Rangerland Forum Information

[leedsy99]

Is this a bad time to talk about the brilliant idea I had about a month ago that I shared with my family: a t-shirt clothing line specifically targeted to those that are mentally handicapped and/or have Downs Syndrome. I argued that it's not offensive because it doesn't draw attention to anything other than the obvious and makes them part of the joke rather than the butt of it. Would it really be that offensive to see someone mentally handicapped, who happen to be the happiest people on the planet, wearing a shirt that says "Don't blame me, I'm retarded"? OK, so maybe it's offensive. Anyway, the star of my fashion line was going to be a "Palin 2012" tee, which would have been awesome on every single level known to man.

Personally I think that Palin is being an oversensitive grouch in world that is generally cruel to most celebrities anyway. I imagine that if you poll parents that have children with mental handicaps, the lowest thing on their list of how not to treat their child has to do with what you call them. How about cutting off their funding for education and care, Mrs. Palin? How about denying them civil rights? How about zoning laws that restrict where they can live? Maybe you should get on board with these larger POLITICAL issues that actually have an effect on these children's lives, rather than getting your panties in a bunch over use of a word that, in all honesty, they probably don't understand what it means anyway.

This post has been edited by leedsy99: Feb 18 2010, 04:57 PM

[Mike B.]

Anyway, the star of my fashion line was going to be a "Palin 2012" tee, which would have been awesome on every single level known to man.

I just had to close my office door, because the image of Corky wearing this shirt was a little too much to handle.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

meh

This post has been edited by SorryaboutthatWhoa: Feb 18 2010, 05:24 PM

[Sed]

Kind of a tangent here, but the television show The Secret Life of the American Teenager (if you're not watching this, you're missing hilariously bad television) succeeded in accomplishing a feat that I imagined impossible: creating an entirely unsympathetic character with Down Syndrome. Seriously - Tom is the first (and only) Down Syndrome douchebag that I've ever seen.

[Beamer]

Kind of a tangent here, but the television show The Secret Life of the American Teenager (if you're not watching this, you're missing hilariously bad television) succeeded in accomplishing a feat that I imagined impossible: creating an entirely unsympathetic character with Down Syndrome. Seriously - Tom is the first (and only) Down Syndrome douchebag that I've ever seen.

Saw a clip of that on The Soup where he was trolling for phone sex.
I almost died laughing in disbelief.

[Pymonte]

She did what any other lame politician would have done, defend the core. I mean, did you see any Democrats criticize the Daily Kos for the vulgar crap they posted, yet they still attended their conference? No. They are politicians. They are sleezebags. They rather take side with their core and keep their support than criticize it.

Palin was foolish and should learn to shut up more. Still, you have political commentators both left and right taking cheap, distasteful shots at the two parties. Why even bother asking a former politician what she thought about what some extremeist commentator said? It's like if Kucinich complains about what Rush said, and i ask him "what did you think about Olbermann's unprofessional comments on Scott Brown?"

It's a never ending tennis game.

What i did not like is that Colbert has a certain class and he totally lost that. If you build that kind of repuation that attracts people, why damage it? I just didn't like what he did.

Wow. Again, agreed. Are you... becoming a centrist?

[Hockey101]

Wow. Again, agreed. Are you... becoming a centrist?

Hehe........naaaa, i am more centrist than you think. I attack the left more and support the right more, but i hammer the far left and the far right as well, such as Rush. Here's the test, though. If such discussions surface again in some months or so, then will these posts of mine be remembered or forgotten?

Hey, it may be you guys are just becoming old farts with worsening memory!

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

So...uh...

Turns out the actress from the now famous episode of Family Guy, where Chris dated a girl with down syndrome and then made the Palin joke, well turns out she has down syndrome herself...

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/...no_interstitial

saaaaaaa-nort

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

So...uh...

Turns out the actress from the now famous episode of Family Guy, where Chris dated a girl with down syndrome and then made the Palin joke, well turns out she has down syndrome herself...

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/...no_interstitial

saaaaaaa-nort

In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life.

[Nilan 666]

I can imagine Palin getting mad and saying, "What does that fucking retard know anyway?" Then again I'm a horrible person.

[Hockey101]

So...uh...

Turns out the actress from the now famous episode of Family Guy, where Chris dated a girl with down syndrome and then made the Palin joke, well turns out she has down syndrome herself...

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/...no_interstitial

saaaaaaa-nort

She totally missed the point. It was a directed offense........it was mocking, a specific kid with down syndrome, and the kid's family. There's nothing funny about that.

[Pymonte]

She totally missed the point. It was a directed offense........it was mocking, a specific kid with down syndrome, and the kid's family. There's nothing funny about that.

Actually, it wasn't.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/

There's a video with Seth McFarlane explaining the joke on the front page.

[Ebase]

Hehe........naaaa, i am more centrist than you think. I attack the left more and support the right more, but i hammer the far left and the far right as well, such as Rush. Here's the test, though. If such discussions surface again in some months or so, then will these posts of mine be remembered or forgotten?

Hey, it may be you guys are just becoming old farts with worsening memory!

That depends on you...


Palin is so full of selective outrage and never saw an opportunity to rally the blanket of the right around her that she didn't like.

If politicians are transparent she is the most crystal clear around. The face of modern politics in the US. A walking cartoon character who's ability to dribble talking points and some hokey slogans makes middle America drool on themselves. If this is where we are then honestly and she were to become President, I would leave the US for it is finished.

Disagree with Obama as you may, he has a vision and the intellect to work it. I don't think anyone can doubt his intellectual aptitude policy aside. And that is something that the left in this country values highly. Many of the modern right value religion and talking points above all other things. They need a "war on terror" and other simplistic summations to complicated problems. This is why they rallied so vehemently behind W. Bush.

In my mind, NONE of these people and I couldn't put enough emphasis on it: NONE of these people must ever be allowed to run this country ever again. There ideologues are dangerous, foolhardy, and motivated by something not based in sound judgement.

[SpanishJack]

Disagree with Obama as you may, he has a vision and the intellect to work it. I don't think anyone can doubt his intellectual aptitude policy aside. And that is something that the left in this country values highly. Many of the modern right value religion and talking points above all other things. They need a "war on terror" and other simplistic summations to complicated problems. This is why they rallied so vehemently behind W. Bush.

I am not suggesting he is dumb, but please specify what do you mean by "his intellectual aptitude"? What measurements are you using? Do you meant smart? Because he has a law degree? Is it because he is a graduate from prestigeous educational institutions like Columbia and Harvard? And while you are at it, please point me to his records at Columbia and Harvard. Or is it because he was great community activist? An acitivity that allowed him to be elected to public office. Or what is because he was a law professor. Please expand on your comment.

And as for what the left values, it has been my experience left leaning politicians resort to class warfare arguments along the lines of: look, you are poor and how dare the person next to you is rich. For the longest, the left has attempted to eradicate poor standard of living. They have identified every possible social program and thrown the weight of countries' treasury behind it, yet we still have poor people around the globe. When you get a chance, please visit the slums of Caraca, Venezuela who under Hugo Chavez have not raised their standard of living in one bit. Or maybe when American Airlines starts flying to Cuba in near future, you would get the chance to see how Fidel's regime has helped the Cuban population.

Mr. Obama enjoyed something no other president enjoyed before. That is, a filibuster proof super majority in the senate and a super majority in the House. Yet, he and people from his administration still blame the Republicans for their inability to pass legislations like health care or cap and trade. The Republicans could have call in sick and Dems had enough votes to pass everything. Let me repeat that again, President Obama had the numbers in Congress to use all his intellect and pass everything he promised during '08. Instead of dissecting every move that Sarah Palin makes or stupidities that come out of her mouth, the Dems should look at themselves in the mirror and take responsibility for their inaction with important issues like Medicaid/Medicare or some of their ill advised policies like continuing to prop up Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

[Andy from the LE...]

And as for what the left values, it has been my experience left leaning politicians resort to class warfare arguments along the lines of: look, you are poor and how dare the person next to you is rich.

You don't honestly believe this, do you? Good grief.

[Pymonte]

You don't honestly believe this, do you? Good grief.

Thank you.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Guys cmon, I'm a dude who leans to the left and even i think you're being unfair now.

ebase greatly generalizes the right by saying this

Many of the modern right value religion and talking points above all other things. They need a "war on terror" and other simplistic summations to complicated problems. This is why they rallied so vehemently behind W. Bush.

and spanish jack responds with his own generalization on the left, and then he gets jumped on for straw man arguments? Which again, I'm not even sure why because he was directly responding to ebase's post.

I've known for a long time that this board was mostly on the left side of things, but it's kind of gotten to the point of people being guilty of doing exactly what they accuse 101 of doing on almost a daily basis, which is being completely refusing to listen to another opinion that is different from your own.

Let's be fair here, you can't throw around rash generalizations, and then jump down the other sides throat when they respond with their own.

[Sed]

Let's be fair here, you can't throw around rash generalizations, and then jump down the other sides throat when they respond with their own.

Right - let's not act like a bunch of fucking dirty Canadians!

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Right - let's not act like a bunch of fucking dirty Canadians!

You are joking here right? You do know that I do not actually feel that way?

[xcdudesquadloves...]

You are joking here right? You do know that I do not actually feel that way?

Dude its Sed c'mon...

[Nilan 666]

*throws SATW a ladder to get out of the sarchasm he fell into*

[ThunderDawg]

Mr. Obama enjoyed something no other president enjoyed before. That is, a filibuster proof super majority in the senate and a super majority in the House. Yet, he and people from his administration still blame the Republicans for their inability to pass legislations like health care or cap and trade. The Republicans could have call in sick and Dems had enough votes to pass everything. Let me repeat that again, President Obama had the numbers in Congress to use all his intellect and pass everything he promised during '08. Instead of dissecting every move that Sarah Palin makes or stupidities that come out of her mouth, the Dems should look at themselves in the mirror and take responsibility for their inaction with important issues like Medicaid/Medicare or some of their ill advised policies like continuing to prop up Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

There were really only 58 senators and two Independents. Independents aren't really DEMs, they just usually caucus with them, and one of those Independents is a turncoat. So they never really had a Super-Majority. Plus, Minnesota had only one senator until July 7. Then, the senior senator from Massachusetts vacated his seat on August 25, so there were only 58 DEMs for seven weeks. Two simultaneous vacancies are required to lower the super-majority number to 59.

Last year, the Senate did however, invoke a record number of Cloture votes, far surpassing any other single year in history. This was in response to a record number of filibusters (surpassing 100 for the first time), primarily because Republicans are unwilling to do anything in a bi-partisan manner, no matter how far across the table Obama reaches. He has bent over backwards, far more than I would approve, trying to get just one fucking Repug legislator to say "yes". But they don't know the meaning of the word.

You're just looking at a few of the things they didn't accomplish. What were you hoping they did regarding Medicaid/Medicare? And wasn't propping up Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac done in the prior administration?

[Ebase]

Guys cmon, I'm a dude who leans to the left and even i think you're being unfair now.

ebase greatly generalizes the right by saying this

and spanish jack responds with his own generalization on the left, and then he gets jumped on for straw man arguments? Which again, I'm not even sure why because he was directly responding to ebase's post.

I've known for a long time that this board was mostly on the left side of things, but it's kind of gotten to the point of people being guilty of doing exactly what they accuse 101 of doing on almost a daily basis, which is being completely refusing to listen to another opinion that is different from your own.

Let's be fair here, you can't throw around rash generalizations, and then jump down the other sides throat when they respond with their own.

...and so when I say many I mean all??? That sounds like poor comprehension. Its easy to generalize but I am not naive to broad-brush an entire demographic. But I think it is a fair assessment to pile back thru the Right-Wing pundits and more often than not, they are spot on talking point.

There is a Republican mantra out there. It is simplistic, succinct and razor focused. Talking points that resonate with their followers. God, guns, guts. And while I am generalizing, perhaps the beauty of the Republican mantra is its simplicity. By contrast, the Democrats are a far more dynamic party and because of that more wide arching dynamic, party in-fighting makes them more impotent. There is just like it or not, some truth in saying that the talking points culture of the right resonates with their demographic. And it is not a stretch to state that the Democrats have a more dynamic and far less unified message.

Lets be clear. have you listened to TBN or 700 Club or any of the other "news" outlets lately??? The right likes talking points. Watch an episode of Sean Hannity and just count the number of times he will refer to the party of strong national defense, and the party of fiscal responsibility.

Talking points...

Now, if you listen to ANY speech, or interview in the last 4 months from Palin and you would hear the same points. Absolutely no substance, talking points...

Yet no matter how many times she does it, they cannot get enough of her.

I'll stand by my criticism and hold out hope that people can read before they react.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

Now, if you listen to ANY speech, or interview in the last 4 months from Palin and you would hear the same points. Absolutely no substance, talking points...

Yet no matter how many times she does it, they cannot get enough of her.

I'll stand by my criticism and hold out hope that people can read before they react.

we are not in disagreement about palin...

[Pymonte]

Let's be fair here, you can't throw around rash generalizations, and then jump down the other sides throat when they respond with their own.

What rash generalizations were either Andy or I throwing out?

One of the things that makes discourse on this board so rewarding for me is that nobody will hesitate to point out a logical fallacy or a factually flawed argument, no matter what it's in response to. Jack's quote about the class arguments was a prime example of what we, as a community, have historically called each other on. We all can, and have slung mud, but we're all better than that most of the time. If Jack can elaborate on his point about democratic politicians attacking the rich, then Andy's statement was a chance to challenge him to do so.

[Hockey101]

Ebase, that was a bad comment you made on people on the right. We need a war on terror?

Palin is a puppet. Yes, she pretty much repeats what Sean Hannity says. That's the core base of the socially conservative right. Much like the left has these silly get togethers like the Yearly Kos, from the Daily Kos. A place where they accepted to show photoshopped images of Bush getting fucked by Cheney, or some sort of sexual position. And yet, democrat politicians go to their conference to suck up to them and build a stronger base? It's POLITICS! That's what you do to keep votes. Suck up to voters, rally your nutty core. It's politics. If you attack the other side for doing it, don't defend your side for doing it as well.

And i applaud to what SATW said.

[Ebase]

Ebase, that was a bad comment you made on people on the right. We need a war on terror?

I think you are missing the point. War on Terror is a completely simplistic term to a complicated problem. It is an ideological struggle, not a bumper sticker. It is like a war on drugs. What are we fighting? Are we winning? What is the military objective? Are there any limitations and if so, what are they? We aren't even fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan anymore. And if the front line is no longer Iraq and it is now Pakistan, what do we do about Yemen?

Its bizarre to me how overly simplistic many of the right's view of what is going on in the world is. right/wrong, up/down. They call Obama naive but I think his great downfall is his inability to speak succinctly to a moronic public about these issues. And so I fault Obama for trying to take a more analytical approach to "we're fighting them over there as opposed to fighting them over here." And then we invade Belgium instead of Yemen because we are having a "War on Terror" and if you ain't with us, then your against us.

The right has shown me very little in terms of being able to nuance what really is going on. Everything is canned meat. And this isn't coming from the lowly pundit. Talking Points...

So until the right pundits start looking at the world without broad-brushed terms such as the "War on Terror" I am going to call it as I see it. That type of verbiage is so Orwellian to me.

Palin is a puppet. Yes, she pretty much repeats what Sean Hannity says. That's the core base of the socially conservative right. Much like the left has these silly get togethers like the Yearly Kos, from the Daily Kos. A place where they accepted to show photoshopped images of Bush getting fucked by Cheney, or some sort of sexual position. And yet, democrat politicians go to their conference to suck up to them and build a stronger base? It's POLITICS! That's what you do to keep votes. Suck up to voters, rally your nutty core. It's politics. If you attack the other side for doing it, don't defend your side for doing it as well.

I am not referring to this conference but the big picture. But since you are now comparing the spectrum of the parties I must reiterate that the strength of the GOP has ALWAYS been the ability to rally around a few key points that become the centerpiece of their operation. They are a less diverse group than the Democrats who run a much wider spectrum. In other more politically parliamentary governments the Democrats would really be a splintered bunch of factions held together by a loose coalition. This is why the Democrats are so good at breaking their fists hitting themselves in the nose. SpanishJack eluded to some of that in his diatribe earlier. The Republicans are a far more organized group. Had they enjoyed a super majority and all the numerical advantages that the Dems do, they would have railroaded every single bill of theirs right to the President's desk and signed them into law.

But democratic infighting resulted in bills that were astronomically stupid and incapable of addressing the original issues. They went to back rooms with closed doors and still screwed things up. Now they have the President pinched up and forced to address GOP concerns and allow a numerical insignificant party to play a role in their decision making process. This means yet again the Dems will clutch loss from the jaws of victory. Just the way I see it.

If we are to play stereotypes then the Republicans are a bunch of gun-toting, Shrink government screaming (while never actually doing it), War on Terror howling, anti-government, deregulating, morons who think the whole world should be privatized and have an ass kicking military.

The Democrats are a bunch of intellectual elitists who over think everything, act on nothing, in-fight, blame everybody else, jack asses.

[Sed]

*throws SATW a ladder to get out of the sarchasm he fell into*

Hope the view was nice from down there!

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

What rash generalizations were either Andy or I throwing out?

One of the things that makes discourse on this board so rewarding for me is that nobody will hesitate to point out a logical fallacy or a factually flawed argument, no matter what it's in response to. Jack's quote about the class arguments was a prime example of what we, as a community, have historically called each other on. We all can, and have slung mud, but we're all better than that most of the time. If Jack can elaborate on his point about democratic politicians attacking the rich, then Andy's statement was a chance to challenge him to do so.

I never said you and andy did, i said ebase did. it was said that the right was nothing but guns, religion and slogans. Is that not a generalizationbecause you believe it to be true?

I am not affiliated to a party and lean to the left, but it's getting absurd. The fact that ebase says what he says, and jack responds with his own generalizations and the response is "STRAW MAN STRAW MAN!!!" just says to me, rash generalizations are ok, as long as we agree with them.

[SorryaboutthatWh...]

What rash generalizations were either Andy or I throwing out?

One of the things that makes discourse on this board so rewarding for me is that nobody will hesitate to point out a logical fallacy or a factually flawed argument, no matter what it's in response to. Jack's quote about the class arguments was a prime example of what we, as a community, have historically called each other on. We all can, and have slung mud, but we're all better than that most of the time. If Jack can elaborate on his point about democratic politicians attacking the rich, then Andy's statement was a chance to challenge him to do so.

I never said you and andy did, i said ebase did. it was said that the right was nothing but guns, religion and slogans. Is that not a generalizationbecause you believe it to be true?

I am not affiliated to a party and lean to the left, but it's getting absurd. The fact that ebase says what he says, and jack responds with his own generalizations and the response is "STRAW MAN STRAW MAN!!!" just says to me, rash generalizations are ok, as long as we agree with them.

[Beamer]

As long as we're generalizing, can I say that the guarantee of a bad driver is a Prius with an Obama sticker on it?

Never once saw one of those doing remotely near the speed limit, and apparently they're the official car of Durham, NC.


Stupid solely-liberals are the worst drivers.

This post has been edited by Beamer: Feb 23 2010, 09:45 AM

[Pymonte]

I never said you and andy did, i said ebase did. it was said that the right was nothing but guns, religion and slogans. Is that not a generalizationbecause you believe it to be true?

I am not affiliated to a party and lean to the left, but it's getting absurd. The fact that ebase says what he says, and jack responds with his own generalizations and the response is "STRAW MAN STRAW MAN!!!" just says to me, rash generalizations are ok, as long as we agree with them.

That's the thing, though. It's absurdly simple to back up that rash generalization, which means that it's not "rash" in the first place. Look at the Republican media machine, which is generally, as Ebase said, just a barrage of talking points and religious diatribe. Look at Palin's speeches. Look at anything O'Reilly or Beck or any of the other drones regurgitate into their microphones. It's like they get a memo before the show with lines to repeat.

Contrast that with Jack's statement of "how dare the person next to you is rich." I think that maybe, maybe Leedsy on his best day could possibly come up with an argument to back that statement up. Maybe. That's just off-the-wall inaccurate, especially because anyone with the money to be a politician is going to be rich anyway.

[HandsomeSam]

That's the thing, though. It's absurdly simple to back up that rash generalization, which means that it's not "rash" in the first place. Look at the Republican media machine, which is generally, as Ebase said, just a barrage of talking points and religious diatribe. Look at Palin's speeches. Look at anything O'Reilly or Beck or any of the other drones regurgitate into their microphones. It's like they get a memo before the show with lines to repeat.

Contrast that with Jack's statement of "how dare the person next to you is rich." I think that maybe, maybe Leedsy on his best day could possibly come up with an argument to back that statement up. Maybe. That's just off-the-wall inaccurate, especially because anyone with the money to be a politician is going to be rich anyway.

And Olbermann and Ed Schultz' programmes are fountains of nuance, with both sides of an issue being carefully discussed? DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, TPM, FiveFortyEight, etc., take conservative viewpoints and conservative speakers seriously? The New York Times has more than a house neo-con writing editorials for them these days? Please, give the "Right Wing Media Machine" thing a rest already if you aren't willing to call out the left for the same bullshit.

Do you think Al Gore's campaign on "The People vs. The Powerful" wasn't class-based rhetoric? John Edwards' "Two Americas"? Rep. Dingell of Michigan claiming George W. Bush was "waging a war against the poor"? Let's not forget the fact that identity politics, such as racial politics, are often class-based politics, as well. (John Conyers' wife, head of the Detroit City Council, telling white speakers to "go home" during council meetings is some fine, tolerant politics, isn't it?)

Just because the left hasn't come up with a stupid, bumper sticker slogan as catchy as the right's stupid, bumper sticker slogan of "War on Terror" doesn't mean the left doesn't attempt to overly simplify complex issues. What the fuck was "Hope and Change" going to bring about again...oh, that's right, not a goddamn thing. It's an empty fucking expression parroted by empty-headed fucking morons, just like every other political catch phrase.

People on the left, please, get over your own fucking sense of self-worth. You're really not any more clever than the morons on the right. So sorry.

Yes we can! ::Thumbs up!::

[Pymonte]

And Olbermann and Ed Schultz' programmes are fountains of nuance, with both sides of an issue being carefully discussed? DailyKos, DemocraticUnderground, TPM, FiveFortyEight, etc., take conservative viewpoints and conservative speakers seriously? The New York Times has more than a house neo-con writing editorials for them these days? Please, give the "Right Wing Media Machine" thing a rest already if you aren't willing to call out the left for the same bullshit.

Look, dude. I don't know why this set you off, but you're not even responding to what I said.

The left operates differently because the viewpoints of the people involved are far more varied than the right. That being said, you're just responding to the argument that the right manufactures media by talking points by saying "the left does it too!!!!1" Well, duh. But it's not nearly at the same level of the hive mind right. If the left does it to the same extent, then what, pray tell, are the talking points currently being bandied about by both the media and the politicians on the left?

Do you think Al Gore's campaign on "The People vs. The Powerful" wasn't class-based rhetoric? John Edwards' "Two Americas"? Rep. Dingell of Michigan claiming George W. Bush was "waging a war against the poor"? Let's not forget the fact that identity politics, such as racial politics, are often class-based politics, as well. (John Conyers' wife, head of the Detroit City Council, telling white speakers to "go home" during council meetings is some fine, tolerant politics, isn't it?)

Right, because that all boils down to "how dare someone be rich." Oh, wait, again, no it doesn't. It boils down to the shocking inequalities in this country based on how much money a person has. I'm sure you think it's a fantastic thing that poor urban kids go to schools with one working computer and no heat and rich kids don't? It's great that people have the opportunity to become rich in this country, but it's ridiculous that people don't see the differences between growing up rich and growing up poor. And you wouldn't catch me saying anything good about someone from either party kicking white speakers out of a council meeting.

Just because the left hasn't come up with a stupid, bumper sticker slogan as catchy as the right's stupid, bumper sticker slogan of "War on Terror" doesn't mean the left doesn't attempt to overly simplify complex issues. What the fuck was "Hope and Change" going to bring about again...oh, that's right, not a goddamn thing. It's an empty fucking expression parroted by empty-headed fucking morons, just like every other political catch phrase.

Right, because I said that too. Oh, again, wait. I just lied to you there- I didn't ever say that the left didn't simplify issues. Actually I said the same thing that you're saying during the campaign- that Obama needs to be more specific in how he was going to address the issues. So direct your rants somewhere else.

This post has been edited by Pymonte: Feb 23 2010, 02:20 PM

[HandsomeSam]

Agreed I was using you to generalize (there's that word again) about lefties on the board, so, apologies for that. I should have cut/pasted the various posts in the thread that "set me off". When you're right, you're right.

That having been said...

The left is no more diverse in opinion than the right. There are pro-choice Republican Senators and House members, Republicans who have turned against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (if they ever supported said wars to begin with), Republicans who hold or have held elected office speaking about ending the drug wars, a growing acceptance of GLBT rights within in the GOP, and so on and so on and so on. You're acting as is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh speak for the entire right. They don't. Just because YOU don't read George Will or Pat Buchanan or Justin Raimondo or know who Gary Johnson is or know that Rand Paul is the frontrunner for the Senate seat in Kentucky doesn't mean that these people, with pretty distinct opinions from what you hear on Hannity, don't exist. How many Right-to-Life Democrats were in the presidential primaries last year?

Do you want current left-wing talking points, or are we discarding the ones that were abandoned after Obama got elected? You know, the ones where he actually had a point about the unconstitutional nature of the Patriot Act and wiretapping American civilians...funny how the excesses of the executive branch became so much less important once the Democrats controlled the White House. Should we instead focus on jobs being created/saved by the bailout? That the GOP is the "Party of NO" who won't do what's right and pass that awesome health-care plan? How those damn obstructionists in the House and the Senate are revealing the fact that The System is Flawed and we need to end the filibuster? OOh! How about how "The Science is Settled" on climate change!

"Shocking inequalities..." In other words, talking points about class are OK, because class is an issue that's salient for you. You don't see a problem with wealth, per se, you see a problem in the nation that requires thoughtful solutions, right? Well, A GOPer yelling about someone being "soft on terror" may resonate with 101 (for example) because he feels that Islamic extremists are a threat, not because he gets off on the idea of someone hassling an Arab in an airport security line. National security is a complex, important issue. Economic inequality, too, is a complex, layered issue. Neither party, nor side on the left/right divide, has a monopoly on presenting issues in a dumbed-down fashion. You're giving the left a pass because you get the gist of their dumbed-down messages, and like what it is they're addressing. Doesn't make it any better or worse than what the right does, does it?

[Hockey101]

Ebase,

I think you are missing the point. War on Terror is a completely simplistic term to a complicated problem. It is an ideological struggle, not a bumper sticker. It is like a war on drugs. What are we fighting? Are we winning? What is the military objective? Are there any limitations and if so, what are they? We aren't even fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan anymore. And if the front line is no longer Iraq and it is now Pakistan, what do we do about Yemen?

We've built the term "war on...." in this country to signify a fight...or battle against something dangerous. Like you said we have had war on drugs for years now. Is it really a war? Not to the extent that we use tanks and air strikes, but is it a war? Yes, to the extent that we use authoritative force in shrinking the illegal drug use. So what is war on terror? It's war on terrorists. We've had this war since the 70's, in reality. The world has, actually, not just us. Was the Cold War truly a war, then? A war on communism? No with violence, but it was a war. The word war does not solely mean a conflict with the use of weaponry. War as well means a conflict of hostility, or conditions that are undesirable between two or more people.

So do we put it in concept of true military combat when we say war on terror? Yes and no. At times we deal with it using air strikes, and other times we deal with it by using intelligence to arrest. Do we really fight the war on drugs? Yes and no. We have authorities along the nation's borders and they encounter armed conflicts, yet in other ways we use "vehicles" such as organizations to educate people on not using drugs.

The whole Mid-East conflict is a confusing situation. It's like battling fire ants. You destroy their ground on one area of your driveway, but next week you see them building another ground in the other corner of your driveway. We are fighting Al Qaeda everywhere. It's that in Afghanistan we have to make sure it does not become a strong base. It's like playing Risk. You try to make your opponent retreat from his/her stronghold. It's a difficult situation, but it's not one where being reckless solves anything (the right), and being too much peace and love solves anything (the left).

Its bizarre to me how overly simplistic many of the right's view of what is going on in the world is. right/wrong, up/down. They call Obama naive but I think his great downfall is his inability to speak succinctly to a moronic public about these issues.

You are right on the............right. The right does make things simplistic such as "Arab terrorist, bad, islam fascists......bad (poor way to use the term fascist too), and so we should go in there and kick their asses because they are dangerous to America!" But, the left, like Obama, IS naive in thinking "Well, we should speak to them and try to reason with them. No, let's not come to quick conclusions and label an Arab a muslim terrorist, but an insurgent. Let's give Iran more warnings and more economic sanctions (as if Iran cares) so they will stop the nuclear programs". So where is the middle? That's the problem, we're not working as a united country because our ideologies are so different. We approach things differently. We refuse to recognize that we're both right, and we're both wrong. The left has hated Bush for thinking that he was right all the time. That his way is the correct way. Well, what has Obama been doing? The same thing.

Obama's issue is that he has no idea how to explain things to the American public. I don't think the American public is all moronic, do you? And besides, Obama mostly speaks to his supporters who also don't fully understand what the hell he is saying. Look, i know i am not the brightest tool in the shed, but i have a good education. I've been learning business and economics, that obviously involve with political issues, for years now. So, as enamored as i am every time i hear Obama speak, because there's no doubt that he should be know in history as one of the best speakers ever, a lot of times i am left with nothing. No substance. He didn't reach across the American public when he talks about the economy, the health care, and so on. So, if at times i am going like "so what the hell was he trying to tell us?", imagine Americans that had high school education at most, or did junior college, and just have middle paying jobs with a family. This is where Obama is killing himself. He ran as this "i am a people's person and i will work with you all, regardless of party line differences." Yet....he's been coming off as very intellectual, so well spoken, and really putting forth a liberal agenda for the most part. So of course you are going to have the American public going "huh?"

I mean, what was it..........couple of weeks ago or so? I applauded Obama on laying off the healthcare plan and trying to work on the economy. I hoped he was going to really work with it but unfortunately his idea, and shame on every politician, including the Republicans, (Mr. NEWLY ELECTED BROWN), for agreeing to this, but his idea of pretty much throwing money at the job market is not it. You can't go from "Hey Wall Street, i'm hunting you down!", then "throw this much money to open new government jobs" while receive the comment "but Mr. President, we don't have the money!" and then implying "So? Borrow more from China, duh", and expect the economy to improve, the jobless rate to improve, and so on.

And yet, not only does he want this other spending bill to help jobs, but we're once again back with the healthcare. I mean......when i applauded him on stopping the healthcare debacle, i didn't mean it as a few week stop from it. We may again be seeing more arguing on this healthcare issue and we're back to square one.

It is frustrating. I want this guy to do well because we need him to do well, and every time he does something good, i always applaud him for it, and whenever he gets a silly attack from the right, i defend him, as i already have. BUT........ he is being too inconsistent. He keeps going up and down except the downslopes are steeper than they should be. November is still a long way and i am not buying into the BS that the right leaning media says that Republicans will win so many seats. I think they will win a handful, no doubt, but whatever win the Republicans will have, either minor or major, it should be a message to Obama that he needs to stop doing what liberals want him to do. Close Gitmo. Bring back the troops. Stop the wars. Decrease military and government authority programs. Spend in social governments. Yadda yadda yadda.

I think we'll end up living the Bush years but in complete opposite. And we should learn a lesson from that. We should still believe in what we believe in, but we should not refute opposing thoughts and want people to agree with us because we think that our way is right. Who knows, maybe 2012 will be a disaster, but not in terms of "the end of the world" for us, but in a sense that we end up realizing how split this country is, how mind controlling the media has been, and how bad our government has been. Hopefully we will then have new leaders that are more in touch with us and not be too extreme on either side.

[OldTymeHockey14]

Uh, you're REALLY comparing Obama to Chavez and Castro? You DO listen to too much talk radio.



As for the whole religion thing, you all know (and most of you don't like me) because I am willing to call out organized religion and religion in general. This is one of the things destroying our country and most of the rest of the world. These pagan stories that people take literally result in man's biggest attrocities. And LOL @ people who think we NEED religion to keep people in-line. Like, without religion we'd all be raping and murdering each other...

Any politician who says that their policies are guided by religious faith falls to the bottom of my credibility list. LOL @ those who speak with god, like Mr. Bushie.


Here is something interesting for those who will take the time to read it instead of just closing the window and refusing to read facts because it doesn't jibe with their Harry Potter-esque notions of the world and how it works:


http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?s...pzuckerman_26_5


Sects and Violence

Is Faith Good for Us?
Phil Zuckerman


Phil Zuckerman is an associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California. He is the author of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion (Routledge, 2003) and is currently writing a book on secularization in Scandinavia.



Whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Sikh, there is one common belief that all religious fundamentalists share: worship of God and obedience to his laws are essential for a peaceful, healthy society. From Orthodox rabbis in the occupied West Bank to Wahhabi sheiks in Saudi Arabia, from the pope in Vatican City to Mormons in Salt Lake City, the lament is the same: God and his will must be at the center of everyone's lives in order to ensure a moral, prosperous, safe, collective existence.

Furthermore, fundamentalists agree that, when large numbers of people in a society reject God or fail to make him the center of their lives, societal disintegration is sure to follow. Every societal ill-whether crime, poverty, poor public education, or AIDS-is thus blamed on a lack of piety. A most disconcerting example of this worldview was expressed in the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001, when Jerry Falwell blamed the terrorists attacks on America's "throwing God out of the public square," further adding that "when a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture . . . the result is not good."

If this often-touted religious theory were correct-that a turning away from God is at the root of all societal ills-then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty, and disease and the most religious nations to be models of societal health. A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute.

One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan). The former nations' nonreligion, which can be described as "coercive atheism," is plagued by all that comes with totalitarianism: corruption, economic stagnation, censorship, depression, and the like. However, nearly every nation with high levels of "organic atheism" is a veritable model of societal health.

The twenty-five nations characterized by organic atheism with the highest proportion of nonbelievers are listed in Table 1. When looking at standard measures of societal health, we find that they fare remarkably well; highly religious nations fare rather poorly. The 2004 United Nations' Human Development Report, which ranks 177 countries on a "Human Development Index," measures such indicators of societal health as life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, and so on. According to this report, the five top nations were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All had notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top twenty-five nations, all but Ireland and the United States were top-ranking nonbelieving nations with some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, the bottom fifty countries of the "Human Development Index" lacked statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

Irreligious countries had the lowest infant-mortality rate (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), and religious countries had the highest rates. According to the 2004 CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook), out of 225 nations, the twenty-five with the lowest infant-mortality rates had significantly high levels of organic atheism. Conversely, the seventy-five nations with the highest infant-mortality rates were all very religious and without statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that, of the forty poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of population that lives on less than one dollar a day), all but Vietnam were highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism.

Regarding homicide rates, Oablo Fajnzylber et al., in a study reported in the Journal of Law and Economics (2002), looked at thirty-eight non-African nations and found that the ten with the highest homicide rates were highly religious, with minimal or statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland were secular nations with high levels of atheism. James Fox and Jack Levin, in The Will to Kill, looked at thirty-seven non-African nations and found that, of the ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but Estonia and Taiwan were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but Ireland and Kuwait were relatively secular nations, with high levels of organic atheism.

Concerning literacy rates, according to the United Nations Report on the World Social Situation (2003), of the thirty-five nations with the highest levels of youth-illiteracy rates (percentage of population ages fifteen to twenty-four who cannot read or write), all were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

In regard to rates of AIDS and HIV infection, the most religious nations on earth-particularly those in Africa-fared the worst. (Botswana suffers from the highest rate of HIV infection in the world; see http://www.avert.org/aroundworld. htm.) Conversely, the highly irreligious nations of Western Europe, such as those of Scandinavia-where public sex education is supported and birth control is widely accessible-fared the best, experiencing among the lowest rates of AIDS and HIV infection in the world.

Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report's "Gender Empowerment Measure," the ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality were all strongly organic-atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of nonbelief. Conversely, the bottom ten were all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists. According to Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris's (2003) "Gender Equality Scale," of the ten nations most accepting of gender equality, all but the United States and Colombia were marked by high levels of organic atheism; of the ten least-accepting of gender equality, all were highly religious and had statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. According to Inglehart et al. in Human Values and Social Change (2003), countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, with the most female members of parliament, tended to be characterized by high degrees of organic atheism, and countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran, with the fewest female members in parliament, tended to be highly religious.

The acceptance of gender equality among irreligious nations may be linked to the relative acceptance of homosexuality. Inglehart et al., in Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Value Surveys (2004), found that, of the eighteen nations least likely to condemn homosexuality, all were highly ranked organic-atheistic nations. Conversely, of the eighteen nations most likely to condemn homosexuality, all but Hungary were highly religious, with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

A country's suicide rate stands out as the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicide rates (http://www.who.int/en/), the nations with the lowest rates of suicide were all highly religious, characterized by extremely high levels of theism (usually of the Muslim and Catholic varieties). Of the ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, five were distinctly irreligious nations ranked among the top twenty-five nations listed earlier. These five are Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Russia, and Slovenia. It is interesting to note that of the nations currently experiencing the highest rates of suicide-including the five just mentioned-nearly all are former Soviet/communist-dominated societies. (The nations of Scandinavia, where organic atheism is strongest, do not have the highest suicide rates in the world, as is widely thought to be the case.)

In sum, countries with high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies with nonexistent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. The former nations have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The sole indicator of societal health in which religious countries scored higher than irreligious countries is suicide.

Where does the United States fit in all this? Americans are very religious. Many studies have found that only between 3-7 percent of Americans do not believe in God. Rates of prayer, belief in the divinity of Jesus, belief in the divine origins of the Bible, and rates of church attendance are remarkably robust in the United States, making it the most religious of all Western industrialized nations, with the possible exception of Ireland. When it comes to societal health, the United States certainly fares far better than much of the rest of the world. According to the United Nations' 2004 "Human Development Index" discussed earlier, the United States ranked eighth. However, when we compare the United States to its peer nations-i.e., developed, industrialized, democratic nations such as Canada, Japan, and the nations of Europe-its standing in terms of societal health plummets. The United States has far higher homicide, poverty, obesity, and homelessness rates than any of its more secular peer nations. It is also the only Western industrialized democracy that is unwilling to provide universal health coverage to its citizens. The fact is that extremely secular nations such as Japan and Sweden are much safer, cleaner, healthier, better educated, and more humane when compared to the United States, despite the latter's exceptionally strong levels of theism.

The information presented in this discussion in no way proves that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. The wealth, poverty, well-being, and suffering in various nations are caused by numerous political, historical, economic, and sociological factors that are far more determinant than people's personal belief systems. Rather, the conclusion to be drawn from the data provided above is simply that high levels of irreligion do not automatically result in a breakdown of civilization, a rise in immoral behavior, or in "sick societies." Quite the opposite seems to be the case. Furthermore, religion is clearly not the simple and single path to righteous societies that religious fundamentalists seem to think it is. This fact must be vigorously asserted in response to the proclamations of politically active theists. From small-town school boards to the floor of the Senate, conservative Christians are championing religion as the solution to America's societal problems. However, their pious "solution" is highly dubious and clearly not supported by the best available research of social science.

Belief in God may provide comfort to the individual believer, but, at the societal level, its results do not compare at all favorably with that of the more secular societies. When seeking a more civil, just, safe, humane, and healthy society, one is more likely to find it among those nations ranking low in religious faith-contrary to the preaching of religious folks.


Acknowledgment

My article is indebted to Gregory S. Paul's important research correlating rates of belief/nonbelief with various measures of societal health.

Reginald Bibby, Restless Gods: The Renaissance of Religion in Canada (Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Stoddart Publishing Company, 2002).
Grace Davie, "Europe: The Exception That Proves the Rule?" in The Desecularization of the World, edited by Peter Berger (Grand Rapids, Mich.:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999).
Kim Eungi, "Religion in Contemporary Korea: Change and Continuity," Korea Focus, July-August 2003.
Oablo Fajnzylber, Daniel Lederman, and Norman Loatza, "Inequality and Violent Crime," The Journal of Law and Economics, April 2002.
James Fox and Jack Levin, The Will to Kill (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 2000).
Timothy Gall, Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture and Daily Life, Vol.4: Europe (Cleveland, Ohio: Eastword Publications. 1998).
George Gallup and Michael Lindsay, Surveying the Religious Landscape (Harrisburg, Pa.: Morehouse Publishing, 1999).
Andrew Greeley, Religion in Europe at the End of the Second Millennium (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2003).
Goran Gustafsson and Thorleif Pettersson, Folkkyrk och religios pluraism-den nordiska religiosa modellen (Stockholm: Verbum Forlag, 2000).
Michael Hout and Claude Fischer, "Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations," American Sociological Review 67, no. 2 (2002).
Ronald Inglehart, Miguel Basanez, Jaime Diez-Medrano, Loek Halman, and Ruud Luijkx, Human Beliefs and Values: A Cross-Cultural Sourcebook Based on the 1999-2002 Value Surveys, (Beunos Aires, Argentina: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 2004).
Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Ronald Inglehart, Pippa Norris, and Christian Welzel, "Gender Equality and Democracy," in Human Values and Social Change, edited by Ronald Inglehart (Boston, Mass.: Brill, 2003).
Peri Kedem, "Dimensions of Jewish Religiosity," in Israeli Judaism, edited by Shlomo Deshen, Charles Liebman, and Mishe Shokeid (London: Transaction Publishers, 1995).
Gerald Marwell and N.J. Demerath, "'Secularization' by Any Other Name," American Sociological Review 68, no. 2 (2003).
Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Gregory Paul, "The Secular Revolution of the West: It's Passed America By-So Far," Free Inquiry 22, no. 3 (Summer 2002).
--, "Cross National Correllations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies," Journal of Religion and Society, vol. 7 (2005).
Detlef Pollack, "The Change in Religion and Church in Eastern Germany after 1989: A Research Note," Sociology of Religion 63, no. 3 (2002).
United Nations, Human Development Report (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
United Nations, Report on the World Social Situation (New York: United Nations Publications, 2003).






In the end, both parties suck the ass and are corrupt to the bone. Both are owned by corporate America who dictates policy. It's just that one party espouses love for your fellow man and the other shit's on the fellow man while shouting Amen. This country is on it's way out and anyone who doesn't see this is a fool. Religion is being used as a tool by tools against tools to get their vote for corporate America. And there are more than enough blind sheep to ruin the farm. Now I sound like Dr. Phil. He sucks the ass, too.

[Andy from the LE...]

Isn't there a rule about copying and pasting whole texts?

Regardless, the article makes good points...and then I remember the millions killed by atheists in the Ukranian Holomodor, the Chinese Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's attempt at returning man to Year Zero, the Soviet League of the Militant Godless, and the numerous killings and exiles ordered by Fidel Castro. Regardless of whether or not this atheism was imposed or not doesn't matter - the author's argument is a No True Scotsman fallacy writ LARGE.

Also, many Swedes base their day-to-day ethics on principles derived from Lutherism. Ditto the Japanese (Shinto). So that article's claims are incomplete and painfully inaccurate.

However, when we compare the United States to its peer nations-i.e., developed, industrialized, democratic nations such as Canada, Japan, and the nations of Europe-its standing in terms of societal health plummets. The United States has far higher homicide, poverty, obesity, and homelessness rates than any of its more secular peer nations. It is also the only Western industrialized democracy that is unwilling to provide universal health coverage to its citizens. The fact is that extremely secular nations such as Japan and Sweden are much safer, cleaner, healthier, better educated, and more humane when compared to the United States, despite the latter's exceptionally strong levels of theism.

A dumb claim when the one considers that much of this attitude comes not exactly from Christianity (although, admittedly, some protestant sects hypocritically follow these views) but from the Ayn Randian-influenced underpinning of far right philosophy. (Rand was an atheist and a sociopath, btw). And what about Catholics, who tend to donate more in terms of time and effort to charities?

Nice try, but this guy apparently hasn't read much history.



*******

Regarding politics - I posted that response with the strawman because I find that many on the right (NOT all) always seem to miscategorize what those even slightly to the left of them really stand for. NOBODY wants some crazed Soviet Authoritarianist system....so please, can you guys on the right stop calling us commies, out to wage class warfare? Merely because we ask you to actually do what the rest of us do, like pay taxes? Care for your fellow man? Practice capitalism with fairness and concern for its consequences? Is that too much to ask?

This post has been edited by Andy from the LES: Feb 23 2010, 11:22 PM

[Hockey101]

Uh, you're REALLY comparing Obama to Chavez and Castro? You DO listen to too much talk radio.
As for the whole religion thing, you all know (and most of you don't like me) because I am willing to call out organized religion and religion in general. This is one of the things destroying our country and most of the rest of the world. These pagan stories that people take literally result in man's biggest attrocities. And LOL @ people who think we NEED religion to keep people in-line. Like, without religion we'd all be raping and murdering each other...

There was really no need to say such things. Criticize, i don't mind, but don't go too far by saying stuff like that.

[ThunderDawg]

The greatest fallacy of religion is thinking it has a monopoly on morality.

[Andy from the LE...]

The greatest fallacy of anything is thinking it has a monopoly on morality.

Fixed.

[OldTymeHockey14]

There was really no need to say such things. Criticize, i don't mind, but don't go too far by saying stuff like that.

I think religion has gone too far and people need to say stuff like that.

[The Fast Choker]

I think religion has gone too far and people need to say stuff like that.

You mean "people" have gone to far. Take any good thing, and in time, people will probably ruin it.

[Rhino]

And LOL @ people who think we NEED religion to keep people in-line. Like, without religion we'd all be raping and murdering each other...

In almost any respected religion, the people who use it to "keep people in line" are not true proponents. Be it the ancient Egyptians, the Catholic Church of the Dark-Ages, or most of the modern day Middle-East, the leaders who use religion to manipulate and oppress their adherents are the same as secular leaders who do the same using other tactics. Religion is used because it is something that many people hold dear and therefore easy for a charismatic opportunist to pervert for his or her own ends. Most religions, at their core, preach good works and peaceful coexistance, and I guarantee you that if all religion were somehow abolished then those same despots would be getting those same deluded people to fight for a different cause.

Like, say, Patriotism. How many wars throughout history have been started in defense of "our country" or "our way of life," when the only thing being really defended is the bottom line? Can we outlaw love of ones country, then, too? Again, the easiest way to manipulate somebody is through something that is important to them. A person is a lot more likely to risk their life "for God and country" than they are to do so for "some guy's agenda and pocketbook."

Just because something is exploited doesn't make it fundamentally bad.

[Rhino]

Oh, and addressing the article more directly, the argument seems to be that atheistic countries are physically, socially and economically more healthy than religious countries. The inference being that religion somehow causes poverty. POVERTY BREEDS RELIGION because God is free. People without anything want to have something. I particularly enjoy the part where he uses Africa as an example of a religious country that is fundamentally unhealthy. Yeah, it's the rampant religious fervor that contaminates the drinking water and keeps the jungles and deserts from yielding all of their bountiful resources. And I'm sure the mercenaries with AK-47s that steal the supplies getting airdropped in go right to confession afterwards. If only those nuns that have been going into the jungles for centuries to treat sick people would mind their own business.

P.S., I also got a kick out of the way he completely glossed over the USA when it didn't fit his model. I guess one of the strongest, healthiest countries in the world (started by religious puritans, mind you) can't get in the way of whatever reality he's crafted for himself.

This post has been edited by Rhino: Feb 24 2010, 12:07 PM

[Andy from the LE...]

Oh, and addressing the article more directly, the argument seems to be that atheistic countries are physically, socially and economically more healthy than religious countries. The inference being that religion somehow causes poverty. POVERTY BREEDS RELIGION because God is free. People without anything want to have something. I particularly enjoy the part where he uses Africa as an example of a religious country that is fundamentally unhealthy. Yeah, it's the rampant religious fervor that contaminates the drinking water and keeps the jungles and deserts from yielding all of their bountiful resources. And I'm sure the mercenaries with AK-47s that steal the supplies getting airdropped in go right to confession afterwards. If only those nuns that have been going into the jungles for centuries to treat sick people would mind their own business.

P.S., I also got a kick out of the way he completely glossed over the USA when it didn't fit his model. I guess one of the strongest, healthiest countries in the world (started by religious puritans, mind you) can't get in the way of whatever reality he's crafted for himself.

Although I don't necessarily agree with some of his more libertarian writings, check out Theodore "Vox Day" Beale. His sick sense of humor also doesn't appeal to some, but his writings are perhaps the best arguments against atheism I've seen.

[Rhino]

Although I don't necessarily agree with some of his more libertarian writings, check out Theodore "Vox Day" Beale. His sick sense of humor also doesn't appeal to some, but his writings are perhaps the best arguments against atheism I've seen.

I may just. Although I really would like to take a step back and clarify that I am neither decrying nor endorsing atheism or religion. Personally I am a devout Catholic, but I begrudge no one their personal beliefs or lack thereof. (Except those loony-toon Scientologists-- Those guys are whack jobs!) I am merely stating that religion in and of itself is not some great shackle that we must throw off to achieve utopia. The greatest threat to humanity is now and has always been human nature.

[Andy from the LE...]

I may just. Although I really would like to take a step back and clarify that I am neither decrying nor endorsing atheism or religion. Personally I am a devout Catholic, but I begrudge no one their personal beliefs or lack thereof. (Except those loony-toon Scientologists-- Those guys are whack jobs!) I am merely stating that religion in and of itself is not some great shackle that we must throw off to achieve utopia. The greatest threat to humanity is now and has always been human nature.

QUOTED FOR MUTHAFUCKIN' TRUTH.

[HandsomeSam]

Oof, Andy...you're a Vox Day fan? I thought I knew you! The guy's arrogance and sexism are what really turned me off to his blog, more than his religiosity.

My take on this?

" I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.
I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.
I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty...
I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect.
I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech...
I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run.
I believe in the reality of progress.
I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant. "
-H.L. Mencken

[HandsomeSam]

Oh, and addressing the article more directly, the argument seems to be that atheistic countries are physically, socially and economically more healthy than religious countries. The inference being that religion somehow causes poverty. POVERTY BREEDS RELIGION because God is free. People without anything want to have something. I particularly enjoy the part where he uses Africa as an example of a religious country that is fundamentally unhealthy. Yeah, it's the rampant religious fervor that contaminates the drinking water and keeps the jungles and deserts from yielding all of their bountiful resources. And I'm sure the mercenaries with AK-47s that steal the supplies getting airdropped in go right to confession afterwards. If only those nuns that have been going into the jungles for centuries to treat sick people would mind their own business.

P.S., I also got a kick out of the way he completely glossed over the USA when it didn't fit his model. I guess one of the strongest, healthiest countries in the world (started by religious puritans, mind you) can't get in the way of whatever reality he's crafted for himself.

No, but I'm sure more scientific reasoning and less theism would go a long way in helping to combat things like the spread of AIDS on the African continent. Less reliance upon books of religion might stop the promulgation of laws offering that homosexuality be punishable by death.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/af...nce-480593.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/08....anti.gay.bill/

Religion may not cause poverty, but it sure as Hell doesn't bring about progress, either.