some havoc for a few years, but then folx will get used to using it. Why don't we just switch to metric & get it over with? Seems to me we are more concerned with short term havoc than long term convenience....

CSwriter1

13th March 2006, 12:53 AM

I don't know if this thread ever got back on track. It begins with a question of why Christians in the US opposes Darwinism, and is backward, and this is an excellent question.

To a large degree many colonies were religious colonies. Protestantism had broken up into several different branches, and each was thrilled by the possibility of manifesting the best possible human conditions on earth. Many were knowingly competing with each other to produce the most saints. The vast amount space between colonies gave each the freedom to establish its own establishment without being influenced by those who were not committed to the colony's founding fathers vision of the ideal. In fact there was not religious tolerance in these colonies but intolerance, with those not committed to the specific religious vision, being driven from the colony, and when colonies grew too close to each other, they began killing each other. Unfortunately, education has distorted this history saying people came here for religious freedom. Not true. They came for the freedom to be religious fanatics!

This history of religious zeal and power, still dominates the US today, even though the history is forgotten and distorted! Leaving the US paranoid schzophrenic. Saying the US is backward is a far more accurate accessement than most realize, because Christianity is not compatible with democracy unless the people are educated for democracy, and that hasn't been down since 1958, when education for technological began.

It is most unfortunately that people have mistaken education for technology for military and industrial purpose, as equal to scientific education. It is not, and that is why the huge gap between advanced military technology, and religious superstition that dominates the US. The problem is made even worse by the distorted history, leaving people to believe Christians gave us democracy and made the US great. They really do not know how the idea of democracy got started and what it has to do with philosophy, which played a much stronger roll in the development of Britain and most of Europe, than the US. The US ignored philosophy and focused on religion. The US is a strange duck indeed, beginning with rebellion against authority, and becoming what it stood against. It is questionable if will retain is liberty for much longer, as there are strong indications it is rapidly becoming a police state that can completely crush liberty. Because these people are ignorant of philosophy and so committed to their religious beliefs, they can fall into tyranny just as Germany did, without a clue to what is happening to them.

They are in fact the resurrection of Hitler's New World Order, complete with religious passion and unquestioned sense of superiority. Their schzoid problem comes from not knowing their history, just as individuals can have mental problems when they forgot events in their lives that influenced them, causing them to act on the past, unaware of the cause of their behavior. The paranoia, as happened in Germany, when it first educated for military and industrial technology, is an excessive need for control and superiority. Don't you see- the reality is disconnected, as religion and the power of advanced technology give a dangerous meaning to God's power and glory? This causes a dangerous embalance in the perception of reality. The US is religious and technologically smart, but unwise.

the greek

14th March 2006, 03:55 AM

Allowing for religious debate is not unwise. The bible, as well as the Koran and the Torah, are historic documents that contain at the very least a small iota of truth. I'm very much a devotee of science and evolutionism (as my posts in the science section here indicate), but as any scientist will tell you, being dogmatic leads to being myopic. If strict evolutionism is your calling card, along with atheism, then I'll stick with the country that keeps an open mind - the good ole US of A!

MidnightSun

18th March 2006, 09:38 PM

The world, it broke my heart today
When I saw the things that people do and heard the things they say
All of the people who are living on the streets
The babies found in garbage cans, wrapped up in bloody sheets
How could we let our world end up this way?
And I know tomorrow isn't bringing a better day
Our government is so corrupt, we need to take a stand
They keep raising taxes in hopes they will possess our land
So many men and women have died for our country
So we could have equal rights, so that we could live free
So many people have come here hoping to find a better living
But discrimination and poverty is all that America was giving
They came here dreaming of beautiful cities and open meadows
But they were put to harsh labor and made to live in filthy ghettos
And this was so long ago; things have only deteriorated
Society has only gotten worse. Life is so complicated
Gangs are constantly at war with each other
Taking more loved ones from their families and their mother
Drug dealers on every corner selling death and comatose
Addicts concerned with nothing more then getting the next dose
There's no room left in jail, rapists are living in our community
And there's so much more behind the scenes, the things that we don't see
Kids are bringing guns to school, killing each other over religion and race
Teenagers are having babies, or dropping out, this generation has become a disgrace
Drinking and driving, experimenting with pills and cocaine
Anything to have a good time, or stop the anger and the pain
It seems we do anything in our power to cause some controversy
And we're in denial about what we have come to be
- by unknown

CSwriter1

20th March 2006, 11:30 PM

Responding to the faults of the US, I think to a large degee the problem is Christianity. This belief system expects the worse of humanity and has created a supernatural explanation for this which they believe more or less. As I said before, the religion has a problem with spirituality. With their supernatural beings of good and evil, they have declared those who believe is spirits as superstitious. <_<

Okay, humans are limited and need to better understand their limits. They are social animals as are all primates and some other mammals. Their are born with natural abilities which vary between humans, but must learn almost everything. What they learn can be grossly in error. Therefore, they must be taught critical thinking so they can question what they think. They must also be taught values and principles. In the past the US had liberal education that taught such things.

Unfortunately, in 1958 the US began using public education to militarize the population, and replaced liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose. This does not explain the failing of the nations past, but explains the moral decline of the present.

Before 1958 it was common for children to drop out of school and go to work. The further back in history we go, we see how limited the means of public schools have been. Many communities were lucky if many of the children just learned to read. From their they had to take education in their own hands, but life was hard and the fields and factories called to work. Especially in the factories, the work was dehumanizing and the pay was below poverty wages. Even worse, this industry was modeled after England's autocracy, and it is autocratic values that dominate in the US, not democratic ones.

Can we be gentle in our judgements of humans? They know not what they do. They are struggling to do the best they know how. We can change this, by gaining knowledge and sharing this knowledge and hopefully enlightening the people. Once people gain a knowledge it can not undone, and they are changed by it.

<_< some of us write too much to get across our points.

the greek

21st March 2006, 02:42 AM

I appreciate the thoughts. Although it would be difficult to lay blame on a nation (1958 USA), in the midst of the Cold War with Russia, for attempting to educate their population on the technological complexities of the nuclear age. America was in a nuclear arms race with the Soviets. What would you have them do? Teach their kids the finer points of surrender?

One side note regarding the too-long and off-the-topic post before CSWriter1: Your own (original) thoughts are actually welcome (well, relatively speaking). But it's nice to know that you're adept at cut and paste. But next time, try to make your posts relative to the discussion - okay?

Getting back to the original question, which strikes at the heart of science versus spirituality, a little healthy religious debate interjected into the realm of science, in all likelihood would serve to spark insights into that very realm of science.

Imagine that: Using religion to advance the scientific debate. Sorry to burst the bubble of all you anti-USA dogmatists, but suddenly, the USA doesn't seem so backward (note: backwardS is grammtically incorrect; if you're going to attack someone, at least have the common courtesy of doing it with sound English).

Go back to the drawing board people, because the mean-spirited question that sprung this debate has now been fully muted. <_<

Next topic.

MidnightSun

21st March 2006, 10:24 PM

Well im not one of the anti-USA geeks, just found that on net and it seemed nice,it has a pretty good riming though :)

the greek

22nd March 2006, 03:44 AM

There is much truth in your post. And I'm heartened to hear you're not one of those knee-jerk anti-USA people. They lose all credibility with their myopic absolutes.

Getting back to that mean-spirited question "Why Is The USA So Backwards?"

In the future, do not write questions that contain indictments as part of the question. Again, you lose all credibility. And I mean ALL. It would have been more accurate and egalitarian of you to have asked "Why do many in the USA seem to oppose standardized evolution theory?"

Further, a few English tips: No need to capitalize every word in your question. The first word and formal names only need be in upper case. Ever read a newspaper? Apparently, not! Even the headlines are all in lower case, save for the first word and formal titles. Finally, backwards is not a word. The correct version of the word is "backward". Same with forward. It is not forwardSSSSSSSS.

So now - do tell - who exactly is the backward one???

Sorry for being so snide, but when you attack, expect to be hit back harder.

Smurf

22nd March 2006, 08:22 AM

ok so now we have wasted how many pages on that? working out that our author may have a bit of a grammar problem? that seems pretty backward to me...

Sorry for being so snide, but when you attack, expect to be hit back harder.

do you always fight fire with fire?

Thomas Knierim

22nd March 2006, 11:45 AM

1. MidnightSun did not start this thread.
2. There are some style guides, particularly in the British world, which still prescribe capitalisation of headers, though it's becoming unfashionable.
3. Backwards is correct if used adverbial, but not as an adjective as in the title of this thread.
4. Mastery of the subtleties of the English language cannot be expected from international users.
5. Creationism became obsolete in the 19th century. Therefore it is backward.

Cheers, Thomas

Smurf

22nd March 2006, 05:45 PM

Mastery of the subtleties of the English language cannot be expected from international users.

yes! as long as we know the meaning of what they were trying to convey do we need to critisize them?

I think Jesus said that one should look to his own faults not the tiny ones that others have... or something like that :)

MidnightSun

22nd March 2006, 10:14 PM

the evangelists deny the 19th century existed...

:D

Thomas Knierim

22nd March 2006, 10:22 PM

psyche: nor hopefully from the non international users...as it is 'used adverbially' not adverbial

Arrgh! :wallbash: You got me. Flat capped gnat snapping snoop doodling grammarians... I have an excuse, however, since my native language is German, not English.

psyche: i thought we were all international...

Good point.

psyche: doesn't intelligent design seem similar to creationism...leaving out the God said...

I think intelligent design is a lot more "intelligent" than creationism, except that the theological interpretation assumes a transcendent intelligence. That kind of spoils it, because everything points to intelligence being immanent in evolution rather than transcendent. Most ID proponents are actually "creationism light" types with the same agenda as flat-earth creationists.

Cheers, Thomas

the greek

23rd March 2006, 06:35 AM

This I think I can state with relative confidence: There is nary a person on earth who would bet their own life that a creator (defined: A living, thinking energy source) does not exist, if told first the definitive answer had been achieved.

To reiterate, open-mindedness, meaning tolerance of creation theory, is preferred and not backward. If it can give just one scientist a single extra thought that leads to other insights into the grand equation of the universe, then interjection of spirituality into the scientific debate is justified.

Point of amplification: I usually don't correct on grammar/etc. so long as the understanding is clearly conveyed. However, the question "Why is the USA so backward" is a hostile and backward question, and thus puts the questioner under more-than-usual scrutiny.

Smurf

23rd March 2006, 07:23 AM

I have an excuse, however, since my native language is German, not English.

yeah but you can speak Australian so that's cool :P

Thomas Knierim

23rd March 2006, 11:31 AM

the greek: To reiterate, open-mindedness, meaning tolerance of creation theory, is preferred and not backward. If it can give just one scientist a single extra thought that leads to other insights into the grand equation of the universe, then interjection of spirituality into the scientific debate is justified.

Tolerance and open-mindedness are certainly good. It should be possible to disagree with mainstream scientific theories without being called a lunatic. But, I also think there should be limits. For example, creationism doesn't belong into scientific text books. It is as much a viable alternative as the geocentric view of the cosmos is to the heliocentric view. It just doesn't make any scientific sense.

The power of the scientific method lies in its rigorous self-checking and self-correcting methods. This power is compromised and corrupted when we mix non-scientific views with science. But people should not be taught science alone. They should also learn philosophy, religion, and humanities. Maybe there is too much emphasis on science in the curriculum these days.

Cheers, Thomas

TruthSeeker

2nd April 2006, 08:22 AM

Why Is The Usa So Backwards?
Arrogance is one factor....

Smurf

2nd April 2006, 02:29 PM

^then everyone is as guilty as the US...

TruthSeeker

3rd April 2006, 07:41 AM

Not everyone is arrogant. Not even in the USA...

the greek

6th April 2006, 05:04 AM

A voice of reason amidst a jungle of salivating, foaming at the mouth, knee-jerk America-bashers. Believe it or not, there are some very fine, intelligent, honest, humble, and egalitarian people living in the United States. Wow, a revelation! It just seems to me that those proponents of strict scientific discipline rail far too often against what they deem a hateful religious intolerance, and yet they practice the very same intolerance (of religion altogether). Granted, Thomas, Genesis has no place in the biology lab, but it does deserve a place at the table of scientific debate.

Smurf

6th April 2006, 06:20 AM

well we're all guilty of some sort of egotistical thinking to some degree...

Thomas Knierim

7th April 2006, 12:50 PM

Granted, Thomas, Genesis has no place in the biology lab, but it does deserve a place at the table of scientific debate.

Genesis is mythology and therefore it should be discussed within the framework of humanities. Only science can be part of the scientific debate. Such a debate could include, for example, the shortcomings of neo-darwinism. I certainly agree that textbook science needs to become more self-critical. But then again, if I look at all my science textbooks, it's mostly the Anglo-Saxon ones which are overconfident -in expression and tone- of the mainstream scientific dogmas.

Cheers, Thomas

the greek

8th April 2006, 03:30 PM

Just food for thought. This was taken verbatim from the Feb. 18, 2006 New Scientist, a London-based magazine.

"The cherished idea, first suggested by Charles Darwin, that life on Earth emerged billions of years ago from a warm prebiotic soup may not be correct after all. Scientists at a meeting of the Royal Society of London on Tuesday said that when DNA molecules and amino acids form in warm volcanic puddles they bind strongly to clay particles and can take no further part in reactions."

Kether

17th April 2006, 01:41 AM

As Thomas says, Genesis is mythology, and while it may be valuable to anthropologists, it does not stand up as a scientific theory. To say that it does is wishful thinking; it would not have achieved the scientific attention it has were it not for religious people pushing their religious agendas.
A voice of reason amidst a jungle of salivating, foaming at the mouth, knee-jerk America-bashers. Believe it or not, there are some very fine, intelligent, honest, humble, and egalitarian people living in the United States. Wow, a revelation!
America has not been, at any point in this discussion, criticised for not containing any 'fine, intelligent, honest, humble and egalitarian people'. What has been proposed by your mortal enemies the 'America-Bashers' (and I don't think I am being presumptuous in thinking that I am included under that umbrella) is that there is something wrong with America as an economic and social entity.
It just seems to me that those proponents of strict scientific discipline rail far too often against what they deem a hateful religious intolerance, and yet they practice the very same intolerance (of religion altogether).
The very same intolerance? Do you see Richard Dawkins running around burning theologians at the stake?
Science can be dogmatic, and this is unfortunate - but it is not nearly as dogmatic as religion. Religion is inherently dogmatic.
The untruth of specific religious doctrines is essentially incidental to the evils of faith itself. Religion is a social evil because of its dogmatism - because of its crushing of questioning and logic. This is the real problem; not so much creationism as the mindset that underlies creationism.
The problem with religion is its placing of certain doctrines as the most fundamental, incontrovertible truths; its considering both questioning attitudes and love to be below them. This means that both the conscience and the desire for knowledge can be sacrificed in order to maintain the belief in these doctrines. We must always be guarded against this 'faith'; it does not manifest itself only as religion, but can be found in science - its opposite - as well.

the greek

21st April 2006, 03:05 PM

Quote: "The very same intolerance? Do you see Richard Dawkins running around burning theologians at the stake?"

No, but there are in fact multitudes of Godless souls who have facilitated countless wars, murders, rapes, and overall disregard for general human civility. Those that commit such acts, even in the name of their god, in all reality could never be true believers in theistic spirituality. Notwithstanding priest sex abuse scandals, the growing body of evidence is beginning to reveal that those who follow religion even on the peripheral lead a more happy, peaceful and egalitarian existence, and contribute far more positively to their communities and their universe than their non-believing counterparts. As a matter of anecdotal fact, they quite possibly make for more efficient scientists because of their belief. For more information, consult Albert "God does not throw dice" Einstein.

Gesiwuj

22nd April 2006, 01:47 AM

I do not hate the USA as a country, there are many great Americans, but I disagree with much of the typical American "lazy" culture.

Kether

22nd April 2006, 03:34 AM

Or rather, you hate America as a country, but don't hate Americans. And what do you mean by 'the typical American lazy culture'?

I would like to mention at this point that the concept of religion being good because it is socially 'useful' is an invalid one. For one, it shows a certain indifference to the truth. Secondly, the idea that faith is necessary for human happiness will lead to faith being defended by force by the authorities who wish to promote it.
I would contend that religious people who commit atrocities in defense of their faith are most definitely true believers in theistic spirituality; in fact, it is the strength of their belief that leads them to silence opposition with force. Regardless of whether or not some form or other of theistic spirituality is a good thing, one cannot deny that religious fanatics truly are religious fanatics.

sonrisa

22nd April 2006, 11:20 PM

sorry Greek, but Kether has the right of it this time. You are correct in that there are godless folx out there doing truly unholy things, but they think they're on a mission from god, they think they're doing those things in god's name or for religious reasons, & so that's what they are doing. Look at Hitler, who perputrated what has to be the worst war in the history of this planet- he was convinced he was on a mission from god: to finish what Jesus had started & left (in whatever it was that passed for Hitler's mind) unfinished. He thought if he accomplished this he would inherit the keys to the Thousand Year Kingdom (hence the Thousand Year Reich) he was twisted & sick, but his reasons for doing the god(less)-awful things he did were religious ones.... Fast forward to today where you have idiot generals running around claiming their gods are bigger then the Muslim god, & idiot Congressmen wanting to start Armageddon to get rid of Islam & usher in the Thousand Year Kingdom, & on the other side you have certain Muslims (not all Muslims) & their jihads.... it's alot of sick twisted religious crap. Too many folx confuse God with religion. That should not be done, that's where all the trouble starts.

MidnightSun

23rd April 2006, 03:32 AM

Well said..

the greek

24th April 2006, 02:30 PM

Points well taken. And I also understand that a great majority of all wars throughout history were influened heavily by radical religious extremism. Getting back to the God and evolution debate.

Does it bother science just even a teeny weeny little bit that no human being has actually ever seen a black hole? Yet upwards of 90-percent of scientists subscribe to the theory. The same could be said for the Higgs boson. 500 of the world's greatest scientific minds looking for something they only speculate exists because of its gravitational pull on surrounding objects. Sure, it's not blind faith. But it should be weighed into the equation that mathemeticians and scientists so love to cling to when it comes to debunking intelligent design (theistic or not).

As for those 1000-year Christian world dominance conspiracy theories, are those the same as the ones about the UN trilateral commission, and black helicopters? Those followers live in the hills of Montana, right next to those who believe in black holes.

Here on earth, common standards of international decency dictate that non-compulsory "imposition" of a god on a peoples does not equate the imposer to being an overzealous religious warmonger. Translated: It's okay to ask someone if they might want to consider your religion, but not okay to hold a sword to their head and demand they denounce their god (or their Higgs boson). Godmongers are the ones with the swords.

It is at times frustratingly difficult to draw a line between separation of church and state, including at a museum. But I can't believe it's wrong to suggest, if memory serves about the original question, an IT exhibit at an evolution museum - despite the Pope reluctant to go into the finer points of Alpha, the Fine Structure Constant.

Still, for the record, that's not Christian IT. Just IT.

the greek

25th April 2006, 01:06 PM

Make that ID, not IT.

schrodinger

25th April 2006, 11:25 PM

The Greek:
Just food for thought. This was taken verbatim from the Feb. 18, 2006 New Scientist, a London-based magazine.
"The cherished idea, first suggested by Charles Darwin, that life on Earth emerged billions of years ago from a warm prebiotic soup may not be correct after all. Scientists at a meeting of the Royal Society of London on Tuesday said that when DNA molecules and amino acids form in warm volcanic puddles they bind strongly to clay particles and can take no further part in reactions."

The Royal Society may be a bit behind the curve here. The current thinking is the first life forms started out from RNA, the close cousin of DNA. Scientists have already been able to create stretches of RNA that are able to copy themselves. (This is not considered a life form, just a stretch of RNA molecules.) Additionally, some types of clay exhibit surface tension static electricity, which can attract RNA molecules from the primeval soup, and bind them together, on the surface of the clay particles. Once the larger RNA molecules form, they are able to float away from the clay. The most viable current theory involves the formation of droplets of primordial oil. There could have been billions of these droplets, and each one could have contained a different mixture of the primordial chemicals. Hence, billions of tiny experiments running simultaneously! Only one of these blobs would have to contain the right mixture for life to begin. Looked at from this perspective, it seems the formation of life on earth was only a matter of time. I do have to stress that this is, as is the case with all science, hypothetical.

The Greek:
Does it bother science just even a teeny weeny little bit that no human being has actually ever seen a black hole? Yet upwards of 90-percent of scientists subscribe to the theory. The same could be said for the Higgs boson. 500 of the world's greatest scientific minds looking for something they only speculate exists because of its gravitational pull on surrounding objects.

Black Holes are, by definition “invisible”, what would you try to see? Only their effects can be seen, which usually is the gravitational effect on a nearby star or star system. The Hubble telescope has taken some dramatic photos of an entire galaxy being torn apart by something invisible but with enormous mass. Not a proof, but an observation, which supports the hypothesis.

sonrisa

26th April 2006, 07:22 AM

Greek--Does it bother science just even a teeny weeny little bit that no human being has actually ever seen a black hole? Yet upwards of 90-percent of scientists subscribe to the theory.

--you can't see air, do you deny it's existence? We may not be able to see black holes but we can see their event horizons. That matter that's being sucked up ain't going nowhere, something's out there sucking it up, for lack of a better term we call it a black hole.

Greek-- The same could be said for the Higgs boson. 500 of the world's greatest scientific minds looking for something they only speculate exists because of its gravitational pull on surrounding objects.

-- which is why the Higgs boson & other theorectical quantum particles are just that- theorectical. They are theorized to make sense of various phenomona. When a particle is actually observed it will no longer be theorectical. Or when something else is observed that can explain a phenomonem, then that theorectical particle will be discarded, along with the theory that goes with it. Same can be said for black holes. Currently, there are alot of theories about black holes, what they actually are, what they really do, etc.... but until we have the technology to safely observe one, we won't have any facts. However once we are able to safely observe a black hole & get the facts about it, then we can start discarding theories.

Greek--As for those 1000-year Christian world dominance conspiracy theories, are those the same as the ones about the UN trilateral commission, and black helicopters? Those followers live in the hills of Montana, right next to those who believe in black holes.

-- I wouldn't exactly call the Thousand Year Kingdom a conspiracy theory. It has its roots in the Bible, & it's pretty straightforward & above board. Not like who killed JFK, or the alien's in area 51. I do have to admit tho, that if Jesus really does come back (& that's a biiiigggg if, imho), I often think of this big-az saucer coming out of the sky, & when it lands the hatch pops open & Jesus floats out on his throne :D

Greek--Still, for the record, that's not Christian IT. Just IT. Make that ID, not IT

-- it's dolled-up creationism, based on Genesis, & only ones pushing it are Christians. Nobody else believes that nonsense. So yeah, I'd say it's Christian ID, altho I've personally never called it that.

Thomas Knierim

26th April 2006, 10:02 AM

Yes, usually the ID hypothesis is brought forward by Christians. I've never heard a Muslim mentioning ID (they insist Allah created everything), or a Buddhist (to them it doesn't matter), or a Hindu (they think that creation and the creator are identical). However, it is possible to uphold the ID hypothesis from a purely philosophical POV. A dualist, for example, could state that the "intelligence" in ID is identical with the mind substance. A computationalist could hold that "intelligence" is synonymous with computational complexity and therefore emergent. A mysterian (or panpsychist) may speculate that intelligence is an immanent non-spatial property of the spatial universe. So, the ID proponent has more options than standard bible banging. :lol:

MidnightSun

26th April 2006, 10:28 PM

--you can't see air, do you deny it's existence? We may not be able to see black holes but we can see their event horizons. That matter that's being sucked up ain't going nowhere, something's out there sucking it up, for lack of a better term we call it a black hole.

Indeed..People keep denying stuff, but they never try understand it and prove its non exsistance. If u think a thing does not exsist then decribe the thing which does not exsist.

the greek

27th April 2006, 03:48 AM

First off, you can feel air AND see its effects on surrounding objects, the way it moves them. That is a `tangible' phenomenon, unlike a black hole. A black hole was theorized to make sense of other more tangible phenomenen.

Re: the Higgs Boson. Sure, it's a theory. But that hasn't stopped locical thinking, educated brilliant minds from spending untold billions to find it. Think of that the next time you label followers of religion blind-faith fanatics.

Midnight Sun says: "Indeed..People keep denying stuff, but they never try understand it and prove its non exsistance. If u think a thing does not exsist then decribe the thing which does not exsist."

I again would hesitate to use absolutes like "never," as in "never try to understand it." But I will use your very own logic and turn it on this debate: We have never seen God. Does that mean he/she/it does not exist?

We have, however, at least some anecdotal evidence of God. The miracle of existence for one, and the countless documents and historical record of the Bible, Torah, Quran, scripture, dead-sea scrolls, Rosetta Stone, and don't forget Fatima (www.fatima.org). No less than one significant event was reported in the New York Times, with purportedly in excess of 50,000 witnesses who claim to have seen the light in the sky, as predicted by the three Portugese siblings. I'm not stating this as fact. Only that it is difficult to explain away easily. Kind of like a black hole.

sonrisa

27th April 2006, 05:32 AM

Greek-- First off you can feel air AND see its effects on surrounding objects

-- my point exactly. We are too far away to "feel" a black hole (or are we?) but we can see its effects on surrounding objects, namely namely the matter it's sucking up. We may not know exactly what a black hole is, but we can see what it does.

As to the rest of your post, I find phophesies interesting. I'm not a True Believer, mind you- lord knows there's enough of those running around loose- but I do find it interesting when events appear to unfold according to a phrophecy. Especially events that unfold despite the True Believers attempts to self-fulfill their interpretations of various phophecies.

MidnightSun

27th April 2006, 10:49 PM

I again would hesitate to use absolutes like "never," as in "never try to understand it." But I will use your very own logic and turn it on this debate: We have never seen God. Does that mean he/she/it does not exist?

Exactly..If you can say that God does not exsist then you should decribe what does not exsist. You can't decribe God, thats why you can't deny or confirm it's exsistion.

the greek

29th April 2006, 03:14 AM

Nobody can describe a black hole either. So, again, what exactly is your point???

sonrisa

30th April 2006, 11:38 AM

A black hole is something where the gravity is so dense that light cannot get out. That is the standard description of a black hole.

MidSun- your post makes no sense. I believe you're using negatives when you don't need to. Do you mean this-

"If you say god does exist, then you should describe what does exist. You can't describe god, that's why you can't confirm or deny its existence."

Smurf

30th April 2006, 07:38 PM

:rolleyes:

I agree and understand completely Midnight

the greek

2nd May 2006, 04:29 AM

Maybe you two could clue the rest of us in on what exactly the Sun is trying to say, because I'm still waiting for the English version.

the greek

2nd May 2006, 04:32 AM

One more thing. There is also a "standard" definition of God. And I am extremely familiar with the standard definition of a black hole. However, the fact remains it's merely a speculative definition.

sonrisa

7th May 2006, 12:56 PM

not nearly as speculative as definitions &/or descriptions about God.

the greek

12th May 2006, 02:41 AM

Try as you might, there will never be a theory of everything that makes any real sense, so long as that theory is espoused by humans. Each and every solution only brings about 100 new questions.

As for comparing black hole versus God theories: Have the great scientific minds even explained phenomenon on our own planet, let alone a black hole millions of light years away? Answer: No. How were the pyramids built? Still a mystery to this day. Stonehenge? Impossible given the technology of the day. Machu Pichu? What about the Tunguska (sp?) impact? Still unexplained. Good luck on that black hole thingy.

sonrisa

13th May 2006, 02:40 PM

you are the one comparing black hole theories with theories about god & your comparisons are faulty. At one point you even lumped back hole theories in with conspiracy theories.
The fact is that Hubble & other telescopes have observed areas of space sucking up matter. For lack of a better term these areas are called black holes. Just becuz we have an incomplete understanding of these objects doesn't negate what they are doing out there & it certainly doesn't imply that there is some kind of intergalactic conspiracy theory going on. Now you bring up tangible objects such as Stonehenge & the pyramids (don't forget the stone heads on Easter Island) Granted, we don't know how they were built, but there here, they exist, obviously they were built. You are comparing apples with oranges. You should stick with Higgs bosons & other theoretical objects that were devised to satisfy certain equations. At least then you are comparing apples to apples.

You also say there's a standard definition of god, but you fail to say what that definition is. Please don't start talking about some old fart with a grey beard & a grey robe.... :shakehead:

CSwriter1

14th May 2006, 12:32 AM

The US is suffering mass schziod paranoria. This is the result of what it has done with public education. There is belief in the US that its democracy was created by Christians, because they are not educated to know, their democracy is an imitation of Athens and Rome.

Science is to democracy, what religion is to autocracy.
The bible is a book of kings and slavery, not a book the teaches democratic principles and values. See the problem? In the beginning a few literate people attempted to manifest democracy, but they never adequately educated the masses to know democracy, but wrote their history and civic books as though the concept of democracy and form of republican government, were the invention of devout Christians who knew only the bible.

The domination of Christianity over the US has greatly intensified since the country replaced liberal education with education for technology, and left it up to the church to keep the masses civil. Everyone has forgotten how education for democracy transmitted a culture for a highly moral society, without relying on the bible.

Anyway, this has left the US in a schzoid paranoid mess, almost identical to Germany when it mobilized for world wars. It is superstitious religious beliefs that control the mind set, not knowledge of logic essential to good reasoning and the world. Those who oppose this superstition, only prove the Christians right about Satan now having control and the world coming to an end. It seems to be a no win situation leading to self destruction to fulfill prophecy.

the greek

16th May 2006, 01:29 PM

Kether

18th May 2006, 02:05 AM

Perhaps that quote should be revised to read "forced religion."
What religion is to tyranny is a support, giving it legitimacy and ceremonial trappings. Throughout history, authority has used religion to support its claim to power, be it via the doctrine of the divine right of kings or the insertion of God into the American pledge of allegiance.
This religion has not necessarily needed to be forced; in fact, it can be seen as being used instead of force - an appeal to the emotions of the people instead of crude, direct coercion.
I struggle to grasp how one could possibly compare Nazi Germany to the modern-day USA. The American belief system was not imposed forcefully upon its people. It's not government funded, and you don't get your head cut off if you don't believe in God, let alone Christianity.
The two regimes do not compare as regards tolerance of ethnic groups and ideologies. However, CSWriter1 has a point about the injection of Christianity into the education system. I'm not American, so have no first-hand knowledge of what this system is really like, but I do get the impression that the masses are largely Christian. Bush does seem to consider Christianity the thing that makes America democratic and tolerant, somehow. His views, like most politicians', are evidently rather confused and mostly empty rhetoric, but they must reflect something deeper about his thoughts and about the currents of public opinion that allowed him to take power.
Their democracy is an imitation of Athens and Rome.
Rome was not democratic; it was initially an oligarchy, and then a dictatorship.

the greek

18th May 2006, 01:43 PM

CSwriter1

22nd May 2006, 01:13 AM

Points well taken. With the exception that the US is not mobilizing its war machine with the intent to spread Christianity. Nor does America have any designs on ethnic cleansing. I struggle to grasp how one could possibly compare Nazi Germany to the modern-day USA. The American belief system was not imposed forcefully upon its people. It's not government funded, and you don't get your head cut off if you don't believe in God, let alone Christianity. But I do see relevance in your quote "science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy." Perhaps that quote should be revised to read "forced religion."

Rearrange thought- the US war machine is taking advantage of Christianity.

I listened to Billy Graham around Christian time, and was very impressed with is play on human drama, pushing the idea that God has compelled, good family men in the US to enlist and serve in Iraq. His preaching of jihad was only slightly difference from the Muslim jihad preachers. War is good for religion and religion is good for war.

Now cutting off people's heads is bloodier than giving them blankets infected with a disease that kills native Americans. Is this cultural difference really that important? Basically humans are the same, and the effect of Judo/Christian/Islam is basically that same.
Christians are imposing their religion and morality on others in many ways. The worst is distroying Clinton's program of distributing condoms in Africa, which dramatic reduced the spread of AIDS, insisting the only thing the US will support is teaching absence, which has increased the spread of AIDS. This forcing of religion really pisses me off.

I think stressing the ethnic cleansing that Hitler attempted is distorting what really happened. It wasn't just Jews, but homosexuals, and in general, anyone viewed as genetically inferior. I could quote from an US book, a doctor's excitement about what technology can do for us. When it was realized many human problems are genetically transmit, Hilter was not the only one to think of a genetically pure race.

I began by saying education for democracy made a huge difference, and that Christianity without it, manifest the enemy we fought. Education for technology, is not education for democracy. Education for democracy, leaves moral training, and therefore, manifestation of culture, up to the church.
That is why the US has become retarded. In 1958 it focused the whole of education on technology for military purpose. The National Defense Education Act came shortly after Sputnik, the USSR successful attempt to orbit the earth. This technology along with nuclear weapons, changed public education for a militarized modern nation, understood by a Prussian general before the first world war. Some wanted to do this to public education when we mobilized for the first world war, but than the defense of our nation relied more on patriotism than technology, so we stayed with education for democracy. However, since shift in technology for national defense reasons, we never returned to liberal education, and the social ramifications are devastating.

You are lacking awareness of dramatic changes in the US and appear to have no knowledge of what happened in Germany other than many Jews were killed. Do you want to know more? Increasing awareness of this is my main purpose for being on the Internet. It has become my purpose for living.

CSwriter1

22nd May 2006, 01:43 AM

How paradoxically poetic it is that the first democracy, Greece, held many gods. Such paganism, it should be noted, is frowned upon by the modern-day Greek Orthodox Church. There is only one God, they preach. Nonetheless, democracy appears to be inherantly intertwined with theocracy of sorts - if by birth alone.

Why is God in the pledge of allegience? I'm aware it was inserted during the Cold War with the former Soviet Union to contrast the USA with the then religious persecution that was commonplace in Russia at the time. Other reasons? Nostalgia, perhaps. The USA was founded in great part on God and religion, or rather its laws were based upon respect and compassion for its fellow man, basic human rights as outlined by British and Latin common law, much of which was derived from biblical doctrine. After all, we all agree on at least most of the Ten Commandments - religious or not.

God is a slice of American history. Part of the landscape that comprises its identity and origin. To neglect or completely reject God in the USA is akin to not including Shakespear in an unabridged library of authors.

At some point, God becomes ceremonial. The thought of God makes people feel good and optimistic. Kind of like a public service campaign. It's nothing sinister because it's not forced. It's inherant, but benign.

In short, I believe there exists a positive balance and perspective between science and God in today's USA, contributing to a healthy and balanced debate which may lead to better understanding of even scientific endeavors.

The Greek, I think I love you. :)

When Athenians questioned how the Gods resolve their differences, they concluded, reason, is the controlling force on the univerese, made manifest in speech. They were also moving towards monotheism through math. Pythagoras claimed everything came from the monad. That is, all came from one. The God of Abraham became with a belief in many gods, and was not the only monotheistic concept of God. Monotheism was the result of increased knowledge, not a God speaking in person with leaders of only one nomadic tribe.

The US governmental use of God on money and in the pledge, began as you said, during the cold war to define the US as a God fearing country, in opposition to the godless USSR. War and religion compliment each other. Uniting people with religion against the enemy, is as old as the first civilization. It is just as true for the US. This God thing is far more potent than just ceremony and enjoyable national traditions like Christmas and Easter.

Many religious groups came to the US to promote their religious agenda, and this did become confused with the US democracy which was not religious! Our public education, educated for democracy, not religion! All the good stuff in Christianity was stolen. It is the Greeks and Helenism we have to thank for any good in Christianity and our democracy was picking up on this glorious past. Unfortunately, the Christian domenation of the US and a false nationalism, prevent the education of fact that we really need to be a strong democracy and not a theocracy. I live to correct this problem.

I would not claim our sciences are balanced. Science begins with philosophy which not only questions truth, but also values. Modern science has separated not only from God, but also the question of values. We are pursuing science for materialistic purpose and especially for militarially domination of the world. This is not will balanced. The most advanced technology the US has, is military technology, and when it comes to social problems, the US is retarded!

We are retard in city planning as we continue to deny finite reality and ignore environmental factors. We are retarded in understanding human nature!!!! and our modern education is increasing this problem! If we don't return to liberal education, but continuing leaving our culture up to those with an industrial/military agenda and Christians, I don't have much hope for the future.

the greek

22nd May 2006, 11:22 AM

Einstein inferred God when commenting on the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, saying in essence "God doesn't throw dice." In Stephen Hawking's "The Theory of Everything," which is mostly a transcript of a series of Cambridge lectures, the entire novel is filled with references to God, and Hawking invokes God almost incessently in his quest to better understand MATHEMATICAL and PHYSICAL concepts of the universe. If for no other purpose than a guage against which to measure philosophical theories. In fact, he all but says mathematical theories rely on philosophical and/or hypothetical scenarios - like God. Hawking is perhaps the world's foremost mathematical physicist. And he reserves a place for God, mind you a prominent place, in his scientific work.

Of course, Christianity is never mentioned in the book.

I keep hearing that US employers have turned or returned to favoring liberal arts grads, if that's any indication of the USA's value on a liberal education. The economy does dictate this to some extent, and right now it appears the economy is demanding more diverse and open-minded workers. The US government holds only a limited power over social and economic values. And what the government is doing at present, perhaps the Bush administration, can always be voted out or termed out of the system. Hence, the peaceful transfer of power afforded by democracy.

At the same time, the events you described, the militarization or technical leaningings of the standard US education, have in recent history deterred socially-aware thought. We have too many people who can either design the perfect weapon or video game, but who also couldn't tell you the name of the First Lady. They do know Britney Spears (apologies for any misspelling).

After the events of 9/11, this already manifesting malaise was fueled further. The primary emphasis became security. Secure airplanes, secure areas of the world that were a threat to our homeland, secure the borders. More security personnel. More language translators, primarily Islamic, in the fight against terrorism. More money and more of thought capital diverted from a balanced education and balanced thinking.

We don't dissagree on the path and values of the common US citizen. And in part, we don't dissagree on the government's appropriation of money, policies, and thought capital. And yes, Christian church leaders, and by extension their flock, do have influence over public policy, as do all other voters. The condom issue is farcical to me. Like putting your finger in the leaky dyke. A hopeless cause. The Vatican, and others, should abandon their opposition to condom useage.

But there is a place for God in science. And without the radical fundamentalist religious right (dominated by Christians in the US, promulgated by Islam in the middle east, Judaism, Buddism, elsewhere), there would be no place for God anywhere. Just as there would be no place for science without the radical liberal fundamentalist secular left. All scientifically/God speaking.

I believe this debate came about because of the inclusion of God (or a creator) in a public museum devoted to evolution, and that the USA was backward because the rest of the world for the most part accepted non-creator evolution as fact long ago.

The USA is not backward if you believe, as did Einstein and does Hawking, that God has a place at the table of scientific debate. The rest of your original suggestion would then become mute.

Free markets, and our temporary public sector custodians, dictate the demand for education. It's now a global economic market, and the presidency and congress are up for reassesment as well. Knowlege of international cultures and knowlege of a wide array of social issues is now taking a turn for the premium.

The sky is not falling. But I am concerned with the general social malaise of too many Americans. Hopefully, the market will correct itself.

the greek

22nd May 2006, 11:46 AM

One more point. Does religion corrupt democracy? I can say with confidence that democracy tolerates multi-religious doctine. It's part of its vast and far-reaching makeup. Does religion inhibit the advancement of socially responsible policymaking, and subsequently socially responsible thought? No more than atheism inhibits mathematically-correct theoroms.

Here's my edit: It's always nice to be loved. Ditto.

TruthSeeker

22nd May 2006, 03:47 PM

Someone here is too wise for me not to be envious... :lol: :rofl:

the greek

23rd May 2006, 02:13 AM

Despite the laughter of the emoticons, I will take that as a compliment. However, my own modesty (I assume you were referring to me) compels me to admit that insight and right/wrong are not static. Tomorrow I may very well be as wrong as wrong can be.

TruthSeeker

23rd May 2006, 04:44 AM

Well, I don't think you are wrong, though. ;)

the greek

24th May 2006, 01:39 PM

My point is that I do think atheism inhibits mathematical processes. Don't know if that was exactly clear, if you isolate that one sentence apart from the rest of the post.

the greek

24th May 2006, 01:42 PM

Although I will grant that when Hawking speaks of God, it's more a euphemism for "Perfection" than a true belief in a spiritual being. Nonetheless, religious thinkers advance understanding of God, and the scientists take their cues from there.

Thomas Knierim

24th May 2006, 03:24 PM

the greek: Nonetheless, religious thinkers advance understanding of God, and the scientists take their cues from there.

The situation was reversed sometime in the 16th century. Since then it appears that scientists advance the understanding of the universe and then religious thinkers take their cues from there. Example:

Church: The Sun rotates around the Earth.
Copernicus: The Earth rotates around the Sun.
Church: Okay, but Earth is the centre of the universe.
Kepler: No, it isn't.
Church: But, wait a minute. God set the planets in motion.
Newton: No, gravity set the planets in motion.
Church: Cripes! But God created man.
Darwin: Evolution created man.
Church: Darn it! God created the universe.
Scientists: Big Bang created the universe.
Church: Sigh. Is there any space left for God?

Cheers, Thomas

the greek

25th May 2006, 12:55 PM

Sounds like God's on quite a losing streak. His saving grace is that science uses Him as a measuring stick, if only when it has run out of answers. In this instance, math and science deduce by process of elimination. Everything at its disposal is utilized, including God. Science has yet to figure it all out, so God is one of its tools stashed away in the pocket protector with its calculators, compasses, and vials.

The following quote is the final paragraph in Stephen Hawking's book `The Theory of Everything'. And please note I am fully aware Hawking most likely is only using God as a euphemism for "perfection" or life itself.

HAWKING: However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all be able to take part in the discussion of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason. For then we would know the mind of God."

Note how he chose God as his final word in a book about particle physics and the universe.

Explaining the forces that expand and/or contract the universe, Hawking addressed the anthropic principle as such.

HAWKING: "This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to make beings like us."

God is a measuring stick for math and science. The symbol of a creator in a modest display at a public museum on evolution is not hubris, arrogance, or insularism. Apparently, the world's greatest mathematical physicist would tend to agree.

CSwriter1

26th May 2006, 01:57 AM

[/QUOTE]The way that Spinoza argues it is that there is only one substance, and then that there is only one individual of that substance. In the tradition of Anselm and Descartes, God is a "Necessary Being," who cannot possibly not exist. Existence is part of his essence, and he cannot be without it. But existence is not the entire essence of God. Instead, the one substance is characterized by an infinite number of attributes. Besides existence, we are only aware of two of these: thought and extension. Thus, where Descartes had seen thought as the unique essence of the substance soul, and extension as the unique essence of the substance matter, Spinoza abolished this dualism, and the paradoxes it generated. Thought and extension are just two, out of an infinite number of, facets of Being. A reductionistic scientism that wants to claim Spinoza as one of its own typically overlooks this aspect of the theory: Spinoza's God thinks, and also is or does many other things that are beyond our reckoning and comprehension. Thus, although Spinoza was condemned by his community for the heresy of saying that God has a body (denying the transcendence of God common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islâm), God is nevertheless much more, indeed infinitely more, than a body.

As God is eternal and infinite, so are his attributes eternal and infinite. The things we see that are transient and finite are the temporary modifications, or "modes," of the attributes. This gives us the same relationship between things and the attributes as Descartes had between individual bodies and thoughts and their substances. A material thing is a piece of space itself (space is not the vacuum, but actually matter), the way an individual wave is identifiable in the ocean but does not exist apart from the water that it consists of. In the same way a specific thought is a temporary distrurbance of the attribute (like the Cartesian substance) of thought -- or, we might say, of consciousness. The wave metaphor is apt: Our existence is a ripple on the surface of God.

The structure of substance, attribute, and mode is the foundation of Spinoza's metaphysics. But there is another distinction that cuts across this, the difference between natura naturans and natura naturata. Natura is simply the Latin word "nature," and what Spinoza has done is add participle endings to that noun. Naturans is thus "nature" plus the active participle ending, which is "-ing" in English; so "Natura Naturans" is "Nature Naturing." Naturata is "nature" plus the past passive participle ending, which is "-ed" in English; so "Natura Naturata" is "Nature Natured." This gives us a contrast between what is creating and what is created. What is creating is the eternal existance and nature of God. What is created are the modifications that we see around us as transient things. This distinction cuts across the nature of the attributes themselves, since there is an eternal and unchanging aspect to each, i.e. space itself or consciousness itself, and a transient and changing aspect, i.e material objects in space or specific thoughts in consciousness. At the same time, there is nothing changing about substance as such or unchanging about the modes as such.

[QUOTE]

Baruch SpinozaSpinoza's God is not the God of Abraham and Isaac, not a personal God at all, ... Exactly what was the emotional pull of Spinoza's God on him? ...
www.friesian.com/spinoza.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

CSwriter1

26th May 2006, 03:40 AM

Christianity is not compatible with democracy, and the God of Moses is on a loosing streak, because it is based on myth not science. The US freedom of religion came about because Christians were divided and warring against each other, and persecuting each other, and the priniciples of democracy were used to stopped this, but that does not make mythological religion based on the God of Abraham and a supernatural being of evil, and the idea that we are born in sin compatible with decmoracy.

Here are the differences between democracy and Christianity.
Democracy begins with the idea that we are made in the image of the Gods, because we can learn and reason. These Gods were immortal, but otherwise very human complete with faults, heart aches and disappoints, and there is no supernatural being of evil. Things are not divided between a supernatural being of good and supernatural being of evil, and there are no demons that possess our bodies and can be chased out and counted as they leave unless you believe the mythology of the god of Abraham. The ruling Gods were brothers and sisters, which is not the Christian hierarchy of power and authority. Because these Gods share power, they do not rule by whim, as does the God of Abraham and Satan. The Gods never made commandments for human beings to follow, but because humans can learn and reason, they are capable of self government. It isn't supernatural beings that make life good or bad for humans, but their own understanding and action. What started as mythology gave way to science and reasoning. :thumbsup:

This final difference is importantly different from being born in sin and under the influence of Satan, and living in fear of external authority and punishment, dependent on pleasing a God who may or may not be pleased, depending on His whim. This final difference is what really makes Christianity incompatible with democracy! Christianity repeatedly brings us back to authority over the people and repression, because it holds such a negative attitude about our nature. Whereas, democracy believing we are made in the image of Gods and should act like the Gods, prepares everyone for this with education, preparing them to be their own authority, not the subjects of authority.

Christianity is not compatible with democracy and has been very destructive to it, retarding humanity from achieving its potential, and once again destroying our liberty and corrupting our morality, because the superstitious belief, along with military design, ended the education for democracy we must have to manifest democracy.

CSwriter1

26th May 2006, 03:56 AM

It seem like some believe that Christian have legitimate authority to define God. The God of Spinoza and Hawkings in not defined by Christianity.

The Christian God begins as a God of tribal people, when people identified with Gods instead of with empires. There were many patron Gods and Goddesses, and people who accepted this, didn't need a constitution declaring freedom of religion. This tribal God did not have covenant with all people and was not a universal God. People who were not circumsized could not enjoy the benefit of this God, until Paul succeeded in promoting the idea that circumsion was not necessary, just accepting Jesus as one's savior.

This God accepted slavery and said Jews could own slaves, but were not to be slave because of their special relationship with God, which later Christians assumed by making this special relationship with God, dependant on worshiping Jesus, not God walking with people and personally making a special deal with them.

This humanized, personal God, is not the only possible understanding of God. Believing in the order of kings chosen by God and slaves destained to be slaves, whose only chance for heaven is to be obedient to authoirty, is not the only way to understand God's will.

the greek

27th May 2006, 10:57 AM

That's a lot to respond to, and I won't pretend to have the wherewithall to respond adequately to everything in the past three posts. But I do have some bones of contention.

Science teaches cause and affect. Such as the affect of a wave in the ocean, which was brought about by energy that had an origin independent of the wave itself (E.g wind or the magnetic pull of the moon). If the ocean were not occupying that space, the same energy that moved the ocean would still exist, albeit perhaps elsewhere. Not that water, which is matter, is void of its own energy. It's just that Enstein's law of conservation dictates energy cannot disipate into nothingness. Matter and energy are neither created or destroyed. If the water did not exist, it does not necessitate that the energy would neither.

On another topic, are you suggesting that democracy has no place for religion? That democracy should vote out of existence all spiritual belief as defined by the God of Moses? That democracy, at least in the USA, should not reserve in its 1st Ammendment the right to practice religion, which in essence is free speech?

I believe democracy allows, nay encourages, many concepts that are similar in scope to religion in its vast universal repretoire. For instance, it allows for the existence of anti-trust law, a prime example of an ideal that goes against `unabridged' and unfettered free market capitalism - which taken to its logical conclusion, should be the essence of raw democracy. Democracy outlaws monopolies even if the monopoly acquired that status using peaceful and unforced business practices. That's irony defined. Granted, democracy's egalitarian principles trump the ideal of a monopoly, which benefits the few at the expense of the many. But democracy recognizes what a monopoly is, and uses that image to design laws which protect egalitarian ideals. In the exact manner science uses God.

As for "personal" gods, or gods with a sort of situational moral, the human interpreters of the word of God have obviously fallen far short of perfection. But most do strive for perfection, strive to live in His likeness. Progress since the Reformation indicates Christianity has made tremendous strides toward being more relevant and more egalitarian, and more tolerant. As for religious extremism, it exists in every walk of religion, not just Christianity. But it's the bath water to religion's baby. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

sonrisa

27th May 2006, 01:50 PM

the greek-- (democracy) allows for the existence of anti-trust law, a prime example of an ideal which goes against "unabridged" and unfettered free market capitalism- which, taken to its logical conclusion, should be the essence of raw democracy

-- unabridged unfettered free market capitalism, corporate rule- this is the essence of fascism.

CS-- Christianity is not compatible with democracy and has been very destructive to it, retarding humanity from achieving it's potential, and once again destroying our liberty and corrupting our morality..

-- you go CS! :thumbsup: Long time ago, somebody took me aside & told me "they're not moral, & they're not a majority". Christianity's a true opium of the people.Worse than opium. :knockout: :angry:

Kether

30th May 2006, 03:57 AM

How paradoxically poetic it is that the first democracy, Greece, held many gods. Such paganism, it should be noted, is frowned upon by the modern-day Greek Orthodox Church. There is only one God, they preach. Nonetheless, democracy appears to be inherently intertwined with theocracy of sorts - if by birth alone.
You err. Firstly, the society of Athens was not the least bit theocratic; you seem to be using the fact that most Greeks were religious as evidence to support your claim that it was. But the paganism of the Classical world was incompatible with theocracy: it had no central tenets that a centralised church could uphold, and no central organisation - it was not so much one religion as a relatively loose group of cults, recognisable as one religion only by their shared cultural background, that tolerated and respected each others gods as being just as real and deserving of veneration as their own deity.
Monotheism, on the other hand, has historically been a force that has supported intolerance - and thus one that could swiftly turn theocratic. When Herodotus encounters religious practices alien to him, one does not hear him ranting about the blasphemy of the infidels, and attempting to convert them to the Greek tradition. With medieval Christian writers, the situation is reversed - and in deed, too, Christianity has traditionally been expansionist and intolerant.
We all agree on at least most of the Ten Commandments.
Well, three of them in my case...
God is a slice of American history. Part of the landscape that comprises its identity and origin. To neglect or completely reject God in the USA is akin to not including Shakespear in an unabridged library of authors.
From a historian or sociologist's perspective, God cannot be ignored as part of American history and culture, and never is. But recognising that others believe and have believed in God is completely different from deciding whether or not to believe in God ourselves. The fact that others do something does not make it right.
In many areas, racial hatred exists on a worrying scale, and used to be even more widespread. To ignore its existence is inconceivable; but if we were to employ the standard you have used above in such a situation, we could say that it is wrong to reject the idea that black people should be lynched or that Jews should be gassed, because such sentiments have formed part of the landscape that comprises a country's identity and origin.
At some point, God becomes ceremonial. The thought of God makes people feel good and optimistic. Kind of like a public service campaign. It's nothing sinister because it's not forced. It's inherent, but benign.
Sadly, this kind of reasoning has been the main one employed in defence of religion in recent times: realising that God has lost a lot of ground in rational debates about its factual truth, its advocates have instead turned to arguing that religion is socially useful: that it makes people good.
I believe that it is extremely dangerous to think that people should believe in something for any reason other than that it is true. This is because, if belief in something is thought by authority to be necessary, questioning of that belief will be suppressed - and I consider questioning to be immensely important for a healthy, democratic and moral society.

sonrisa

30th May 2006, 05:12 AM

well said Kether! Question everything! :thumbsup:

that said, this god as a public service campaign stuff is not benign, & it is being forced on the vast majority of us by a minority of holy roller types. This ID nonsense that started this topic, for instance. And that's just one thing. Their god is one of hate- he hates Islam, he hates gays, he hates those with HIV- which is why he sent it to them to begin with. Along with earthquakes, wildfires, flooding, & of course, Katrina. A couple weeks after Katrina hit there was some clown down at the Market carrying on about how Katrina is proof that god doesn't like hookers, & faggots & cross-dressers, & other assorted sinners :rolleyes: I said, sure he does- Bourbon St didn't flood.

greek-- we all agree on at least most of the Ten Commandments

Kether-- well three of them in my case

-- which 3? :D:

the greek

31st May 2006, 02:37 AM

Kether wrote: "But recognising that others believe and have believed in God is completely different from deciding whether or not to believe in God ourselves. The fact that others do something does not make it right."

You are correct, sir. And placing an exhibit, or symbol, of the thought of ID in a public museum on evolution does not constitute forcing religion down anyone's throat. Again, that aforementioned symbol is the same symbol Hawking uses to either bolster or counter various scientific arguments. Why do all you atheists have such paranoid and unconfident natures? Is science that unsure of itself that it thinks it will wilter under any comparison with God? Even the Vatican recognizes science. In fact, just prior to Pope John Paul's death, he established the very first commission to study the ramifications of nanotechnology and quantum physics. Apparently, those that believe in God are not so unsure of their beliefs as to completely cut off debate about science.

And Christianity does not "hate" Islam. Abramham, one of the central characters in Islam, is also highly revered as a profit in Christianity. The same way that Jesus is recognized by Judaism as a profit. They just don't agree he was the Messiah, son of God. Christianity at one time was extremely intolerant of other religions, absolutely. No doubt about it. But to assert that Christianity, TODAY, wants to spread for power's sake only and take over others' land, that's just rubbish.

sonrisa

31st May 2006, 05:03 PM

maybe Christianity doesn't hate Islam, but people do. This has been going on since at least the Crusades, when the Muslims were known as the infidels. Today it's all about oil, but there are still idiot generals running around over there taking about how their god is better than Allah, & people going over there trying to get the Muslims to abandon their religion. Not that I think Islam is any better than Christianity, mind you. I agree with Marx- all religions are the opium of the people. But if people want to wallow in opium, then it should be the opium of their choice.

Greek, you should be watching the Science Channel. Carl Sagan refutes Intelligent Design- 25 years before it rears its ugly head- & explains evolution & the making dna in depth. The graphics are pretty cool too, even after 25 years.

Why should something about intelligent design be included in a museum exhibit about evolution? This would be like putting a Pinto in an exhibit about GM- almost. At least a Pinto was a car. ID isn't even science, it's based on a myth. And the real problem is when schools start passing off this nonsense as science & feed it to kids. And how can science be "unsure of itself"? Science is science. It's either right or wrong, & if it's wrong then it's discarded. Science is about getting to the truth of things, not propping up myths- creation or otherwise.

Kether

31st May 2006, 08:58 PM

I agree, Sonrisa. And in response to the Greek's post, it is not the belief in God that I have a problem with. Perhaps the injection of God into scientific debate, in the capacity that you have described, can be healthy and beneficial. Just as 'science' is a methodology, not a belief system, 'religion' is a mindset - a way of believing, rather than a belief - and it is religion in this sense that I am so fervently opposed to. It is not the doctrine of God that is an evil, but the way in which the doctrine is held: as an article of faith.
ID is not scientific: it is a theory that has been created to support a religious belief. I think I can safely say that, were there no Christians, there would be no ID. Besides, ID has been dealt with scientifically, and has been proven to probably be wrong.
And Christianity does not "hate" Islam.
Many Christians and Christian organisations do not hate Islam, but many have, and some still do - as you yourself concede later in your post.
Religion is still dangerous, as it always has been and always will be. Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are prime examples of what happens when those in power push religious agendas - and the crushing of opposition committed by both of these regimes differs only quantitatively from those performed by the Christian church in the Middle Ages. Regardless of whether the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Nazism and Communism are wrong, the fact that they were believed religiously makes them very dangerous.

the greek

1st June 2006, 02:43 PM

If what you say is true, then any allowance of even the slightest hint of religion forever holds the potential of the ruination of mankind. The paradox is stunning. Common perception, among those in the USA at least, is that people of faith are better, more decent, honest citizens and have closer-knit families than non-believers. This is a blanket statement, of course, and not designed to imply that every atheist is a worse human being than every person of faith. I would say that, just like humans in general, religion had to evolve to become more in the image of God himself. That's God as a metaphor for perfection or life. I have to believe that people in general, all over the world, have been more civilized in the past century than at any other time throughout history (notwithstanding Hitler, Pol Pot or the dropping of the A-bomb). Similarly, religion has grown along with humans (even if science had to show the way). Perhaps we've hit a wall and took a step back before taking those next two steps forward, but I don't think science and rational thought, today, are weighed down by faith any more than they are bolstered by that same faith.

sonrisa

1st June 2006, 05:05 PM

greek-- people in general, all over the world, have been more civilized in the past century than at any other time throughtout history (notwithstanding Hitler, Pol Pot, and the dropping of the A-bomb)

-- Greek I believe you just torpedoed yourself there :D However, not withstanding Hitler, Pol Pot, or the A-bomb, et al.....

on one hand, we have plumbing so we no longer pee in the rushes, most of us take baths on a regular basis, we eat with knives & forks instead of our fingers- unless we're eating finger food, of course. We live in houses & apartments with central heating & air conditioning

otoh, there are homeless folx who are still living in the conditions desribed above. There's a reason our cities are called urban jungles, there's gratuitous violence against others, assault, rape, road rage. People are rude- CS has posted an essay about a general lack of manners somewhere on this site- there is alot of disrespect towards others out there. Not exactly a polite society, are we?

so are we civilized.... or is it veneer..... :blink:

Kether

1st June 2006, 11:45 PM

If what you say is true, then any allowance of even the slightest hint of religion forever holds the potential of the ruination of mankind. The paradox is stunning. Common perception, among those in the USA at least, is that people of faith are better, more decent, honest citizens and have closer-knit families than non-believers.
I don't think that, other things being equal, religion makes people happier or more morally good than atheism. If there is a correlation, which is unlikely, it may be because 'better, more decent, honest citizens' already exist for other reasons, and that their society teaches them that religion is what honest, decent people do - and so they do it. I wouldn't trust common perception if I were you.
Regardless of whether or not religion causes people to be 'better' - which I seriously doubt - I have a strong aversion to the concept that something should be believed for any reason other than that it is true. As I said earlier, this is because, if belief in something is thought by authority to be necessary, questioning of that belief will be suppressed - and I consider questioning to be immensely important for a healthy, democratic and moral society.

CSwriter1

2nd June 2006, 07:27 AM

For instance, it allows for the existence of anti-trust law, a prime example of an ideal that goes against `unabridged' and unfettered free market capitalism - which taken to its logical conclusion, should be the essence of raw democracy

We must have different understandings of democracy. Would you please explain why you think democracy should not have a law that protects everyone equally?

CSwriter1

2nd June 2006, 07:40 AM

There's a reason our cities are called urban jungles, there's gratuitous violence against others, assault, rape, road rage. People are rude- CS has posted an essay about a general lack of manners somewhere on this site- there is alot of disrespect towards others out there. Not exactly a polite society, are we?

Sonrisa, you mentioned technological advances as though it were technology that makes us civilized. You did not mention our advanced military technology and that within four hours we could unleash many times over the destructive force of both world wars, and that we spend far, far more on the military, than everything else combined. We have given up universal medical and free college education for everyone, including much better grade level education for all children, in favor of paying for military might. May I suggest it is not technology that makes us civilized or even good, but the decisions we make, or do not make?

Good manners are more important than good laws, because when it is a people's custom to treat each other well, they do not need much in the way of laws and law enforcement to protect them from each other.
If the US were the moral leader it was intended to be, we would not world enemies. I think we are spending the last of our national wealth very foolishly.

Worse our focus and use of military might has generated international enemeis instead of admires and followers. Especially as we think it is our right to occupy a counrty and bring our immorality into it, as we have done in Muslim countries. The democracy of the US is very distorted from it is intended purpose.

CSwriter1

2nd June 2006, 07:58 AM

"On another topic, are you suggesting that democracy has no place for religion? That democracy should vote out of existence all spiritual belief as defined by the God of Moses? That democracy, at least in the USA, should not reserve in its 1st Ammendment the right to practice religion, which in essence is free speech?"

I have an older text books that explains the war God of the Hebrews. When people are left uneducated, which they have been in the US since the US began educating for technology for military and industrial purpose, the religions based on mythology have become a threat to democracy. I am not saying there should not be freedom of religion. I am saying the people should be educated, and giving them religion without a better education is very bad for the world.

Kether your explanations of the difference between Ancient Greek thinking and theoism, are such a pleasure to read. We really need to work on increasing this awareness.

I seriously wish Christians would stop acting as though if people don't believe their biblical god, then they don't believe in a God. The God of Abraham is a lousey God, and not the only way to understand God.
The God is not the universal God Christians and Muslims have made it to be. The God is a war God and wants blood sacrifices. Unfortunately, Christianity makes it essential to believe in such a barbaric God, because the whole justification for this religion would unravel if the God were not a barbaric God wanting a human sacrifice. Then none of us would be saved by the human sacrifice of Jesus and Christianity would no longer have a claim to supernatural power over our lives.

Let's continue to work on education, okay?

the greek

2nd June 2006, 03:21 PM

Kether wrote: "Regardless of whether or not religion causes people to be 'better' - which I seriously doubt - I have a strong aversion to the concept that something should be believed for any reason other than that it is true. As I said earlier, this is because, if belief in something is thought by authority to be necessary, questioning of that belief will be suppressed - and I consider questioning to be immensely important for a healthy, democratic and moral society. "

Questioning is at the heart of this whole debate. But apparently, science does not want God to be part of that questioning.

I strive to only believe in things that are true as well. Which is why I have a problem looking at life through the myopic lense of strictly one dimmentional thinking (E.g, science only).

And IT isn't a Christian-necessitated concept. IT is about a universal God for all humans, insidiuous Christian domination conspiracy theories aside.

Having said all that, the US educational system I agree is lacking in both resources and focus, items that are diverted indeed toward the increasing security state. This is unfortunate. There was supposed to be a post-Cold War peace dividend. Then domestic terrorism awoke the US from its emotional comfort zone.

Our educational situation is perhaps a product of the current Bush administration, and not a product of American people in general being backward, insular or arrogant. After all, we did vote in Clinton/Gore for two terms. Clinton decimated the military, budget speaking. Not since Reagan (aided by all those so-called Reagan democrats) had the repubicans accomplished the two-term feat. Bush barely won both his elections. The first was not by popular vote, and the second was a narrow victory over Kerry, a candidate who had the misfortune of violating the unspoken military code that a soldier not speak out against any war his fellow soldiers are still fighting. Give the citizens of Massachusetts credit at least, not to mention the US Constitutional right of free speech, for not ostrasizing Kerry to the point he wasn't able to achieve the high office of US Senator.

I know you'll probably laugh at this, but I believe the US was not backward in voting in Bush the second time, even after the debunked Iraq evidence. The US was merely running for its life from terrorism and latching on to the one candidate it thought had it in him to make the tough decisions and do what he thought was right to protect the country (Bush standing in front of the burnt towers, acting tough on terrorism, was too impactful an image for voters to ignore). Turns out, Bush/Blair, by current prevailing thought, appear to have made a mistake in Iraq. Time will tell.

But it is true, like any other country on this planet, the US is backward in many ways, evidenced by the manifestation of poverty and crime, which one could argue is the most dangerous form of terrorism long-term. See John Lee Malvo's comments about the sniper's alleged recruitment of homeless people to terrorize US soil. Also, home-grown terrorist Timothy McVeigh.

But IT in an evolution museum? I don't see it as an insidious plot, nor detrimental to the advancement of science.

the greek

2nd June 2006, 03:23 PM

Correction: I keep writing IT when I mean ID, of course. Apparently, I have too many friends working in Info Tech and can't get IT out of my mind.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!

Kether

2nd June 2006, 10:50 PM

I was not thinking about the Bush administration when I wrote that popular perception in America was not to be trusted. I was referring to the following statistics, published in the article that began this discussion:

64 per cent of people questioned for a recent poll said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution in schools, while 38 per cent favoured replacing evolution with creationism.
40 per cent of Americans believe God will eventually intervene in human affairs and bring about an end to life on Earth, according to a survey carried out in 2002. Of those believers, almost half thought this would occur in their lifetime with a return of Jesus from heaven.
1 adult American in five believes that the Sun revolves around Earth, according to one study carried out last summer.
80 per cent of Americans surveyed by the CNN TV news network believe that their government is hiding evidence of the existence of space aliens.
70 per cent believe it likely that Saddam Hussein was involved personally in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
I strive to only believe in things that are true as well. Which is why I have a problem looking at life through the myopic lens of strictly one dimensional thinking (E.g, science only).
If you strive to only believe in things that are true, then I am delighted: but it means that you cannot deploy arguments in favour of religion that cite it as being morally beneficial to society.

Intelligent design should, by all means, be subjected to scrutiny as a scientific hypothesis. And as far as I can tell, it has been, and hasn't stood up to it.
But it is true, like any other country on this planet, the US is backward in many ways, evidenced by the manifestation of poverty and crime, which one could argue is the most dangerous form of terrorism long-term. See John Lee Malvo's comments about the sniper's alleged recruitment of homeless people to terrorize US soil. Also, home-grown terrorist Timothy McVeigh.
Every country has home-grown terrorists, poverty and crime. If the USA is backward - and by this, I mean in terms of averages of the opinions of the populace and institutions, compared with other developed nations - it isn't because of this.

the greek

3rd June 2006, 10:00 PM

Okay, a lot of people in the US are backward on some key issues, as are many people from other parts of the world. Certainly, we must start from the postition of evolution and work from there. God should be employed as a supplement to the entire equation (something most in this forum seem to oppose) and not a substitute. I'm not sure where this survey you cite came from. If one in five Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth, then liberal education is seriously lacking. And if 70-percent believe Saadam was personally involved with 9/11, that's another serious problem, and I blame the media (Rush Limbaugh included) for not adequetely correcting that gross error. As for those 38-percent polled who favor replacing evolution studies in the schools with creationism, that is alarming. I have a difficult time believing such statistics from these polls. I wonder what cross-section of the country they surveyed. Was it the Bible Belt?

CSwriter1

4th June 2006, 01:36 AM

Is the US backward? Who is Cicero and what was his part in the development of the United States republic?

Kether

4th June 2006, 02:30 AM

I wonder what cross-section of the country they surveyed. Was it the Bible Belt?
I'd have thought that the proportion of creationists in the Bible Belt was higher than 38%.

Perhaps I shouldn't have cited those surveys, since I myself am not sure of the details. I have no first-hand experience of life in the USA against which to check them, so forgive me if they seem strange.
The USA is a very contradictory place - so much so that, ideologically, it's almost like two separate countries. There is the cosmopolitan, liberal section of the nation - and then there's the bible belt, etcetera.

sonrisa

5th June 2006, 07:59 AM

CS-- who was Cicero and what was his part in the development of the United States republic?

-- awwww CS, you tripped up. We are (ostensibly at least, on paper at least) a representative democracy. But, more to the point, what part did the 6 Nations have in the development of our Govt?

Kether, I have seen those poll results before as well, altho offhand, I can't remember who did the poll. However, I believe it was a natinwide sample- the bible belt would have higher percentages in all those categories, except maybe the UFO's. That sounds like a nationwide sampling.

CSwriter1

8th June 2006, 08:07 AM

If we could talk about something besides religion, that would be nice. Do you realize even those who are not fundamentalist Christians, are limited to talking about religion. The US is backwards because they don't know enough about anything else to discuss anything else.

What did the 6 Nations have to do with the federal government of the United States?

Well let's see, they were a federation of soveriegn tribes. This organation gave the most power to the people, and yet above all of them there was a way of resolving conflicts, based on reason, not brute strenth and weapons. This leaves the people dignity and liberty, but does not necessate war for resolving conflicts.

Is that close to the right answer? But I don't think this subject of the organization of the 6 Nations follows under the subject of why the US is backwards, as does Cicero.

Excuse me now while I scream! I am so frustrated with discussion of religion and the evident complete ignorance of Cicero and Athens. Hating Christianity is not going to advance culture in the US. Learning something about Athens and Cicero, and the 6 Nations, however, might advance the cause of democracy, and ease global tensions.

sonrisa

8th June 2006, 02:16 PM

CS-- Well, let's see (the 6 Nations) were a federation of sovereign tribes

-- actually they still are!

CS--This organization gave the most power to the people, and yet above all of them there was a way of resolving conflicts, based on reason, not brute strength and weapons. This leaves the people with dignity and liberty, but does not necessitate war for resolving conflicts.... But I don't think this subject of the organization of the 6 Nations follows under the subject of why the US is backwards....

-- well it does when you consider that most people don't realize that the 6 Nations Confederacy gave us our federal tripartate system of govt. For the better part of the 18th century they had been urging the whites living in the states that they dealt with to band together into a confederacy. Then in 1754, the sachems of the 6 Nations, Benjamin Franklin, and some other whites developed the Albany Plan (click here)] (http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/chp6.html) which was a forerunner to the Articles of Confederation, which was a forerunner to the Constitution. So there is a direct line there, from the 6 Nations sachems to the Constitution. Not that the Founding Fathers adopted the 6 Nations system of govt whole cloth, they didn't. They took the shell & modified it, for instance the 6 Nations Confederacy is a participatory democracy (click here) (http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/index.html) & the Founding Fathers thought that it would be impractical for the voters to have to decide on each & every little issue of governance, so they went with a representative democracy instead, which they already had with their state assemblies & legislatures, & the governor represented the executive branch. What they did was jack up the court system into a full fledged Judiciary Branch, on par with the Legislative & Executive Branches, which is how the 6 Nations system is structured. And that is what the 6 Nations Confedaracy had to do with the development of our Govt.

Thomas Knierim

8th June 2006, 07:14 PM

Sonrisa: -- well it does when you consider that most people don't realize that the 6 Nations Confederacy gave us our federal tripartate system of govt.

Actually, it was the Baron de Montesquieu, a French philosopher, who came up with the idea of the tripartite divison of powers. Though it may be that America was the first to implement it, while France was still struggling with feudalism (incidentally also a term coined by Montesquieu).

The Greek: But IT in an evolution museum? I don't see it as an insidious plot, nor detrimental to the advancement of science.

Certainly not. People have believed in intelligent design for a great long time. So it should probably be placed into the science flops corner next to the geocentric model, the aether theory, vitalism, flat earth, although perhaps in a somewhat grander, shinier vitrine. :unsure:

Cheers, Thomas

sonrisa

9th June 2006, 12:37 AM

Gluckwunsche, Thomas! you have (unwittingly, mind you) demonstrated one reason why the USA is backwards. I googled your French baron & he was born in 1689. The 6 Nations system of govt goes back to between the 11th & 15th centuries, depending upon who you are reading (click here) (http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/DatingIC.html) So the 6 Nations Confederacy was implementing tripartite govt before your Baron was even a glimmer in anybody's eye.

Now I'm not saying the Founding Fathers weren't influenced by other (read white) sources when they were hammering out the Constitution. As I said, they took the structure of the 6 Nations govt & modified it, mainly to what they were already using. For instance, they excluded women, who play a big part in 6 Nations governance. That was definitely a white influence. Thru the centuries historians have played up the white influences & downplayed the fact that a good portion of our federal govt is actually homegrown (click here) (http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/Council.html) Like, if it ain't white, then it can't be any good. This is what I mean by backwards.

On a more contemporary note, there is a bill languishing in the Senate that would facilitate organ donations & get thousands of sick people off the waiting lists, while last week the Senate debated a bigoted piece of legislation going by the seemingly innocuous name of the Federal Marriage Amendment. It was fortunately voted down, amongst threats to bring it back up. In other words, the Senate can't be bothered to help almost 100,000 people in life & death situations get organ transplants, but god forbid any of them faggots should go off & get themselves hitched! Is this backwards or is this backwards? Any further questions! Nuff said.

Thomas Knierim

9th June 2006, 11:02 AM

Hm, that's interesting. I don't know much about the 6 nations and the Iroquois Confederacy, but I am pretty sure about the baron. Just google the term "trias politica". Montesquieue has written extensively about it. Of course, he may have been plagiarising from the Iroquois or from someone else -what the heck do we know- though it is somewhat unlikely. It is conspicuous that the Constitution of the US was written only 50 years after the first publication of Montesquieu's ideas.

Cheers, Thomas

the greek

9th June 2006, 01:19 PM

CS says:
"If we could talk about something besides religion, that would be nice. Do you realize even those who are not fundamentalist Christians, are limited to talking about religion. The US is backwards because they don't know enough about anything else to discuss anything else."
-------------------------------------------------------------

A little perspective. It's not as if people in the US kneel down on prayer rugs fives times per day and pray to God for 40 minutes straight. The anti-USA vitriol displayed by a select few on this site is transparent, and only serves to prevent insight as well as any practical defense against the accusatory question and statement that began this discussion. Which, not so incidentally, is a backward and non-productive means in which to start any meaningful, constructive or progressive debate.

Further, if you go back to the original question in this discussion, it was CSWriter's question (and generously-supplied answer) that not only started this debate, it also was the source of the word "religion" being injected into this discourse in the first place.

Apparently, even atheists can't get religion off their mind(s).

sonrisa

9th June 2006, 01:47 PM

Thomas.
Has it occured to you that the baron & the people of the 6 Nations came up with tripartate govt independently of each other? After all we are talking about 2 different continents with the Atlantic Ocean in between them. It is possible that the same form of govt could be devised by 2 different peoples on different continents, don't you think? Nobody plagarized anything.

What is backwards is this notion that there has to be a white explanation for everything under the sun. Especially where Indians are concerned- it's like they were living in some kind of black hole until whitey came along & gave them all lives. This simply is not true- the Indians had their socieities & customs & systems of govt. They were/are especially fond of the federal system- in addition to the 6 Nations Confederacy, there was/is the Huron Confederacy, the Choctaw Confederacy, the Illini Confederacy, the Blackfoot Confederacy, & the Caddo Confederacy, to name a few. Oh yes, & the Miami Tripartate :) Some of these confederacies, such as the Caddo & Blackfoot Confederacies, did not have contact with whites until the 19th century. That, plus the widespread ubiquitousness of these confederacies mean that they have to be home grown. So to insist that their formation was influenced by whites is backwards, not to mention ignorant. Yet that's what many historians still do. :shakehead:

btw, I deliberately posted linx to the rat haus site becuz it appears to be a neutral site, ie not pushing any Indian agenda (plus, I think their mascot is cute) I didn't realize until tonite that those linx are part of an ebook. If you want to learn more about the 6 Nations click here (http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/EoL/intro.html)

& click here to read another ebook (http://justrights.org/introduction.html)

ps if I google trias politica I'm not gonna get a bunch of Latin, am I?

CSwriter1

12th June 2006, 01:51 AM

Kether what you said about education in the democracy is dead thread, should be said here. Some text books are better than others. This is true today and in the past. However, education for technology which is producing products for industry and has left moral education to the church, has manifest all the evils of the past. Superstition being one of the worst.

Democracy depends our natural love for each other and ability to reason. However, we know prejudices can counteract any sense of love and destroy justice.
We know these problems can so distort our reasoning, that our ability to reason may seem non existant. Culture will effect these things, and education will determine culture. Since 1958 the US has educated for technology for military and industrial purpose, and this has devastating social ramifications.

the greek

13th June 2006, 12:22 AM

That's more like it. Constructive criticism.

Kether

13th June 2006, 01:54 AM

All the criticism expressed in this thread has been constructive. Problems must be recognised before they can be rectified.

CSwriter1

13th June 2006, 10:26 PM

Now I am getting lost. The origins of the US needs to be debated in a separate thread, although its democratic origin in Athens applies to this thread. Please, argue the 6 Nations and government organization in the thread for that. The thinking part, if the US is progressive or backwards, depends on it we follow Athens or the bible.

From Athens comes the idea that, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and because humans can learn and reason, they are capable of self government. Along with this belief, is the idea that human dignity demands liberty and individuals should have the God given right to decide right and wrong for themselves. This is radically different from religious teaching, where human beings are dependent on a God, and authority is external.

It is the religious belief that makes the US backwards. It was the imitation of Athens that made the US the most progressive nation in the world. For several reasons, the progress of the US has stalled out. However, when it comes to military weapons, the US is the most advanced country in the world. Hello, education for technology for military and industrial purpose, gets both, social retardation and advanced military weapons, because this education leaves moral training to the church. Liberal education was an imitation of Athens, and made the whole of the US progressive.

CSwriter1

13th June 2006, 11:38 PM

God should be employed as a supplement to the entire equation (something most in this forum seem to oppose) and not a substitute

Therefore, since there is nothing better than reason, and since it exists both in man and God, the first common possesion of man and God is reason. Buth those who have reson in common must also have right reason in common. And since right reason is Law, we must believe that man that men have Law also in common. And since right reason is Law, we must believe that men have Law in common with the gods. Futher, those who share Law must also share Justice; and those who share these are to be regarded as members of the same commonwealth. If indeed they obey the same autorities and powers, this is true in a far greater degree; but as a matter of fact they do obey this celestial system, the divine mind, and the God of transcenent power. Hence we must now concieve of thes whole universe as one commonwealth of which both gods and men are members. Cicero

Who is not respecting God?

CSwriter1

13th June 2006, 11:44 PM

God should be employed as a supplement to the entire equation (something most in this forum seem to oppose) and not a substitute

In the beginning, we were told that the human beings who walk about on the Earth have been provided with all the things necessary for life. We were instructed to carry a love for one another, and to show a treat respect for all the beings of this Earth. We are shown that our life exists with the tree life, that our well-being depends on the well-being of the Vegetable Life, that we are close relative of the four-legged beings. In our ways, spiritual consciounseness is the highest form of politics. Quoted from The Hau de so no sau nee message to the Western world.

Who is not respecting God?

the greek

14th June 2006, 03:58 AM

I don't think I follow the question "who is not respecting God?"

Most of my writings have defended God's inclusion in the equation of the universe. When I stated "God should be employed as a supplement to the entire equation (something most in this forum seem to oppose) and not a substitute," I was trying to stake middle ground.

I wasn't disrespecting God. For the most part, those who want no part of God, or ID, in the evolution museum would be disrespecting God. I'm saying, "God should have a place among the many alternatives of life, not THE place (or at the head of the table). Incidentally, I do believe in scientific, or `natural law evolution' for lack of a better way of saying it. That's not to say God doesn't exist, or that He had no hand in creating those natural laws.

Of course, hard-core religious believers, believe it or not, oppose their God's inclusion in the museum. And the reason is they believe the mixture of God into science, including science class curriculum, diminishes God's importance in the entire realm. To put Him alongside science is to admit he has a peer, which of course they believe He has not.

One step further: Hard-core religious followers would not even go as far as to mention God in the same sentence as intelligent design. This too diminishes His deity and relegates Him to some supernatural energy force. God, in the religious sense, is after all a spirit, not a particle or wave.

I do not disrespect the same God that I have been defending. Like Cicero, I wish to weigh all options.

Trevor

30th December 2011, 06:30 PM

Trevor

30th December 2011, 06:32 PM

vicente

30th December 2011, 08:04 PM

This is only my opinion, but here goes.
I am Canadian and I think that the reason that the U.S. of A. is so backwards is because the Americans were greedy. They didn't like the idea of financing the home country a.k.a. Britain against the French and decided that they wanted the moolah.

America is so backwards because most cling to an indoctrinated individualism for their identity,...although it is an easily media-ted individualism.

"All the joy the world contains
Has come through wishing happiness for others.
All the misery the world contains
Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself."
Shantideva 8.129

Or, as Deepak Chopra recently said, "think about what you can give, not what you want."

Ron-the-Elder

30th December 2011, 08:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War
Now, is that any way
to treat an
ally?
The U.S.A. is the biggest french fry of them all.

Starting with the Siege of Yorktown, Benjamin Franklin never informed France of the secret negotiations that took place directly between Britain and the United States. Britain relinquished her rule over the Thirteen Colonies and granted them all the land south of the Great Lakes and east of the Mississippi River. However, since France was not included in the American-British peace discussions, the alliance between France and the colonies was broken. Thus the influence of France and Spain in future negotiations was limited.

The U.S. stands for GREED, plain and simple.

When I lived in Rochester, New York, I used to periodically visit The Ho-de-no-son-ne , which was a tribe of The Seneca Nation guarding what they called the eastern gate of The Nation of Six Tribes. The Name Iroquois was a label placed upon them by murderous pigs called The French. They considered the French to be not only murderous pigs, but butchers, because they attacked their tribe without notice or justification, destroyed their crops and store, slaughtered their people, kidnapped and raped their women.

Living just outside of Canadaigua, New York, what I found left of these people was kind and peaceful as they were in the 1700's. They built replicas of their homes, fields, and buildings as they were back in times of the earlier settlement of New York. It was a place I enjoyed taking my children and my wife. We felt safe, at peace, and welcome. Many tribes from around the country came to this place to celebrate the old ways of their peoples, to dance, to share stories, and to socialize. The French were not invited.

Here is a copy of the treaty that was made between The Six Nations and The President of The United States. Nobody bothered to consult The French. They could care less on either side:

http://honorindiantreaties.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Canandaigua-Treaty-of-1794.pdf

The United States owes a debt of gratitude to The French for their assistance during the war against the Brittish. The Ho-de-ne-son-ne hold nothing but contempt for the French till this day and still consider them to be murderous pigs.

schrodinger

30th December 2011, 08:38 PM

This is only my opinion, but here goes.
I am Canadian and I think that the reason that the U.S. of A. is so backwards is because the Americans were greedy. They didn't like the idea of financing the home country a.k.a. Britain against the French and decided that they wanted the moolah.

Oh, let's see what is going on here: reopening an old thread , last post was in 2006; adopting an avatar of a muslim mullah; add to that your attempt to be provocative in your "faggot" thread;

what it all adds up to is, you are trying much too hard, Trevor dear. Did you have a bad experience at a gay bar or something? Whatever you are trying to do, it isn't working!:lol:

Ron-the-Elder

30th December 2011, 09:03 PM

Oh, let's see what is going on here: reopening an old thread , last post was in 2006; adopting an avatar of a muslim mullah; add to that your attempt to be provocative in your "faggot" thread;

what it all adds up to is, you are trying much too hard, Trevor dear. Did you have a bad experience at a gay bar or something? Whatever you are trying to do, it isn't working!:lol:

Am I imagining things, or does Trevor's avatar look like George W. Bush under-cover as a mullah?

http://thebigview.com/forum/customavatars/avatar664_28.gif

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/2_17/images/bush_nrb.jpg

schrodinger

30th December 2011, 09:16 PM

Am I imagining things, or does Trevor's avatar look like George W. Bush under-cover as a mullah?

http://thebigview.com/forum/customavatars/avatar664_28.gif

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/2_17/images/bush_nrb.jpg

No, you are not imagining things, Ron!

All in all, poor Trevor is trying much too hard to come across as controversial!

Trevor

30th December 2011, 09:18 PM

When I lived in Rochester, New York, I used to periodically visit The Ho-de-no-son-ne , which was a tribe of The Seneca Nation guarding what they called the eastern gate of The Nation of Six Tribes. The Name Iroquois was a label placed upon them by murderous pigs called The French. They considered the French to be not only murderous pigs, but butchers, because they attacked their tribe without notice or justification, destroyed their crops and store, slaughtered their people, kidnapped and raped their women.

Living just outside of Canadaigua, New York, what I found left of these people was kind and peaceful as they were in the 1700's. They built replicas of their homes, fields, and buildings as they were back in times of the earlier settlement of New York. It was a place I enjoyed taking my children and my wife. We felt safe, at peace, and welcome. Many tribes from around the country came to this place to celebrate the old ways of their peoples, to dance, to share stories, and to socialize. The French were not invited.

Here is a copy of the treaty that was made between The Six Nations and The President of The United States. Nobody bothered to consult The French. They could care less on either side:

http://honorindiantreaties.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Canandaigua-Treaty-of-1794.pdf

The United States owes a debt of gratitude to The French for their assistance during the war against the Brittish. The Ho-de-ne-son-ne hold nothing but contempt for the French till this day and still consider them to be murderous pigs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

Trevor

30th December 2011, 09:22 PM

No, you are not imagining things, Ron!

All in all, poor Trevor is trying much too hard to come across as controversial!

Originally Posted by schrodinger:

"Oh, let's see what is going on here: reopening an old thread , last post was in 2006; adopting an avatar of a muslim mullah; add to that your attempt to be provocative in your "faggot" thread;
what it all adds up to is, you are trying much too hard, Trevor dear. Did you have a bad experience at a gay bar or something? Whatever you are trying to do, it isn't working!"

Schrodinger:
I don't consider myself to be controversial, although you may think so. It seems to me that you are the one who is being controversial.
I've learned a long time ago that we don't see eye to eye.
And probably never will.
By the way it WAS Osama bin Laden, not a mullah, in my avatar behind George W. Bush. LOL!
You couldn't even spot it?
Oh well.
Faggot thread? I suppose that you are referring to the over 9,000 hits that "Gay marriage and Prop. 8" has recieved in the "Politics and Current Affairs" section.
I didn't view it over 9,000 times. So not only are you attacking me personally, but other "thebigview" members and guests for showing any interest in that thread.
Are you a little jealous that there is so much interest in that topic? I don't take any credit for the hits, it was a topic that touched me personally considering that I am a faggot. But I don't care much what you think about that. LOL!
I guess you have some issues to deal with. Sorry, I can't help you.
By the way, I used to work in a gay bar, and had some of the best experiences there.
schrodinger, did you not get what you wanted for Christmas? Please, don't take it out on me!

schrodinger

30th December 2011, 10:06 PM

and also by the above:

"Oh, let's see what is going on here: reopening an old thread , last post was in 2006; adopting an avatar of a muslim mullah; add to that your attempt to be provocative in your "faggot" thread;
what it all adds up to is, you are trying much too hard, Trevor dear. Did you have a bad experience at a gay bar or something? Whatever you are trying to do, it isn't working! "

I don't consider myself to be controversial, although you may think so to the contrary schrodinger, and appear to me to be the one who is "trying much to hard" to be controversial.
We just don't see eye to eye.
And probably never will.
By the way it WAS Osama bin Laden, not a mullah. LOL!
Poor schrodinger couldn't even spot it. Oh well.

You must be confused, or drunk. That is NOT Osama, but GWB photoshopped, as Ron said.

"Faggot thread"?
I suppose that you are referring to the over 9,000 hits that "Gay marriage and Prop. 8" has recieved in the "Politics and Current Affairs" section.
I didn't view it over 9,000 times. So not only are you attacking me personally, but other "thebigview" members and guests for showing any interest in that thread.
Are you a little jealous that there is so much interest in that topic? I don't take any credit for the hits, it was a topic that touched me personally considering that I am a faggot. But I don't care much what you think about that. LOL!

Nope, not that thread, dearie. I was referring to this thread:
http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7596

Where so far, ALL ThREE posts are yours. I doubt if it is receiving much attention, sweetthing.

I guess you have some issues to deal with. Sorry, I can't help you.
By the way, I used to work in a gay bar, and had some of the best experiences there.
schrodinger, did you not get what you wanted for Christmas?
Don't take it out on me. Get laid.

My issues are very minor compared to yours, tulip cups.

Don't drop the soap!:rofl:

Trevor

30th December 2011, 10:35 PM

You must be confused, or drunk. That is NOT Osama, but GWB photoshopped, as Ron said.

Nope, not that thread, dearie. I was referring to this thread:
http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7596

Where so far, ALL ThREE posts are yours. I doubt if it is receiving much attention, sweetthing.

My issues are very minor compared to yours, tulip cups.

Don't drop the soap!:rofl: It IS a photoshopped picture of Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. Here is where the background photo can be seen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-dead-obama

By the way schrodinger, your insults really do lack creativity and
I don't require a psychological analysis from you.
Homophobe!

Trevor

30th December 2011, 10:55 PM

Unoriginally posted by schrodinger: "Nope, not that thread, dearie. I was referring to this thread:
http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7596"

No, it isn't the faggot thread. It's the faggot hater thread, and you seemed drawn to it like a moth to a candle

vicente

31st December 2011, 12:05 AM

Ron-the-Elder

31st December 2011, 02:07 AM

It's an American Conservative thing.

Contrary to your obviously biggoted position you will find that there are numerous gays in The Republican Party! According to them Obama just doesn't have what it takes to satisfy their needs!

According to a CNN exit poll, more self-identified lesbians, gay men and bisexuals voted for Republicans in the midterm election than ever before. Nearly one third of self-identified gay voters pulled the lever for Republicans on Tuesday, a 4 percentage point increase from the same demographic in 2008. In the blogosphere, the results are shaking up perceptions of gay voters among liberals and conservatives:

This Should Shatter Some Stereotypes, writes Jonathan Capehart at The Washington Post:
By itself, that number is amazing, especially when you consider that way too many people think being gay and voting Democratic are one in the same. But that percentage is ominous news for a White House viewed with suspicion by many gay men and lesbians, because that's four percentage points higher than the change election of 2008.
This Should Wake People Up, says GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia in a statement: “The gay left would have you believe that gay conservatives don’t exist. Now we see that almost a third of self-identified gay voters cast ballots for Republican candidates for Congress in this year’s midterm. This should be a wake-up call for the out-of-touch so-called leadership of Gay Inc. in Washington, D.C., which has become little more than a subsidiary of the Democrat Party."
I Can't Believe This! writes Eric Ethington at LGBTQ Nation:
I’m not happy with the Democrats. I’m upset with what I see as feet-dragging and empty promises and I think we need a new solution to achieve full federal equality. But that does NOT mean the Republicans!
As a whole, Republicans hate us. Let me reemphasize that, the Republican Party hates us. In fact, many of the State Republican Party platforms include provisions stating they want homosexuality criminalized.
Different political ideologies are one thing, you may be a conservative on many issues and that’s ok! But bottom line is economic or military ideologies cannot ever outweigh our civil liberties.
Unfortunately, I Don't Think the Gay Leadership Will Pay Attention, writes Bruce Carroll at Gay Patriot: "Will anything change among the Gay Street crowd? Doubtful. They are bought & paid for by the Democrats and George Soros-funded organizations."
They're Dropping Like Flies, writes Jennifer Rubin at the Jewish neoconservative magazine Commentary: "First the Jews, now the gays. Only Obama could alienate them from the Democratic Party."
They Could Be Upset with Obama About Don't Ask, Don't Tell Yahoo News interviews Hunter college Professor Ken Sherrill who studies gay voting patterns:
Sherrill says there was a disproportionate drop in Democratic support among LGB voters compared to Hispanic, black, and young voters. Though the sample size is still very small and thus there's a large margin of error, Sherrill... says the drop may be attributed to "dissatisfaction with the pace of change on LGB rights over the past two years."
The Perception of Obama in the Gay Community Isn't Great, writes the staff at On Top magazine:
Anti-Democratic sentiment has been brewing since President Obama arrived in Washington. While the president has been criticized by anti-gay groups for his support of gay rights, many in the gay community feel pandered to. Obama's commitment to gay rights, especially repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell,” the law that bans gay and bisexual troops from serving openly, is being openly questioned by gay leaders.
The president recently defended his record. In a rare interview with the gay media conducted just days before the midterm elections, the president reject the notion that he's lukewarm on gay rights...
"I'll be honest with you, I don't think that the disillusionment is justified,” he said.

http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/index.php?/contents/comments/the_gay_old_party_how_many_gays_vote_republican_wh at_are_they_thinking/

vicente

31st December 2011, 03:56 AM

Contrary to your obviously biggoted position you will find that there are numerous gays in The Republican Party! According to them Obama just doesn't have what it takes to satisfy their needs!

Yes,...I'm familiar with that. Kind of bazarre,...Log Cabin Repubs voting for those who want to destroy them. Yes, republicans are a queer bunch.

As for the "Osuma bin Bush" photo,...It appeared with the following article of explaination: (I agrree with every word)

December 5, 2002. If any of us are to have a future worth having, the world's leaders, the members of Congress, the US corporate media and people of all political persuasions who value freedom and democracy had better start seeing George W. Bush for what he is: a sociopath and a passive serial killer.

Psychiatrists tell us that all serial killers lack the emotions that make us human; that they have to learn to emulate those emotions in order to get by in society. Hence, a charming, well educated fellow like Ted Bundy who is known to have murdered 15 women and may have killed 36 before he was caught.

While Bush is no Bundy, when it comes Bundy's education and acquired charm, and to our knowledge has never personally murdered anyone, it has been evident to us that there is something missing in George W. in terms of his lack of compassion and empathy. As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants 154 in five years. He even made fun of the way convicted killer Karla Faye Tucker begged for her life.

If we believe the psychiatrists, a sign of a future serial killer is a child who delights in torturing and killing animals. George W., as a child, did exactly that.

In a May 21, 2000, New York Times' puff piece about the values Bush gained growing up in Midland, Texas, Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"

On Sept. 12, 2000, Baltimore Sun reporter Miriam Miedzian wrote, "So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up. Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he would be like as president of the United States."

We're finding out, aren't we? While we, in two articles before the 2000 election Sept. 21 and Oct. 23 noted Bush's penchant for blowing up frogs, the corporate media blew it off, just as it had no interest in what he was trying to hide by obtaining a new Texas driver license and his 1976 drunk driving conviction, or the fact he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. Instead, they bought into his nonsensical claim of being a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter not a divider" who was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House."

All through the 2000 campaign and up to Sept. 11, 2001, the corporate media depicted Bush as an affable, tongue-tied bumbler the kind of guy Joe Six-pack would like to have a beer with turning a blind eye to his dark underside. It mattered not that he stocked his illicit administration with the worst of the worst: John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Gale Norton, Paul O'Neill, Harvey Pitt, Thomas White, John Negroponte, Otto Reich and convicted Iran-contra felon Elliot Abrams who received a 1992 Christmas Eve pardon from George W.'s father.

Then, despite his peculiar behavior on Sept. 11, the corporate media and his handlers transformed him into a leader extraordinaire in the mold of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill rolled into one.

And as Bush had Afghanistan bombed back beyond the Stone Age to rid the world of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, then switched to claiming it was the Taliban that had to go, then declared there was an "axis of evil" and it was really Saddam Hussein who was the "mother of all evil" and that war with Iraq was in the offing to get rid of Saddam, the corporate media cheered him on and to this day continues to beat the war drum. They have yet to consider that the passive serial killer needs to feed his lust for blood by sending others to put their lives on the line and do the killing for him.

In his Sept. 12 article, White House insiders say Bush is "out of control," Mike Hersh wrote, "Some among Bush's trusted White House staff fear what they are seeing and where Bush is taking us. His state of mind hauntingly reminds them of Richard Nixon's Final Days. They fear Bush is becoming Nixonesque . . . or worse. Although Bush lacks Nixon's paranoia, he may entertain even more dangerous notions."

But their desperate late night phone calls to trusted reporters has not seen the light of day in the corporate media. Yet, some of us outside the Beltway have long had an inkling of what we are dealing with.

More proof lies in Alexandra Pelosi's documentary, Journeys with George. Pelosi, the daughter of incoming House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, was a producer for NBC when she wangled the assignment to spend 18 months as part of Bush's campaign press corps.

From the surface, Pelosi's "home movie," as she calls it, seems to be nothing more than a love fest as George W. works to charm the pants off her and the rest of the press corps. The striking thing about this George, even though Karen Hughes is often seen hovering at his elbow, is that he isn't tongue-tied when he is pumping up his ego, dishing out digs and being sarcastic and crude.

Mark Crispin Miller, author of The Bush Dyslexicon and professor of media studies at New York University, who also sees the darker Bush, said in a Nov. 28 interview with the Toronto Star, ""Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."

Miller said he did intend The Bush Dyslexicon to be a funny book, but that was before he read all the transcripts, which revealed, according to reporter Murray Whyte, "a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all on that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chretien agree."

"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge," Miller told Whyte. "When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."

In a speech last Sept. in Nashville, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me can't get fooled again!"

Said Miller, "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

Another example, Miller said, occurred early in Bush's White House tenure when he said, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

According to Miller, "That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, 'Put food on your family's table'—it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table."

Miller told Whyte, ""When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it."

"This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels," Whyte wrote.

"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper," Miller said.

"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," Miller told Whyte. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."
A grave mistake, indeed.