HoboFactory

But you see "fundamentalists" don't accept the inconsistencies, they just accept different parts in the same way that moderates do... they're the ones who accept the backwards violent hateful beliefs, and the "moderates" stress the opposite beliefs. The Fundamentalists don't somehow attempt to follow both because being loving, accepting, non-judgmental, and patient to all and at the same time hate, judge, and behave violently to all those who don't see things the exact same way they do. Universal tolerance and love for all people is totally incompatible with hatred and violence. It's only logical that people chose one or the other. As a result, moderates aren't somehow worse. In regards to the Israelis and the Palestinians, it probably IS more complicated than just fighting for the "Holy Land." Race, politics, class, and just a desire for land (holy or otherwise) probably play just as much of it not more of the role than them disagreeing over which prophet was really the same God's favorite. When looking at Israel in terms of ehtnicity and culture around 3/4 of the population is identified as Jewish, but in religious terms, nearly half of these Jews identify themselves as being secular or even anti-religious, with over 1/3 claiming to take part in some Jewish traditions, but not actively following the precepts of the Jewish faith... leaving less than 1/4 of the Jewish ethnicity as genuinely practicing Judaism and following its teachings. So it would seem that there would be a lot more than simply religion that makes Israel feel so strongly, given that most Israelis aren't actually very devoted Jews. Maybe Shiri could cast some light on the matter given that she's probably got a bit more perpective than either of us. The thing is, people can express a religious-like zeal about anything, and it doesn't matter how secular they are, and it will cause them to go to all sorts of extremes. Going back to the example of communism, it is a secular ideal, but as you said, it generally gets to the point where it's not a religion but analogous to it in many ways... but just about any ideal is subject to that problem. People can regard "freedom" as equally sacrosanct, or their nation, or their race, so in reality the only way the world ever becomes better or safer is if people have no conviction about anything in any way at any time, which is of course impossible. "Freedom" for example means different things to different people... the USA claims it's fighting for freedom in Iraq, and the Iraqi insurgents also seem to play that card. It's not really any different. Do I think Bush has some sort of delusion about his actions serving God in some way, well it's cerrtainly possible, but I think political, economic aims easily played are more significant role with the Iraq mess. Given that according to polls, most Americans are to some extent or another religious people, it's equally likely that his lip-service to a higher power is just to appeal to what is a giant amount of potential political supporters. Do you think, if the USA was something like 95% atheist, he'd ever bring up God in a speech or anything like that? Of course not, it would be political suicide. It goes back to religion being a mere excuse for wrong-doing most of that time, rather than being an actual cause. It also seems to me that atheism tends to breed extremism more than moderate religion. Nothing motivates a people more than knowing that they've an active opposition. When the USA and the USSR became enemies, and America suddenly had a powerful godless enemy to fear, and immediately religion suddenly took a higher prioriy with the government and the public, they threw in "under God" into the pledge of allegiance and recited it in schools daily, all on account of the USSR. It's just common sense, if you attack, then they defend. When you attack religion, you get the applause of those who agree with you, but you also galvanize the religious types and make them redouble their efforts. It works just like patriotism... think of the USA before WW2 and after. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, many people lost faith in America, it was the era in which more people were leaving the nation than entering it, many thousands actually emigrated to the USSR, crude shanty-towns where the homeless/jobless congregated were known by the president's name (Hoovervilles). While Franklin Roosevelt did what he could to improve the situation when he came to power, people only truly regained a hard-core patriotism after they'd ended up going to war in 1941 and it actually lasted essentially to the end up of the war, through the 50's despite Korea, and all the way until the government screwed up real bad in Vietnam. In much the same way, religion having an opponent only increases their conviction and devotion to the cause.

I don't think education is as hlepful as it's made out to be. From my school experience, politics and how it works was taught at an early age and reinforced several times prior to high school graduation, it really didn't make much difference for most people. The information is there, some people just aren't as affected by it. Think about it, you've all gone to school for over a decade, some of you are even college, you know people that have been through the same school system, taken the same classes, but you know that not everyone is as smart as the next person, not everyone is as involved and informed as the next person.

You seem to have completely misunderstood what I said. To the "justify" a Christian one doesn't "abandon" the Old Testament, one just regards it in a different fashion. For instance the Mormon religion is different from more mainstream Christianity, but they don't regard the Bible as false, they just look at in a different enough way to make it in effect a different religion. Your theory that "moderate" Christians are less of Christians than "Fundamentalists" makes no sense, one could easily make the case that the "Fundies" emphasize the Old Testament more, and the "Moderates" stress the New Testament, in which there is NOT by the way any call to hate homosexuals are engage in any sort of violence. I'm actually not behind any one mainstream religion but your reasons for thinking that the moderates are somehow worse is just ludicrous nonsense, unfounded anger, and ironically as hypocritical as religion tends to be. You say Christians should also totally follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, when you observe they contradict, you still sxpect it, and choosing only one as being authoritative and sticking to it, is somehow worse than trying to base your life on contradicting passages? How can you judge people by a standard you don't believe in, by a standard that you see contradicts itself? The other thing that makes no sense is your level of hatred for religion. Without religion, the world wouldn't somehow be a less dangerous and better place. Religion has basically just been the excuse for the evils of people that would probably have taken place anyway. Did the Catholic Church in in Medieval Europe really concern itself with abiding by their own teachings, or did they simply want as much power as they could get? Do you think the war on terror is just about religion? Do Muslim extremists hate America because most Americans believe that Jesus was son of God rather than simply a very powerful prophet? I really doubt it; it definitely has more to do with America's actions in that part of the world. When a group or a nation want to push an agenda, religion is simply an excuse, or a motivating vehicle, and there are countless other things that could fill in the place of religion if religion were to be absent. Just listen to a Bush speech, does he justify the Iraq war by saying he's just doing God's work? No, he says "it's for freedom" or "it's for security" or that it's for the ultimate goal of peace or that it will somehow make the world a better place. Religious politics are getting to be out of fashion so he's found plenty of other ways to excuse the shit he's done and doing. You do away with one intangible justification for actions like "God" and you can easily come up with countless more. Take for instance as mentioned above "freedom" or "peace"... both of these ideals are ones that the USA claims to have and to fight for, the no-longer-existing German Democratic Republic commonly used the slogan "Fuer Frieden und Freiheit" (For Peace and Freedom)... as we can see, we've just come up with 2 secular ideals that can be interpreted in different ways and push people to do injustice in differing forms. The world will never be a better place (which by the way is one of the main reasons people follow religion, they want to believe that there is a better place at least after they die) so why bother with aimless hatred and resentment?

Yeah the incentive is subject to the same problems as making voting mandatory. I suspect though, the perhaps that's why politicians and the media might be trying to polarize the public to some extent, it might make people passionate enough about politics to get out and vote. While a vote for a candidate just because they're far left or right of center isn't really the ideal situation, it is probably a step up from not voting at all, and better than people voting pretty much at random to complete a legal obligation.

Well naturally. If people are no longer allowed to do nothing, then the next best thing for them is to do the least amount possible.

It's sort of a quality vs. quantity issue. If you require people to vote or tax them if they don't and they wouldn't ordinarily vote, then they'll probably try to get away with doing as little as possible to fill the requirement, the bare minimum. It really wouldn't do any good.

Again you're totally wrong. In Christianity the Old Testament and New Testament don't have the same purpose and the Old Testament is not intended to be the one that rules the lives of Christians. It's not that complicated, think of it as "Before Jesus it worked like this" (and the point is it didn't work at all) "and now after Jesus it's supposed to work like this...." The idea the God is all knowing, all-loving but hates gays is certainly a contradictory one, but it doesn't have an actual basis in the New Testament, so Christians that don't hate gays in no way go against their own teachings. It's not about picking and choosing which rules apply and which don't. Jesus teachings are clearly radically different from those of the Old Testament... so those who believe only the Old Testament (such as the Jews) are the only ones to whom the Old Testament is a governing scripture. Jesus on te other hand is a figure that appears in one way or another in the New Testament, given that Christians believe that Jesus is basically God himself in human form, it's his New Testament teachings that hold the authority. As a result, the fundamentalists are not in any way truer Christians. Why are you so offended that I associated Stalinism with atheism? Stalin sought destroy religion, and resorted to mass murder in trying to accomplish this. You also seemed to advocate eliminating all religious people thus leaving only atheism, I think you guys would be peas in a pod.

It's not a very good album. I've only listened to it once or twice but it's really quite forgettable.

I like how the grievance changes once your original one was proven as fallacious in its basis as the religious beliefs you attack.

First off, his entire point is based on a falsehood, here's why. He alleges that anyone who believes in Christian teaching should hate homosexuals, stone women who have pre/extra-marital sex, kill infidels, etc. But that's total nonsense; Christianity as it turns out is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who apparently had the following things to say on such matters: "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Judge not, lest ye be judged" "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." The Apostle Paul also urges people, when confronting "sinners" to try to address them "in all patience and lovingkindness." As we can see, people who would truly follow Jesus teaching, are NOT to hate anyone, not to judge others, not to engage in violence. So what becomes clear is that, ironically, those who are called "fundamentalists" are the ones who completely ignore the fundamental teachings of their religion, in contrast the "moderates" are the ones who actually adhere more closely to it. The "moderates" are closer to being what he called " the real Christians." The religious convictions of the so-called moderates are not any weaker, they're simply conviction about different things. Not that I buy into 100% the beliefs of either the moderates or fundamentalists, but I do know that his assertions are in fact ignorant and demonstrative of rather poor analysis. The notion that "moderates" somehow breeds extremism is also something entirely unprovable. There's no real logic in the idea that the reason extremists exists is because moderates do. If moderate Christians can live in peace with moderate Muslims (and according their teachings as I quote above, it's an obligation of their principles that they do) then how are the moderates the problem? Extremism has been and will be around forever, and in many cases religion has nothing to do with any of it. There's political extremism, hell in the Stalin era in the USSR there was atheist extremism, and millions suffered and died as a result. Then he brings up that deal that there's no reason to respect other people's beliefs because no one in the past ever has so why should he. That's also nonsense, there've been plenty of people throughout history who have respected the beliefs of others, and even if that were not the case, the thing is, by nature, the human race progresses, and naturally progress involves often doing something that hasn't been done before. People's ways of thinking and capacity for thought changes, evolves, etc... so respecting the beliefs of others is in no way some sort of unattainable and impossible thing that people should just abandon. Here comes the need to grow up part. He suggested that people who happen to hold a certain religious belief should not be allowed to breed, in effect, eliminating such a people. Yeah, good thinking there, Adolf Hitler. I think the irony there doesn't even need to be explained. And yes, being anti-religious is quite fashionable. Why else would everyone here just agree to that stuff? Why do so many of everyone's favorite bands bash religion? It's like being one of those punk-wannabes where it's technically a minority of people, but a fashionable one.

Very interesting post, but also very wrong. Badly misinformed assertions motivated apparently by fashionable rage. Someone has far more than their fair share of growing up to do.

Tonight's episode definitely didn't disappoint.

I think the most frustrating thing about liars is when they're really bad at lying, but really committed liars. Like no matter how obvious it is they're bullshitting, they'll get extremely defensive and insist what they're saying is totally true.

People just need someone else to blame sometimes, even when they know they're the ones who screwed up. It sort of dulls their guilt if somehow someone else could bear the blame.

Saw it today, was quite impressed by it. The best movie I've seen in a very long time.

Well as long as it's more than just speculation.

I don't think that's all that good of a parallel. First off, Canada's population is a fraction of that of the EU. On top of that, there are more EU member nations than provinces in Canada. It's easier to build some degree of consensus among 13 (or however many) provinces/territories than 27 very different countries. With the EU members, there's more different sets of interests, different degrees of stability within the member nations. Also, Canada's government has a much more unified foreign policy and a more unified military. I think the thing that'll probably bring them down is a war.

What you said there could be another illustration of the problem. You said "less important" countries, which makes sense from an international perspective, for instance Germany is considered to be much more important than a country like Bulgaria, when it comes to international politics, or economics, or even its military influence. But why would those countries want to tolerate being lesser? Why would they want to be part of a system where their priorities are at the bottom of the list? Regardless of how poor and far-behind a country is (Romania for example), they consider themselves to the best nation on the planet, and they have a ton of national pride, would they be ok with being at the bottom of the ladder?

The European Union's an interesting thing. Some people have compared it to the Roman Empire, others to the early United States. Recently Romania and Bulgaria have been welcomed into the club, and a few other countries are considered to be candidates. Seems strange that so many nations that couldn't keep from trying to destroy one another for many than 50 years are now in many ways just parts of the same country. With so many members and people, it seems like there will have to come a point where interests would become too contrary for any unity to be maintained. Particularly when you start including Eastern Europe which is still very different, and probably always will be, when compared to the West. On top of that, there's the question of how the EU would or could handle a war should one arise with an outside nation. Could they maintain military unity? To me it would appear, that a lot of the challenges would be too much to allow the whole thing to function in the long-term. Any thoughts?

So is there anything concrete saying Matthew Good will come out with something this year?

Well, now that it's been several days, people can really see the effect of his death, or lack of effect to be more correct. Violence continues to spread and the whole situation is just as bad if not worse. Saddam was out of power well before his execution, he sat in prison, and had no influence over anything... it would've made no difference whether he would've been left there to sit in prison for the rest of his life or executed. His death brought the war's end no closer. This is all gonna look so interesting in the history books.

Voted for Holy Grail, not that the others are without their charm.

Ironically, he should probably going to prison for real for manslaughter.

Probably doesn't realize that France is extremely gay.

Finally, a 2006 album has really impressed me. Just came out today, and I'm sure few if any here have heard of it. "From a Late Night High Rise" by Matthew Ryan.