Big Ol' Smitty

See East, Middle. Or my little list up above.

So, 18-25 year olds have a better conception of how to apply the Bible than the fathers of the Christian Church & religious scholars, like Thomas Aquinas & Augustine (both of whom advocated violence against non-Christians)?

One Muslim blew something up? Race is not a comparable issue here. There is no revered book for all black people that says to convert, subjugate, or kill all non-blacks. Read the Koran. The suicide bombers are following what it says in there. Because you and I are basing our decisions as citizens, elected officials, & on morality off of experience, reasoned observation, and, dare I say it, love for our fellow humans, not a book written written in the first or fourth century coupled with fear of punishment by/desire for reward from God. I don't think an ancient tome is a good source for public policy (or morality for that matter). How about many Christians in the US thought that slavery was justified by the Bible (and they didn't have to stretch very far to argue that)? Or that many Christians would take heart in the event of a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East because it would be a sign that the rapture was imminent (no, this is not outside of the mainstream: see the last Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, for example)? Or that Mother Freaking Theresa (is she out of the Catholic mainstream?) admonished rape victims not to get abortions?

Hitler, Stalin, & other mass murderers did not perpetrate their crimes because of an over reliance on reason or a lack of nonsensical dogma. Nazi Germany & Stalinist Russia (& Stalinist North Korea, for that matter) were (& are) fundamentally unreasonable societies. Read the writings of Hitler or Himmler or examine the cults of personality for Hitler or Stalin. Nazism & communism became de facto quasi-religious dogmas. Pol Pot, Stalin, & Kim Il Sung prove that religion does not have a monopoly on dogma.

So the Middle East, absent Islam, would not, in all likelihood, be a much nicer, less exploding, place?

I just would prefer that they wouldn't be posted all over public buildings and, as a majority of Americans might support, schools. I was just suggesting that, if we are going to place religious texts all over the public square, the public could probably benefit more from Jain texts than from the Old Testament. I would prefer its insistence on nonviolence to these banal rules (for which the penalty for breaking is usually death) and all of their accompanying "Judeo-Christian" baggage (such as repression of sexuality). However, I would prefer not placing holy texts all over public walls over the placement of Jain texts. Um, I would put Smith's writing on economics on the walls, not on deism. Again, my point was that there are texts that could be far more useful & enlightening to the public than the 10 Commandments (that is, if you're going to go posting things all over walls).

You're putting words in my mouth. I do, however, think that there are a lot of otherwise reasonable and highly intelligent, even brilliant, people who set faith aside as an area of inquiry not open to critical thought. An excellent example is the mathematician/physicist Pascal. You and I must be living in different countries. What TV & radio shows are critically examining & questioning religion? We live in a country in which public opinion polling shows that atheists are the least trusted group in the country...even less than followers of Islam, whose adherents attacked us on 9/11 and in other attacks. Evangelical Christians currently control the executive branch of the White House and the vast majority of the federal judiciary. I've already listed the polling on evolution, Israel, & other issues. The other night I watched a presidential candidate "faith" forum on CNN where the candidates for leader of the free world were asked oh-so-pressing public policy questions like, "what do you say when you pray," and, "Mrs. Clinton, how did your faith help you deal with your husband's infidelity?" The notion that secularism is on the march in the US and that organized religion is under siege is not belied by real evidence. Ha! One of the little ads at the top of the page says "Bible Homosexual." These lists are just off the top of my head. Christian Violence Historical Well, you named the Crusades (don't forget about the slaughter of Jews by the Crusaders on their way to the "Holy Lands." Widespread violence against Jews throughout Europe & throughout European history. The Spanish Inquisition--probably one of the most vile institutions in world history. Witch hunts in colonial New England. Baptism of native infants followed by immediate murder by (either Franciscan or Dominican) priests in the Americas. Native Americans in general. Lots of other indigenous peoples, as well. The 30 Years War. All of the wars waged by the papal states. Clashes with Mormons in the US. Violence inflicted upon African slaves in the Americas, the Caribbean, & other European colonies. Modern Former Yugoslavia (Catholics vs. Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims) Nigeria & many other places in Africa (Christians vs. Muslims) Russia (Orthodox Christians vs. Muslims) Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics) Should we include Christian dictators like Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, & (arguably) Hitler? You need to argue with someone else here. See my first post. Islam should be criticized way more than Christianity right now, considering it (in its purest form) is a grave danger to human civilization right now. That being said, Christianity is not benign (more on this later). You don't need the Ten Commandments to know that killing or stealing is bad. These are fundamental moral principles the world around. There are better places from which we could borrow these principles without all of the accompanying baggage of Moses' tablets. They are not especially profound or unique to Christianity, and 4 of them are pretty much useless to many of us. You & I could write a set of ten laws more useful to society than these off the top of our heads. But, here's the thing...it never has been. Religion has served as a huge, if not THE hugest, divider of people all over the world. This seems to follow logically from the proposition of most religions that: 1.) they are the one truth and 2.) everyone who doesn't believe is doomed to hell or is an infidel As I said, moderation is a vast improvement over fundamentalism, but moderate conceptions of tolerance shield extremists from criticism. Also, if you examine "religious moderation," it is really just faith making allowances reason & modernity. Religious moderation usually leads adherents to abandon many of their principles & ignore entire segments of their religious texts & holy books. To simplify, moderation=less faith.

I've been very busy (work & wedding), so I'll have a difficult responding to everything, but I'll try. My main purpose in posting this (per the request of Conspiracy Victim) was to generate discussion and get this folder hopping (like with my thread on prison rape).

Also, FWIW, (and for those who have read my latest thread) I am getting married outside, by a judge. However, I think there is going to be some mention of God in the ceremony, mostly to appease the familias.

More of a prison than being a public school social studies teacher?

Let's take the case, for instance, of people who want to put the Ten Commandments up all over public buildings, because these are, presumably, the greatest moral code ever constructed. Commandments 1-4 have nothing to do with morality at all. 5-9 are all reasonable enough and probably ascribed to in most societies around the world. And apparently Yahweh thought some rule about coveting a donkey was important enough to etched into stone and given to a prophet. Are these really all that phenomenal? I think society could benefit way for from some Jain texts or, hell, maybe even some Zen, than this stuff. Or how about we post the Bill of Rights or the Letter From a Birmingham Jail, instead? Shoot, maybe a little Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill? Oh, and can we post the Biblically-ascribed penalty for breaking the commandments too while we're at it (hint: the penalty for breaking one is usually death)?

Get married, go to NY, get trained to teach AP classes, read, do political stuff (we have a gubernatorial election in KY this year & my group is hosting an event in September), move in to a house, get adjusted to living with someone, hopefully spruce up my classroom a little bit.

Only 4 more days of freedom!

It is time to demand intellectual honesty across the board and to no longer tiptoe around the PC taboos which prevent us from openly criticizing religious ideas, beliefs, and practices. There are essential rules which underpin progress in every other field of knowledge, say physics or economics. We are not expected to simply respect someone's views on, say, mathematics; instead, we both demand reasons and expect evidence. Anyone who fails to substantiate their point of view, or resents questioning is no longer taken seriously when it comes to conversation on these topics. The respect & esteem that we accord to religious ideologies is a double standard. In a world in which people routinely blow themselves up, murder their neighbors, & refuse to give condoms to victims of AIDS--all in the name of faith--we ignore this double standard at our own peril. Furthermore, the current state religion in the United States is a national embarrassment. 44 percent of Americans believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years. This is roughly the same number who think that creationism should be taught in schools, to the complete exclusion of evolution; or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews. There are profound & disastrous public policy outcomes related to this silliness. The taboo against criticizing religion muddles the greatest present threat to world civilization: Islam. The primary response in the US & Europe to terrorist attacks such as that of 9/11 has been to pronounce Islam a "religion of peace", while simultaneously declaring a "war on terror". Islam is demonstrably not a "religion of peace" (nor is Christianity) and the "war on terror" moniker is meaningless. We need a war against religious dogma. Replacing religious conservatism & religious fundamentalism with religious moderation would be a huge step forward, but religious moderation is also a problem in & of itself. This is primarily because religious moderates embrace "toleration" of religious views, which, in reality, has shielded the religious whackos from criticism. If a reasonable person declares that it is asinine to believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse or that Jesus was born from a virgin, we are being intolerant.

luke-o seems dumber.

CAFE standards would be a good start. I think fuel efficient cars will become more fashionable as fuel prices continue to rise and Southwest Asia continues to burn.

Man I don't even buy Doritos any more because I could seriously eat a whole bag in 2 sittings. I think Saddam Hussein was the same way in prison.

I'm getting married in less than six days. Any sage advice from the forum on the keys to wedded bliss?

I don't see why Kucinich & Gravel were rambling on about cutting funding for the war when Hillary, Obama, & Dodd (I don't know about Biden) ALL voted against the supplemental funding cave-in. I'm not a big fan of either Kucinich (as I've said before) or Gravel (crazy, angry old curmudgeon schtick was cute in the first debate...now it's tiring). They do make good far-left punching bags for the more mainstream candidates, though. On a side note, where the hell is RobotJerk/Y2Jerk/whateverthehellhewascallinghimself?

This guy is tuff. This guy is hyperbole. Hard to tell sometimes online. I agree, though. Let's not lower speed limits--they're already pretty low. There are lots of better ways to deal with the fuel crisis.

This guy is tuff.

The Canadian Snuffbox chimes in. You know that's a Simpsons quote, right?

You are indeed. What the fuck dude? To think, I normally like you. Hell, I normally agree with your political beliefs. Just yankin' yer chain, bro.

McCain hits Obama where it really hurts--his spelling.