Interesting take on America by a Brit

[aiki14]

From The Guardian London, and www.monbiot.com. I am biased against religion and right wing politics, and I am the liberal elite personified, so it may be more interesting to me than you.

George Monbiot monbiot.com

THE GUARDIAN Tuesday October 28 2008


How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated
by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has
permitted mankind's closest living relative to spend two terms as president? How did
Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they
are? How could Republican rallies in 2008 be drowned out by screaming
ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama was a Muslim and a terrorist?

Like most people on my side of the Atlantic, I have for many years been
mystified by American politics. The US has the world's best universities and
attracts the world's finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine.
Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely
among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning
is a grave political disadvantage.

There have been exceptions over the past century - Franklin Roosevelt, JF
Kennedy and Bill Clinton tempered their intellectualism with the common touch and
survived - but Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore and John Kerry were successfully
tarred by their opponents as members of a cerebral elite (as if this were not a
qualification for the presidency). Perhaps the defining moment in the collapse
of intelligent politics was Ronald Reagan's response to Jimmy Carter during the
1980 presidential debate. Carter - stumbling a little, using long words -
carefully enumerated the benefits of national health insurance. Reagan smiled and
said: “There you go again.” His own health programme would have appalled
most Americans, had he explained it as carefully as Carter had done, but he had
found a formula for avoiding tough political issues and making his opponents
look like wonks.

It wasn't always like this. The founding fathers of the republic - Benjamin
Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and
others - were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to
make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W
Bush and Sarah Palin?

On one level, this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by
ignorant people. USeducation, like the US health system, is notorious for its
failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the
sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by
means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on
a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government;
the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29
countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US
citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence? Susan Jacoby's book
The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so
far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of
interlocking tragedies.

One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist
religion - makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which
Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing.

Jacoby shows that there was once a certain logic to its anti-rationalism.
During the first few decades after the publication of The Origin of Species, for
instance, Americans had good reason to reject the theory of natural selection
and to treat public intellectuals with suspicion. From the beginning, Darwin's
theory was mixed up in the US with the brutal philosophy - now known as
social Darwinism - of the British writer Herbert Spencer. Spencer's doctrine,
promoted in the popular press with the help of funding from Andrew Carnegie, John D
Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, suggested that millionaires stood at the top
of a scala natura established by evolution. By preventing unfit people being
weeded out, government intervention weakened the nation. Gross economic
inequalities were both justifiable and necessary.

Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable from the most bestial
form of laissez-faire economics. Many Christians responded with revulsion. It is
profoundly ironic that the doctrine rejected a century ago by such prominent
fundamentalists as William Jennings Bryan is now central to the economic
thinking of the Christian right. Modern fundamentalists reject the science of
Darwinian evolution and accept the pseudoscience of social Darwinism.

But there were other, more powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation
of the fundamentalists. The US is peculiar in devolving the control of
education to local authorities. Teaching in the Southern states was dominated by the
views of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf
opened up. “In the south”, Jacoby writes, “what can only be described as an
intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might
threaten the social order.”

The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest denomination in the US, was
to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in
South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the south stupid.
In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a system of
private Christian schools and universities. A student can now progress from
kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching.
Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A
survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of
the state's state school biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived
on earth at the same time.

This tragedy has been assisted by the American fetishisation of
self-education. Though he greatly regretted his lack of formal teaching, Abraham Lincoln's
career is repeatedly cited as evidence that good education, provided by the
state, is unnecessary: all that is required to succeed is determination and
rugged individualism. This might have served people well when genuine
self-education movements, like the one built around the Little Blue Books in the first
half of the 20th century, were in vogue. In the age of infotainment, it is a
recipe for confusion.

Besides fundamentalist religion, perhaps the most potent reason intellectuals
struggle in elections is that intellectualism has been equated with
subversion. The brief flirtation of some thinkers with Communism a long time ago has
been used to create an impression in the public mind that all intellectuals are
Communists. Almost every day men such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly rage
against the “liberal elites” destroying America.

The spectre of pointy-headed alien subversives was crucial to the election of
Reagan and Bush. A genuine intellectual elite - like the neocons (some of
them former Communists) surrounding Bush - has managed to pitch the political
conflict as a battle between ordinary Americans and an over-educated pinko
establishment. Any attempt to challenge the ideas of the rightwing elite has been
successfully branded as elitism.

Obama has a lot to offer the US, but none of this will stop if he wins. Until
the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious
fundamentalism withers, there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush
and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance.

[John Law]

While I agree that the anti-intellectualism in this country is astonishing, the fact that you and this author lay it at the door of religion is completely ridiculous. You might look into how some of those ivy league schools got started and for what purpose. To a liberal, belief in liberalism and its world view is a measure of intelligence. If someone doesn't believe in evolution or national health care, they must be ignorant trailer dwellers.

Religion is like the Democrat party, it appeals to people with doctorates in universities, and it also appeals to the guy on the street with a sign asking for food.

The author dresses down the ignorance he sees in this country while attempting to replace it with ignorance of his own.

[NHLfan98]

"Obama has a lot to offer the US, but none of this will stop if he wins. Until
the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious
fundamentalism withers, there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush
and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance."

Uh, like what? Typical generality about Obama that is supported by nothing factual. Similiar to the word "change" that was thrown about for the last year. Not telling anyone what he would specifically change, but that he would bring change. In the most basic essence of the word, perhaps, but in my opinion it was the mass under-educated that got him elected as many of those who want the government to give them something or just loved him "because" voted for him. I'd say ignorance is voting for somebody but having no logical rationale behind it.

But he plays such a lovely flute.

[concrete]

Don't forget that the average American's level of global knowledge is poor. (geography, history, politics, economics, etc). Most Americans think we rank #1 globally in personal freedom, economic freedom, freedom of press, government transparency, health care, education, etc ...when this is in fact far from true.
Many Americans believe in supernatural things such as prayer and faith's ability to suspend the laws of science and economics. These types of beliefs are in the minority in other developed countries, but are a majority in the US. This fact may hurt the ability of the US to compete economically in the new era of globalization. Also, faith tends to help you believe that God is always on your side. This is dangerous when your country spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined. There's the other fact that many Americans believe in a supernatural end of the world at some point in the future based on Christianity's teachings (Judgment Day, Second Coming, etc.). It is very difficult to lay out long term policies to sustain our civilization and protect the environment if much of the population thinks the world is going to end anyway. Also, many Americans do not believe in evolution. This rejection of mainstream science leaves me wondering what other sciences are being rejected because it conflicts with religious beliefs. How can we use science to help sustain our civilization and environment when so many Americans regularly suspend logic and reason?

[John Law]

Don't forget that the average American's level of global knowledge is poor. (geography, history, politics, economics, etc). Most Americans think we rank #1 globally in personal freedom, economic freedom, freedom of press, government transparency, health care, education, etc ...when this is in fact far from true.
Many Americans believe in supernatural things such as prayer and faith's ability to suspend the laws of science and economics. These types of beliefs are in the minority in other developed countries, but are a majority in the US. This fact may hurt the ability of the US to compete economically in the new era of globalization. Also, faith tends to help you believe that God is always on your side. This is dangerous when your country spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined. There's the other fact that many Americans believe in a supernatural end of the world at some point in the future based on Christianity's teachings (Judgment Day, Second Coming, etc.). It is very difficult to lay out long term policies to sustain our civilization and protect the environment if much of the population thinks the world is going to end anyway. Also, many Americans do not believe in evolution. This rejection of mainstream science leaves me wondering what other sciences are being rejected because it conflicts with religious beliefs. How can we use science to help sustain our civilization and environment when so many Americans regularly suspend logic and reason?

A belief in God and His endowment of man with certain inalienable rights is central to this country and its sacred documents. To say that this belief defies reason and logic is to be completely ignorant of the history and scope of reason and logic. The founders were not only believers in God and in Creation, but they used it as the impetus for starting this country and for fighting in a revolution to free men from tyranny. In evolution, there is no such impetus, there is only 'survival of the fittest'. If we actually based our laws on the 'reason' and 'logic' of evolution, only the strong would have rights, and the weak would be their prey.

Sir Isaac Newton, whose discoveries are foundational to modern science, was a deep and committed Christian who studied the Bible and theology more than he did physics. How can anyone who has studied the history of science think that it is owned by evolutionists? They can't even demonstrate their own theory, much less control the 'reason and logic' sphere. Judeo-Christianity has been around for several millennia and will still be around when evolution has been dismissed in every corner as it is in so many corners today. It is the anachronistic product of the modernists in a post-modern world, a vain attempt to replace God as originator of the Universe.

[concrete]

A belief in God and His endowment of man with certain inalienable rights is central to this country and its sacred documents. To say that this belief defies reason and logic is to be completely ignorant of the history and scope of reason and logic. The founders were not only believers in God and in Creation, but they used it as the impetus for starting this country and for fighting in a revolution to free men from tyranny. In evolution, there is no such impetus, there is only 'survival of the fittest'. If we actually based our laws on the 'reason' and 'logic' of evolution, only the strong would have rights, and the weak would be their prey.

Sir Isaac Newton, whose discoveries are foundational to modern science, was a deep and committed Christian who studied the Bible and theology more than he did physics. How can anyone who has studied the history of science think that it is owned by evolutionists? They can't even demonstrate their own theory, much less control the 'reason and logic' sphere. Judeo-Christianity has been around for several millennia and will still be around when evolution has been dismissed in every corner as it is in so many corners today. It is the anachronistic product of the modernists in a post-modern world, a vain attempt to replace God as originator of the Universe.

It’s unfortunate mankind has to pay such a high price for what a few hold as sacred documents, flags, nationalism etc. These beliefs lead to nothing but separation and division…and war. Of what value is a sacred thing if you must kill others to reinforce your belief?
The question for me is whether truth is in flux or static. Those who hold that truth is static seem entrenched in nationalism and religion and believe they are right and anyone who doesn’t agree with them are wrong -- and they’re willing to kill over these static truths. I find truth to be in flux. It is something you search for and when you find it, it becomes an old thing, dead, and you throw it away and look again. Yes, there are the static, technological truths that we can’t get through a day without. Where are my car keys, how do I get to the store and back, how do I back up my hard drive etc.. But these truths don’t separate and divide us - the static psychological truths do divide. Our minds are like calculators -- always adding and subtracting, judging, we need more of this and less of that, this is good and that is bad, I’m right and they are wrong. It is always trying to reach conclusions and create false permanence in a impermanent world. People walk around loaded with all the psychological "permanent" conclusions and become dead things, like the psychological conclusions they are filled with.
This world could use less division and more unity. How do we get there when so many of us are separating ourselves from others via sacred documents, flags and nationalism?

[Survivor]

Executioners are Murderers

[John Law]

It’s unfortunate mankind has to pay such a high price for what a few hold as sacred documents, flags, nationalism etc. These beliefs lead to nothing but separation and division…and war. Of what value is a sacred thing if you must kill others to reinforce your belief?
The question for me is whether truth is in flux or static. Those who hold that truth is static seem entrenched in nationalism and religion and believe they are right and anyone who doesn’t agree with them are wrong -- and they’re willing to kill over these static truths. I find truth to be in flux. It is something you search for and when you find it, it becomes an old thing, dead, and you throw it away and look again. Yes, there are the static, technological truths that we can’t get through a day without. Where are my car keys, how do I get to the store and back, how do I back up my hard drive etc.. But these truths don’t separate and divide us - the static psychological truths do divide. Our minds are like calculators -- always adding and subtracting, judging, we need more of this and less of that, this is good and that is bad, I’m right and they are wrong. It is always trying to reach conclusions and create false permanence in a impermanent world. People walk around loaded with all the psychological "permanent" conclusions and become dead things, like the psychological conclusions they are filled with.
This world could use less division and more unity. How do we get there when so many of us are separating ourselves from others via sacred documents, flags and nationalism?

People have been killing each other to reinforce their beliefs since the dawn of man, and this will not change just because a few liberals decide that truth is no longer truth (flying in the face of thousands of years of philosophy and theology). But don't take my word for it; we have this cultural and philisophical experiment going on right now in Europe. The Europeans took it upon themselves to stamp out Christianity and Nationalism in favor of liberal hedonism and relativism, only to find that the former foundational elements were the only thing warding off Islamic dominance and the stronger ideal of Sharia law. Now it is only a matter of time and birth rates. The liberals of Europe simply don't have the resolve to ward off a strong world view. The irony is that they continue to help in their own demise. The only resolve they have is to eradicate resolve.

A society will never survive without ideals. Man needs to know what his chief end is in order to grapple with the daily obstacles in life. The only question is whose ideals will prevail. My money is on 'all men are created equal and have God-given rights'. I have no interest in these wars over economic interests, but if I have to fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I will do so. I am willing to be the adult in a room full of children. My faith in God has empowered me to embrace that role.

[concrete]

J. Krishnamurti on

The Causes of War

"To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in yourself."

War is the spectacular and bloody projection of our everyday life, is it not? War is merely an outward expression of our inward state, an enlargement of our daily action. It is more spectacular, more bloody, more destructive, but it is the collective result of our individual activities. Therefore, you and I are responsible for war and what can we do to stop it? Obviously the ever-impending war cannot be stopped by you and me, because it is already in movement; it is already taking place, though at present chiefly on the psychological level. As it is already in movement, it cannot be stopped- the issues are too many, too great, and are already committed. But you and I, seeing that the house is on fire, can understand the causes of that fire, can go away from it and build in a new place with different materials that are not combustible, that will not produce other wars. That is all that we can do. You and I can see what creates wars, and if we are interested in stopping wars, then we can begin to transform ourselves, who are the causes of war.

An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago, during the war. She said she had lost her son in Italy and that she had another son aged sixteen whom she wanted to save; so we talked the thing over. I suggested to her that to save her son she had to cease to be an American; she had to cease to be greedy, cease piling up wealth, seeking power, domination, and be morally simple - not merely simple in clothes, in outward things, but simple in her thoughts and feelings, in her relationships. She said, "That is too much. You are asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are too powerful for me to alter." Therefore she was responsible for the destruction of her son.

Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have created the circumstances. Society is the product of relationship, society changes; merely to rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the transformation of outward society, while remaining inwardly corrupt, while continuing inwardly to seek power, position, domination, is to destroy the outward, however carefully and scientifically built. That which is inward is always overcoming the outward.

What causes war - religious, political or economic? Obviously belief, either in nationalism, in an ideology, or in a particular dogma. If we had no belief but goodwill, love and consideration between us, then there would be no wars. But we are fed on beliefs, ideas and dogmas and therefore we breed discontent. The present crisis is of an exceptional nature and we as human beings must either pursue the path of constant conflict and continuous wars, which are the result of our everyday action, or else see the causes of war and turn our back upon them.

Obviously what causes war is the desire for power, position, prestige, money; also the disease called nationalism, the worship of a flag; and the disease of organized religion, the worship of a dogma. All these are the causes of war; if you as an individual belong to any of the organized religions, if you are greedy for power, if you are envious, you are bound to produce a society which will result in destruction. So again it depends upon you and not on the leaders - not on so-called statesmen and all the rest of them. It depends upon you and me but we do not seem to realize that. If once we really felt the responsibility of our own actions, how quickly we could bring to an end all these wars, this appalling misery! But you see, we are indifferent. We have three meals a day, we have our jobs, we have our bank account, big or little, and we say, "For God's sake, don't disturb us, leave us alone". The higher up we are, the more we want security, permanency, tranquility, the more we want to be left alone, to maintain things fixed as they are; but they cannot be maintained as they are, because there is nothing to maintain. Everything is disintegrating. We do not want to face these things, we do not want to face the fact that you and I are responsible for wars.

You and I may talk about peace, have conferences, sit round a table and discuss, but inwardly, psychologically, we want power, position, we are bound by beliefs, by dogmas, for which we are willing to die and destroy each other. Do you think such men, you and I, can have peace in the world? To have peace, we must be peaceful; to live peacefully means not to create antagonism.

Peace is not an ideal. To me, an ideal is merely an escape, an avoidance of what is, a contradiction of what is. An ideal prevents direct action upon what is - which we will go into presently, in another talk. But to have peace, we will have to love, we will have to begin, not to live an ideal life, but to see things as they are and act upon them, transform them. As long as each one of us is seeking psychological security, the physiological security we need - food, clothing and shelter - is destroyed. We are seeking psychological security, which does not exist; and we seek it, if we can, through power, through position, through titles, names - all of which is destroying physical security. This is an obvious fact, if you look at it.

To bring about peace in the world, to stop all wars, there must be a revolution in the individual, in you and me. Economic revolution without this inward revolution is meaningless, for hunger is the result of the maladjustment of economic conditions produced by our psychological states - greed, envy, ill-will and possessiveness.

To put an end to sorrow, to hunger, to war, there must be a psychological revolution and few of us are willing to face that. We will discuss peace, plan legislation, create new leagues, the United Nations and so on and on; but we will not win peace because we will not give up our position, our authority, our money, our properties, our stupid lives. To rely on others is utterly futile; others cannot bring us peace. No leader is going to give us peace, no government, no army, no country. What will bring peace is inward transformation which will lead to outward action.

Inward transformation is not isolation, is not a withdrawal from outward action. On the contrary, there can be right action only when there is right thinking and there is no right thinking when there is no self-knowledge. Without knowing yourself, there is no peace.

To put an end to outward war, you must begin to put an end to war in yourself. Some of you will nod your heads and say, " I agree", and go outside and do exactly the same as you have been doing for the last ten or twenty years. Your agreement is merely verbal and has no significance, for the world miseries and wars are not going to be stopped by your casual assent. They will be stopped only when you realize the danger, when you realize your responsibility, when you do not leave it to somebody else. If you realize the suffering, if you see the urgency of immediate action and do not postpone, then you will transform yourself; peace will come only when you yourself are peaceful, when you yourself are at peace with your neighbour.”

[John Law]

So...when we all throw off what we know to be true and become wishy-washy imbeciles, there will be peace in our time. Wait...hasn't this been tried before? Neville Chamberlain, is that you? Wait...didn't John Lennon say something very like this.....right before somebody plugged him? Where is he now, do you suppose?

I totally embrace a simple and modest lifestyle where I raise my kids and help my neighbor and never fight in wars and prepare for eternity. My Christianity uniquely prepares me for this lifestyle. Jesus said, "The meek will inherit the Earth". Paul told us to, "Live a simple and quiet life." Part of the problem with anti-religious bigots is that they are uneducated as to what religion actually teaches. I might say that this is also a problem with those who purport to espouse religion but who are actually completely against its tenets. I have very little use for either faction.

The answer to the problem "conflicting ideas lead to strife' is not answered by 'rid yourself of all ideas'.

[concrete]

The only true religion is to know one's self. Folks that practice most religions place their faith in an abstract structure or a series of moral codes, based on a set of tenants. They are usually reinforced with stories and fables and a history that interweaves secular and religious events together to provide a net of reinforcement.

In Christianity folks believe that belief in God will insure that you go to an afterlife. They also believe that Jesus is the son of God. Judaism, from which Christianity sprang and from which Jesus was a follower do not believe in an afterlife or that Jesus is the son of God. So, what is considered a Truth in Christianity and based on the faith that the words of the Bible are in direct contradiction of the base religion from which Christianity was founded. So those "truths" are only based on FAITH, not proofed information or even historical support.

Allow me to answer my own question. "Faith in what?" Faith in the truth. A truth so absolute it is beyond perception, beyond empirical evidence, beyond reality, and most especially, beyond contestation.

There is no reality, there is only perception, and the unshakable faith of diseased minds.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg85/concretisttexas/republican_jesus2.jpg

[John Law]

Your description of the roots of Christianity is ironic, mostly because the Christian New Testament bases its belief system wholly on Old Testament (TaNaK) texts. When you say that there is no historical precedence for belief in the afterlife among jews, you betray your confident ignorance. I encourage you to study the Hasidim of the Hasmonean period, read up on the Essenes, and the Pharisees. All of these groups believed in an afterlife, it was only the priestly caste, the Sadducees, who did not.

I am sensing a theme here with the anti-religion crowd, and that is that you like to oversimplify issues and set up Christian straw men. Do you honestly believe that for thousands of years people have been following a God with no proof of His existance and no rationale? You seem to think that all Christians are uneducated and ignorant, but it is obvious to me that I have studied philosophy, history, and religion far more than you have, and I am just a nobody in the scheme of things. I think it would behoove you to read up on some of this stuff before commenting on it in this haphazard manner. I am not idly speculating about God. I know that He exists, and have more proof than I have that you exist, having had far more interaction with Him.

[aiki14]

Your description of the roots of Christianity is ironic, mostly because the Christian New Testament bases its belief system wholly on Old Testament (TaNaK) texts. When you say that there is no historical precedence for belief in the afterlife among jews, you betray your confident ignorance. I encourage you to study the Hasidim of the Hasmonean period, read up on the Essenes, and the Pharisees. All of these groups believed in an afterlife, it was only the priestly caste, the Sadducees, who did not.

I am sensing a theme here with the anti-religion crowd, and that is that you like to oversimplify issues and set up Christian straw men. Do you honestly believe that for thousands of years people have been following a God with no proof of His existance and no rationale? You seem to think that all Christians are uneducated and ignorant, but it is obvious to me that I have studied philosophy, history, and religion far more than you have, and I am just a nobody in the scheme of things. I think it would behoove you to read up on some of this stuff before commenting on it in this haphazard manner. I am not idly speculating about God. I know that He exists, and have more proof than I have that you exist, having had far more interaction with Him.

I honestly believe that for thousands of years people have been following a god or gods, with no proof of his or their existence and with a faulty rationale. I believe religion is and has always been a way for a few to control the many. You are in fact speculating about God, perhaps more than idly, but speculating none the less. If you have had more interaction with him than with the poster you're responding to, such as conversations written or spoken, you have left faith for psychoses.
Atheists are content in the realization that this life is all we get, and that's ok, but it is sort of nice to think there is some afterlife and some heavenly benefactor to oversee it. Your ego makes it hard to think that someday there will be no you, and like many before you, you cling to a philosophy that puts forth that proposition.
While you seem intelligent and well read, you still cannot show empirical proof of a Christian God any more than you can prove or disprove the Gods of the Greeks or Romans. The tenets of your own religion have been repeatedly "updated" due to scientific fact as it becomes impossible to reconcile the sacred texts and reality, even if only after tortuous attempts at such reconciliation, and actual torture of the enlightened (i.e. Giordano Bruno).
I guess I am an anti religious bigot to you, but my bigotry will never subject a person to the rack, or prevent the advance of science, or deprive anybody of their right to love anyone they choose, or subjugate anyone to my will. Unfortunately your need to justify and validate your beliefs causes you to proselytize and infringe upon my and other non believers beliefs or lack thereof everyday.

[John Law]

I honestly believe that for thousands of years people have been following a god or gods, with no proof of his or their existence and with a faulty rationale. I believe religion is and has always been a way for a few to control the many. You are in fact speculating about God, perhaps more than idly, but speculating none the less. If you have had more interaction with him than with the poster you're responding to, such as conversations written or spoken, you have left faith for psychoses.
Atheists are content in the realization that this life is all we get, and that's ok, but it is sort of nice to think there is some afterlife and some heavenly benefactor to oversee it. Your ego makes it hard to think that someday there will be no you, and like many before you, you cling to a philosophy that puts forth that proposition.
While you seem intelligent and well read, you still cannot show empirical proof of a Christian God any more than you can prove or disprove the Gods of the Greeks or Romans. The tenets of your own religion have been repeatedly "updated" due to scientific fact as it becomes impossible to reconcile the sacred texts and reality, even if only after tortuous attempts at such reconciliation, and actual torture of the enlightened (i.e. Giordano Bruno).
I guess I am an anti religious bigot to you, but my bigotry will never subject a person to the rack, or prevent the advance of science, or deprive anybody of their right to love anyone they choose, or subjugate anyone to my will. Unfortunately your need to justify and validate your beliefs causes you to proselytize and infringe upon my and other non believers beliefs or lack thereof everyday.

In an anti-religious thread not started by me, it would be difficult for me to be considered the proselyte. That role is already being filled by....you. My role here is as advocate for the other point of view, which I assume you were soliciting on some level.

It is difficult not to dismiss your entire post as anti-religious rot. You seem hell-bent (no pun intended) on lumping me and my beliefs in with a bunch of ignorant power-hungry Catholics from the Middle ages, despite my repeated explanations to you that I do not hail from that tradition. My beliefs and the Catholics parted ways around the 2nd Century. The Reformation brought my beliefs back to life and you and I both owe much of our current civilization to the Reformers. To the Anabaptists, we owe the separation of Church and State, and to the Puritans we owe the enabling of the common man to pursue intellectual achievement, including science. Without these philisophical pioneers, we would still be ignorant serfs under English rule.

"The tenets of your own religion have been repeatedly "updated" due to scientific fact as it becomes impossible to reconcile the sacred texts and reality, even if only after tortuous attempts at such reconciliation, and actual torture of the enlightened (i.e. Giordano Bruno). "

Do you not see the obvious problem with this argument, particularly coming from an atheist/materialist? My beliefs are formulated from a text that was written thousands of years ago. You are the one who has to read the scientific papers every week to see what you believe. In Christian thought, it makes very little difference whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice-versa, it is just discovery of the way God made things. The Bible doesn't take a position on that issue, it was the Catholic logicians who got that wrong.

Every time you wax on about how many people my beliefs are killing, I think of the Christians who were slaughtered by Chairman Mao. If you can find an example of the Anabaptists slaughtering atheists by the thousands, then I guess we will be even. Until then, you may want to re-think that rhetorical strategy.

All over the world and throughout thousands of years of man's history, there has been an understanding of the spiritual world. Great and learned men, men who formed our current society, from Socrates and Aristotle to Thomas Jefferson have based their belief system, and even staked their lives on the existence of God (or gods). Now, suddenly, a few atheists are going to accuse billions of Theists of having a psychosis. And you say that I'm the one with the ego. Wow.

[concrete]

All hail the Lord.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg85/concretisttexas/jack1.jpg

[concrete]

Interesting map lay over:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg85/concretisttexas/slave.jpg

The map is the 2008 electoral votes. The black dots is a layover of another map that shows slaveholding in 1860.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/330-from-pickin-cotton-to-pickin-presidents/

I thought this map was interesting as well.

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg85/concretisttexas/fattest-states-2008-big-1.gif

[steve666123]

A belief in God and His endowment of man with certain inalienable rights is central to this country and its sacred documents. To say that this belief defies reason and logic is to be completely ignorant of the history and scope of reason and logic. The founders were not only believers in God and in Creation, but they used it as the impetus for starting this country and for fighting in a revolution to free men from tyranny. In evolution, there is no such impetus, there is only 'survival of the fittest'. If we actually based our laws on the 'reason' and 'logic' of evolution, only the strong would have rights, and the weak would be their prey.

Sir Isaac Newton, whose discoveries are foundational to modern science, was a deep and committed Christian who studied the Bible and theology more than he did physics. How can anyone who has studied the history of science think that it is owned by evolutionists? They can't even demonstrate their own theory, much less control the 'reason and logic' sphere. Judeo-Christianity has been around for several millennia and will still be around when evolution has been dismissed in every corner as it is in so many corners today. It is the anachronistic product of the modernists in a post-modern world, a vain attempt to replace God as originator of the Universe.
:dong: