# I hate Michael Moore, another reason ....



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*Festival Features Doc on Michael Moore

Updated 4:41 PM ET March 8, 2007
Associated Press*

By CHRISTY LEMIRE

(AP) - The cameras get turned on Michael Moore for a change at the South by Southwest film festival, where the documentary "Manufacturing Dissent" will have its world premiere.

The film from directors Rick Caine and Debbie Melnyk, playing Saturday night at the Austin, Texas, festival, follows Moore during the release of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and questions many of his tactics.

*Among its revelations: that the confrontational documentarian did interview former General Motors Chairman Roger Smith, the elusive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," and simply chose to leave it out of the finished cut.*

Moore, who won an Academy Award for 2002's "Bowling for Columbine," has not responded to e-mail and phone requests for comment.

"The people who can attest to this are extremely credible and do attest to this in the film," said John Pierson, the independent film veteran who helped sell "Roger & Me" to Warner Bros. and now teaches at the University of Texas at Austin.

* "I've always loved `Roger & Me.' I loved working on it. I really believed in it, and that's really bad. The fundamental core of the film is how his mission to get Roger Smith fails and, P.S., Michael spent 18 years since then swearing he never interviewed Roger Smith."*

-------------------------------------

The man is a full out liar. If you have a cause, and its real, why lie? He has every right to take the stance he does, but Michael Moore manipulates the truth at every single turn.

I had to get that one out.

:x :roll: 
Sigh.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Can't say I share your hate. I have no doubt in my mind that Moore bends/breaks the truth. The thing is, he's like the needed polar opposite of our governments etc now days.

They probably lie just as much as each other. Each one tells an opposite story. So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, meaning that times have to change and change soon.

His films are shocking, which is what our society needs atm in my opinion. To be given a big jolt and shown a flip side to what we hear on TV. Perhaps people will wake up soon - I certainly hope so


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

There is no need to stretch the truth. I have no respect for him. There are plenty of other excellent journalists and documentary makers who tell the truth. The truth is bad enough, why twist it around, manipulate people.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I do not appreciate being maniuplated by someone who claims to be God's gift to documentary making.

The truth is out there, it speaks for itself through the eyes of great documentary makers. He has been found time and time again to manipuate the truth for his own ends. How does that serve any purpose?

Tell the truth, don't say you can't get Roger for an interview WHEN YOU INTERVIEWED THE MAN! That is an outright lie. I can name about 20 others in his other documentaries -- all of them. He has been sued at least 3 times for misrepresentations in his films including "Farenheit 911".

He makes me puke.

There may be little honesty in this administration, but how does that make Moore's dishonesty "right?" He's a liberal. Let us bow down to him. Hollywood loves to worship a liberal, even if he's a liar.

I'll take the bitter truth when it's served up truthfully.

I am so sick of Partisanship I could scream.

End of barrage.
Peace. :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CECIL said:


> His films are shocking, which is what our society needs atm in my opinion. To be given a big jolt and shown a flip side to what we hear on TV. Perhaps people will wake up soon - I certainly hope so


No they aren't shocking. I have felt purposely manipulated in them. He knows how to edit, falsely.

I have found as much criticism of our government in all media. It is now a matter of Congress to take action for instance on the Iraq war. Congress, and that includes DEMOCRATS could withhold funding for a troop increase.

They are afraid to take the fall. If things don't work, blame it on Bush. If things pan out in Iraq (which they can't), they take the credit. Democrats and Republicans don't need to be shocked. They know what's going on.

There are a lot of people who are awake. But it's very "in" to like Michael Moore. OMG, I can't stand it. I'm sorry, I cannot believe he did that w/Roger and Me. Sadly he is from my homestate. I want to hang my head in shame.

He twists the words of DECENT people - regular everyday Joe Americans, not just people who are full of crap. He USES, MANIUPLATES. Is this any different from Bush or any other sleazy politician? I don't think so. He plays people like Borat, or Sasha whatever. Cohen makes a stronger statement about the stupidity of people than Moore. More clever.

Why do people admire Michael Moore? I don't get it, I don't get it, I don't get it.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

People love easy "sound bites."

"If the glove don't fit, acquit"

Dear God in Heaven.

If you look at a NYTimes or Wall Street Journal Op Ed review you'll find the administration ripped to shreds.

And once the 9/11 debacle became clear, I didn't need Michael Moore to teach me anything. And he lied when it was convenient for hiim.

OK, I just HAD to get that out. And believe me, I find G.W. Bush, the worst President we've ever had -- since George WASHINGTON. And Michael Moore one of the greatest embarrassments to U.S. documentary filmmaking I can think of.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

CECIL said:


> Can't say I share your hate. I have no doubt in my mind that Moore bends/breaks the truth. The thing is, he's like the needed polar opposite of our governments etc now days.


I completely agree with this.

When dealing with mass manipulators of such an enormous scale (like the Bush administration), one needs to produce a Bizzarro opposite.

But yes, I agree, no one should lie. The problem is of course, that to get America's attention, sometimes you have to cry wolf. And I'm going to leave that ambiguous little tidbit at that and hope that someone thinks it makes sense.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

sebastian said:


> The problem is of course, that to get America's attention, sometimes you have to cry wolf. And I'm going to leave that ambiguous little tidbit at that and hope that someone thinks it makes sense.


 :evil:

Well, here's a question. Michael Moore has been making films for many years now. Why hasn't he exposed the famous 9/11 conspiracy -- specifically that Bush planned the whole thing? -- Cecil you and I have been through this before and I already know you don't mind stretching the truth.

But Sebastian?

And if it takes Michael Moore to "wake us stupid Americans up" -- yes, only Americans are idiots, AGAIN -- why haven't his documentaries changed us in the past 20 years?

If Michael Moore has all the goods why is he more of a celebrity than a respected journalist?

OMG.
I don't understand the logic behind this thinking.
Lie to bring home a point that is already obvious re: Iraq being a stupid, dirty mess?

*I'm talking about ROGER AND ME as yet another example - a documentary he made in '89!". The whole concept behind "Roger and Me" a DOCUMENTARY, not a FICITIONAL DRAMA, was based on the premise that Moore could never get Roger Smith to speak openly about the auto industry - GMC. That he was chasing him down and that Smith AVOIDED being interviewed (as Moore is famous for most of the time just for anyone's interest -- he rarely returns calls or answers his detractors or has a lot of TV interviews unless someone is worshiping him for something).

IN REALITY MOORE INTERVIEWED ROGER SMITH, WE NEVER HEARD WHAT ROGER SMITH HAD TO SAY. The entire interview was left out of the very documentary he was making. It is a complete LIE.

Hence, we never hear THAT side of the story and make our own conclusions? That is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. And I like you Sebastian, but God DAMNIT that infuriates me.

So both of you, Seb and Cecil, you would lie then, you would have to if you believed this, to make a point? ANY point?

And Americans, of course, are the most ignorant people on the face of the Earth ... we were 20 years ago when this trash documentary came out.

Nothing has changed. Moore hasn't changed our stupidity obviously. He's just made a lot of money and won some awards? SO HIS TACTICS DON'T WORK.

I'm absolutely

:shock:

I give up.

So in essense both of you believe in throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Perjury is justifiable. The ends justify the means. And it is OK for Michael Moore to make a fool of us. THAT'S OK. He is ABOVE everyone else? Why?

Great.
I ...... am ....... stunned.*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Again, a brief summary of the doc from the IMDB:

*"A documentary about the closure of General Motors' plant at Flint, Michigan, which resulted in the loss of 30,000 jobs. Details the attempts of filmmaker Michael Moore to get an interview with GM CEO Roger Smith."*

HE GOT THE INTERVIEW WITH ROGER SMITH AND PRETENDED HE DIDN'T - HE PRETENDED ROGER SMITH WOULDN'T GIVE HIM AN INTERVIEW AND THE INTERVIEW WAS FILMED AND LEFT ON THE CUTTING ROOM FLOOR.

GEE, THAT HELPS US UNDERSTAND A LOT. GREAT JOURNALISTIC REPORTING. JUST STUNNING.

And point two ... did this, could this lead us to understand the reason why the auto industry, here in my home state is failing? No. Have you learned anything? I have from reading about the sorry state of our economy in the local papers and larger papers from other cities! And from the Canadian news. Y'all in Ontario -- this affected you as well.

Why don't I say that Moore pulled a fast one on anyone who watched this film? And that includes anyone from any other country who saw this?

The joke's on y'all.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Actually it isn't just the auto industry. Michigan has the highest business tax in the nation. We just lost Comerica Bank. I wonder why THEY left for greener pastures. It's all a conspiracy, I know.

*Honest to God, did you guys READ what this documentary about Moore is about? It is about his lying about the ENTIRE PREMISE of a film he made in 1989. The guy who pushed it to Warner Brothers was duped! Did you read what they are saying? MOORE MANIPULATES FILM/EDITS IT VERY CLEVERLY AND WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT TO MISLEAD, ALL IN THE NAME OF EDUCATING PEOPLE. He knows damned well he's not educating anyone. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I'm sorry but anyone who believes in Moore's motives is .... never mind. I have no respect for such a person.*


----------



## Fant?me (Feb 2, 2007)

Hate to say it Dreamer, but I agree with you. Hes a total propaganda artist and a liar. While I might agree with many of the points he makes, he is going about it in a highly unethical way.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Fant?me said:


> Hate to say it Dreamer, but I agree with you. Hes a total propaganda artist and a liar. While I might agree with many of the points he makes, he is going about it in a highly unethical way.


Exactly.

For instance, with documentaries that discuss Global Warming (and I'm not counting Al Gore's as I havn't seen it) such as "Dimming of the Sun" or other PBS documentaries, what if the documentaries exagerrated the effects of global warming.

There's no need to exaggerate the problem. It's bad, and "Dimming of the Sun" had no agenda other than to warn people about this, and it got people's attention.

If one exagerrates somethng like that you LOSE CREDIBILITY. If I find later that the info is Enhanced in some dramatic fashion, well -- it isn't a documentary. It is a film, but it is a docudrama, or a comedy, etc. which is really what Moore does. He should own up to that.

Also his detractors are not Right Wing in this film. They like the guy for opening the documentary field to everyone. It's much easier to get greater viewing for a documentary since Moore. Great, but I still don't trust his work as reliable.

Further info on the film:
---------------------------------------------------
*Film Questions Michael Moore's Tactics
Updated 10:01 PM ET March 11, 2007

By CHRISTY LEMIRE*

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - As documentary filmmakers, Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine looked up to Michael Moore.

*Then they tried to do a documentary of their own about him _ and ran into the same sort of resistance Moore himself famously faces in his own films.*

The result is "Manufacturing Dissent," which turns the camera on the confrontational documentarian and examines some of his methods. *Among their revelations in the movie, which had its world premiere Saturday night at the South by Southwest film festival: That Moore actually did speak with then-General Motors chairman Roger Smith, the evasive subject of his 1989 debut "Roger & Me," but chose to withhold that footage from the final cut.*

The husband-and-wife directors spent over two years making the movie, which follows Moore on his college tour promoting 2004's "Fahrenheit 9/11." The film shows Melnyk repeatedly approaching Moore for an interview and being rejected; members of Moore's team also kick the couple out of the audience at one of his speeches, saying they weren't allowed to be shooting there.

At their own premiere Saturday night, the Toronto-based filmmakers expected pro-Moore plants in the audience heckling or trying to otherwise sabotage the screening, but it turned out to be a tame affair.

"It went really well," Melnyk said. "People really liked the film and laughed at the right spots and got the movie and we're really happy about it."

Moore hasn't commented publicly on "Manufacturing Dissent" and Melnyk thinks he never will. He also hasn't responded to several calls and e-mails from The Associated Press.

"There's no point for Michael to respond to the film because then it gives it publicity," she said.

"(President) Bush didn't respond to `Fahrenheit 9/11,' and there's a reason for that," Caine added.

The two were and still are fans of all his movies _ including the polarizing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which grossed over $119 million and won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival _ and initially wanted to do a biography on him. They traveled to his childhood home of Davison, Mich., visited his high school and traced his early days in politics and journalism.

*"The fact that he made documentaries entertaining was extremely influential and got all kinds of people out to see them," said Melnyk, whose previous films with Caine include 1998's "Junket Whore." "Let's face it, he made documentaries popular and that is great for all documentary filmmakers."*

"All of these films _ `Super Size Me,' `An Inconvenient Truth' _ we've all been riding in his wake," said Caine. "There's a nonfiction film revolution going on and we're all beneficiaries of that. For that point alone, he's worth celebrating."

But after four months of unsuccessfully trying to sit down with Moore for an on-camera interview, they realized they needed to approach the subject from a different angle. They began looking at the process Moore employs in his films, and the deeper they dug, the more they began to question him.

The fact that Moore spoke with Smith, including a lengthy question-and-answer exchange during a May 1987 GM shareholders meeting, first was reported in a Premiere magazine article three years later. Transcripts of the discussion had been leaked to the magazine, and a clip of the meeting appeared in "Manufacturing Dissent." Moore also reportedly interviewed Smith on camera in January 1988 at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

Since then, in the years since "Roger & Me" put Moore on the map, those details seem to have been suppressed and forgotten.

"It was shocking, because to me that was the whole premise of `Roger & Me,'" Melnyk said.

*She and Caine also had trouble finding people to talk on camera about Moore, partly because potential interview subjects assumed they were creating a right-wing attack piece; as self-proclaimed left-wingers, they weren't.*

Despite what they've learned, the directors still appreciate Moore.

"We're a bit disappointed and disillusioned with Michael," Melnyk said, "but we are still very grateful to him for putting documentaries out there in a major way that people can go to a DVD store and they're right up there alongside dramatic features."

*Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.*


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer said:


> Cecil you and I have been through this before and I already know you don't mind stretching the truth.


Bah, please don't judge my entire philosophy and personality on that one part in one thread. In fact I don't like stretching the truth. In fact I find it almost impossible to lie. Sometimes I get a bit emotional if I go on a rant, however, much like you 

I can understand that you feel manipulated by watching Michael Moore, but when it comes down to it, you can only be manipulated if you let yourself be. Sadly a lot of people aren't clever enough or don't critique things enough to expose the hidden agendas.

I admit I'm guilty of that, but like I said - the truth is somewhere in the middle. Moore, our governments, the news - none of these sources want us to know the whole truth. So why bother? Do we really need to live by what they tell us is true? Or should we instead listen to our own intuition?


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm curious about all this. I like Michael Moore, or rather, the stuff that I've read. His furious indignation seems utterly genuine to me. That and I share his rabid hatred of neo-con's!

I'm also curious about America, and yes - this is a religiously orientated question, so turn your heads away now. Why, in a country with a fairly young history, with the founding fathers _explicitly_ saying that the principles of the country are secular, seperation from church and state, that your country have become so fundamentally religious? I'm honestly curious. Is it because of the large immigrant population? It's strange, because for a country founded on secularism like America there is raging religiosity, and for a country like mine who has a monarcy who is 'protector' of the age-old church of england, the people here are, per capita, the less religious in the world. I guess it might be because we have had, unfortunately, the time to experience all the chaos that comes along with religion.

You remember when Bush (how! HOW?) said that god told him to invade Iraq (*the* most shocking, incredible, terrifying statement EVER spewed out from the most powerful leader in the world), why didn't god tell him where to look for the WMD's? And seeing as there, actually, aren't any, can we infer that god was having a bit of a wheeze that day?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> I'm curious about all this. I like Michael Moore, or rather, the stuff that I've read. His furious indignation seems utterly genuine to me. That and I share his rabid hatred of neo-con's!
> 
> I'm also curious about America, and yes - this is a religiously orientated question, so turn your heads away now. Why, in a country with a fairly young history, with the founding fathers _explicitly_ saying that the principles of the country are secular, seperation from church and state, that your country have become so fundamentally religious? I'm honestly curious. Is it because of the large immigrant population? It's strange, because for a country founded on secularism like America there is raging religiosity, and for a country like mine who has a monarcy who is 'protector' of the age-old church of england, the people here are, per capita, the less religious in the world. I guess it might be because we have had, unfortunately, the time to experience all the chaos that comes along with religion.
> 
> You remember when Bush (how! HOW?) said that god told him to invade Iraq (*the* most shocking, incredible, terrifying statement EVER spewed out from the most powerful leader in the world), why didn't god tell him where to look for the WMD's? And seeing as there, actually, aren't any, can we infer that god was having a bit of a wheeze that day?


First of all, can you give me the exact quotation, cite it, where Bush said specifically we were going to war for God? He could have said that, I hate listening to him, but you don't think the terrorists are at was for a religious reason. This is Eastern religion vs. the West -- capitalism. And Martin, no matter how you slice it, you are a Westerner. And Bin Laden declared a JIHAD a Holy War against the U.S. and other Western Countries. For crying out loud. "Death to all Americans". Pick an "evil" country. Why do people forget that here?

I can't answer all of this, it's too complicated and I am not an expert in politics in the least. *But first of all will someone understand -- go to Wikipedia for God's sake -- that "neocon" in it's original form means a liberal who becomes a EDIT: conservative. That's it. Bush has always been a Republican so he can't be a "neocon" by the original definition. The definition has been redefined over the years as much as mental illnesses have.*

Ronald Reagan was a neoconservative -- and man do I hate "pat catch phrases "like that -- so easy to make gross generalizations. Easy little sound bites.

He was originally very much to the left as the Director/President of the Screen Actor's Guild -- essentially a union. he then began moving to the right when he found corruption in union activities. He however was always a religious man. Note, being religious and being Right Wing are not the same. One can be a spritual liberal. Carter was, very much so, I believe Clinton is, but to be honest I'm not sure. Carter's recent book "Our Endangered Values" -- not a very great read, speaks to the need for loss of moral ground in an overly secular world. He felt endlessly conflicted as President re: his religious views vs. political actions.

As an elder statesman he is also able to speak about his anger at Israel.
--------------------------------------------
"Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 ? June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981?1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967?1975). At sixty-nine, he was the oldest person ever to be elected President of the United States. Before entering politics, Reagan was a successful Hollywood and television actor, head of the Screen Actors Guild, and a spokesman for General Electric.

He supported Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and other Democrats in the 1930s and 1940s, but by the late 1950s Reagan had become a conservative Republican.

During his work for General Electric Theatre, he developed his articulation of the basic themes that would carry him into and through the Presidency. He strongly opposed communism and socialism, advocated individual freedom and individual initiative, and as president fought for free-trade agreements, welfare cutbacks, tax cuts, and a reduction in regulations."
---------------------------------------------
*REMEMBER THE GREATEST FEAR OF THE WEST AT THAT TIME, NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES WAS THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNISM -- THE COLD WAR. IT MAKES SENSE THAT HISTORY TOOK THIS TURN. WE APPRECIATED REAGAN'S DECISIVENESS. YES SOME HIS DOMESTIC SOCIAL POLICIES WERE TYPICALLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE -- I don't think many relgions like homosexuals (The AIDS crisis was ignored -- it is still in many couuntries, still). Anti-gay, anti-pro-women's rights/DIGNITY is rampant everywhere in other countries.

However his overall stance on foreign relations was extremely important in dealing with the Soviet Union. And again, when thinks work out and we "do somethng good" everybody loves us.

After the Cold War we got complacent. We ignored the endless Middle Eastern problem Iraq and Iran have been at since since/before I was born. That is OLD news. And no, it isn't just about oil, but yes, the Middle East sits on a goldmine, yet some of their countries are impoverished. Why? And Martin, you depend just as much on oil than anyone else on this planet. Commodoties -- who controls them, who has the upper hand. In this case, The Middle East.

THE SOVIET UNION ALSO TOOK AWAY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHICH IS THE REASON OUR AMERICAN ANCESTORS LEFT EUROPE. HISTORY FREAKIN' CHANGES, MARTIN*
----------------------------------------------

This is more the essense of a Republic. LESS government intervention vs. the Socialism of Britain, etc. The Church is seen as a philanthropic organization that picks up slack for those lacking in social support. The community supporting those in need. It always has been intended to serve that purpose and was given tax-exempt status a long time ago for that. In theory someone who is for less government intervention believes in noblesse oblige -- philanthropy. And that DOES exist to a great degree.

*Of all things, George W. Bush is NOT a true Republican. He has spent more money on social programs (failed ones I might had such as "No child left behind" - our education system is in shambles) than any recent democrats.*

I believe Clinton balanced the budget. We are currently in debt to the the tune of God knows what.

*The problem with Bush, and I've said this 100 times, is he is not a very bright man. If I were his father, I'd bury my head in shame. He is a horse with blinders on. He does not listen to his advisors. We know Colin Powell fled for the hills after serving as Secretary of State. And Bush is our Commander in Chief. That is part of the Constitution. He commands the military. That just IS. I wasn't here when that was determined.*

And you are misconstruing Bushes comments. Presidents, all leaders -- U.S. and FOREIGN -- say things like "God Bless the country", or whatever. Bush is inarticulate, if that isn't already obvious to anyone. He stumbles over every sentence. And I think he's yet another president who says NEW-CEW-LAR instead of NEW-CLEEE-AR. OMB.

The mistake with Iraq, is a history so complete with twists and turns I'd be writing a year. The WMD -- we were fooled, there was a great deal of uncertainty and misinformation. *Please remember that the UN had spent some 10 years searching for sus activities in Iraq -- the UN and other countries believed this just as much; Saddam played games with the UN for 10+ years. Bush, made a bad choice by using Iraq and Saddam (a leader Clinton tried to off in a failed attempt, along with a lot of other Presidents before him) as the one to blame for 9/11. That was a new ball of wax. Terrorism.*

But why oh God, oh why, does no one see that the Middle East is a unification of Mosque and State, and is indeed a threat. A complete unity of Mosque and State.

At any rate, no one thought clearly -- and this is why a President knowledgeable in foreign policy is so critical these days -- that the Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed by Saddam. There was no way the country would "pull together" and snap to it as quickly as so many assumed. Poor judgement. The biggest mistake. And Saddam's tyranny, dictatorship, held together a country of three conflicting tribes at bay. Though he didn't quite like the Kurds and did gas a good number of them.

You'd have to sit down and read about the History of the US, which has changed from isolationist to world power to global player along with everyone else. Since the Industrial Revolution we have all become one tiny world.

I have to get my answer on the religion thing together. Not quite sure. But it is so easy to blame the US for everything in the world. Forget about China, Russia, Israel, despots all over the world, in Africa, etc., etc. Pick one of those leaders instead.

And why does NO ONE in Britain take responsiblity for Blair's involvement in this? And doesn't he say, "God Bless" or something. Don't leaders have to be of some "religious" bent, to please the masses.

Martin there are far more religious people in this world than atheists.

And yes, our immigrant population -- Hispanic w/heavy duty Christianity from Mexico, and MANY other countries -- of course has affected our relgious makeup.

My maternal grandfather came off the boat from the old Ottoman Empire ... his birth certificate said born in Russia, but he was 100% German. Didn't speak a word of English when he came to this country. My maternal grandmother was French/German. My mother was a Lutheran -- but threw out religion and became an atheist. She became one when she went to medical school. (And by the way, the American dream lives on. My grandfather repaired trains, and my grandmother was a maid.)

YOU CAN'T GENERALIZE ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS PART OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY. GOOD FRIENDS OF MINE ARE EPISCOPALIANS WHO ARE HARD LINE LIBERALS.

WHY DON'T PEOPLE GET THAT? PEOPLE VOTE FOR DOMESTIC AS WELL AS FOREIGN POLICY. YOU DON'T GET THAT.

SIGH,
D
*And there is a song for you Martin in the "Recommend a Novel" section as well as my comments on Shakespeare. Also, if you were raised in a certain political climate and religion, the logical outcome is you will espouse that. You said your sister is very religious. My parents were hard line Conservatives. And my mother was an atheist. My parents were both bigots. But remember my father was born in 1906 -- 53 at my birth, my mother in 1915 -- 43 at my birth. My father had no clear sense of God in any way.

I am a middle of the road conservative, not religious, who also believes in social programs and strong foreign policy -- with diplomacy. But let me ask you, is diplomacy easy with countries that have NO common values with either your country or the U.S.? Sometimes I'm a libertarian. You are a secular, atheist, socialist -- much of Europe is secular and socialist.

Do you think you might have been able to sit down to tea with Saddam and have a logical, productive conversation with him. You might get your head blown off if he didn't care much for you. I love summary executioins of those who don't believe in a dictator.* :roll:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

The bottom line. I am NOT excusing Bush. I am telling you he is an embarassment to our country. He did what he, a not so bright, rigid man, feels he should be doing. He is shallow. He has concrete thinking.

We also haven't had the greatest choice in Presidents to vote for recently.

Democrats admit they can't step up to the plate and get their act together, and AGAIN, the Democrats in Congress could WITHHOLD FUNDS FOR FURTHER TROOP DEPLOYMENT. They don't want to take the fall. Let Bush take the fall whatever happens, which will be a disaster.

Ah, and had the Iraq war turned out just dandy, all of Europe would be in love with us.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS - Michael Moore is not furiously indignant, if he were he wouldn't stretch the truth and joke around like an idiot in his "documentaries." And as noted, once the government starts taxing his millions you can bet he'll move a tad to the right. He isn't serious, he loves to make a comedy out of everything. He has a power trip, he loves to deceive and manipulate. I'm not sayng he's the only one in the world who does, but as you say, the U.S. is very powerful, so is Moore.

Moore has also created a tremendous amount of hatred of the US. Yet he still lives here and takes advantages of a higher standard of living, and the life he likes best.

Do you know where he originally got funding for his early work? Canada. Again how can you respect a man who is ("educating" us) for lying? Why in the world would you have any respect for the man? Do you realize he has done similar things in every one of his films?

How can someone forgive Bush? I don't see the difference. They are both wearing blinders and each have a different agenda.

Why would you admire the man? I don't get it. Even the liberal documentarians who admired him and followed him were disappointed by his actions. They like him for bringing documentaries to a bigger audience. But he let THEM down. He doesn't want to be IN a documentary. He has things to hide.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OK, I don't know squat about religion in America save those who colonized America wanted freedom of worship. That's where this "problem" started.

I hate to say this, but I wasn't responsible for this, and I always feel I'm the only one defending this. Religion was never a part of my life. My private school was non-denominational, I had friends of all religious beliefs and no one preached. My cousin is a Fundamentalist Baptist who would drive anyone crazy. My university is very liberal, in a very liberal town, where I now live. I do not fit the mold described here, though I admit most of my friends/acquaintences are churchgoers.

A great site -- the library of congress -- history of religion in America:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/
*Library of Congress Exhibition of Religion in America*

"This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century *crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely.*

That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation's first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion.

The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville's observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.

*The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores."*

{My Note: Neither the Constitution nor The Bill of Rights made much note of God or religion. This ticked a lot of people off. But this is the basis of government, in terms of the judicial branch in particular. There is still a lot of emphasis on separation of Church and State, again amonst liberals. I as a middle-of-the-road non-religious person of course support many secular beliefs and so do many people I know, religious or not.

So, yes, first blame the British invasion (not the Beatles) who had to be religious before they hopped on the Mayflower, etc. Then blame follow-up immigrations where many from different countries around the world sought religious freedom, and this incudes Muslims, Jews, and those of other faiths.}

From a BBC interview I found on Google as well. Surprising to me as this doesn't touch my life and never did. Only my cousin who is truly over the edge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518221.stm

Protestant (White Evangelical) 30%
Roman Catholics 25%
Protestant (Liberal) 20%
Protestant (African-American) 8%
Jewish 2%
Other 15%
Source: City University of New York (2001)

I must admit, I was STUNNED by the fact that the vote for Bush was on religious grounds. A Republican seen as a religious man. The moral majority one. It was not a matter of domestic policy or the war! My State voted Kerry, but every liberal proposition vote I made was overturned ... e.g. gay civil-unions I voted for lost, etc.
......

"An ABC news exit poll taken on Election Day 2000 found that among the 42% of voters who attended religious services at least once a week, 58% voted for Bush.

Conversely, Gore won 61% among the 14% of Americans who reported they never attended religious services.

* Perhaps 40% of President Bush's total raw vote was provided by self-identified "evangelical" Christians *
Dr Richard Land

It is difficult to imagine the United States electing a candidate with the beliefs and policies of a George W. Bush, or for that matter a Ronald Reagan, without the strong role an increasingly conservative faith plays in tens of millions of Americans' lives.

Some estimates conclude that perhaps 40% of President Bush's total raw vote was provided by self-identified "evangelical" Christians.

Religion and society

How does this deep and abiding religious belief impact American society?

*According to an ICM poll in January 2004, Americans believe in the supernatural (91%), an afterlife (74%), "belief in a God/higher power makes you a better human being" (82%), God or a higher power judged their actions (76%), and perhaps most tellingly "would die for their God/beliefs" (71%).*

In 1880 Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov that "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

The history of his native Russia, wracked by the atrocities of atheistic communism for most of the 20th century, serves as a most graphic example of the truth of his conclusion.

Nazism, above all detested religion because it called for allegiance to something greater than the state, namely God.

President Bush at the opening of a Bible fellowship centre in Texas
When 71% of Americans say they would die for their faith, they are pledging allegiance to a loyalty beyond their loyalty to their country and are saying the exact polar opposite of "my country, right or wrong."

It is very important at this point to make a critical distinction: to be willing to die for one's faith is utterly different than to kill for it.

The overwhelming majority of Americans, religious and otherwise, would never feel that it is morally acceptable to kill, or even discriminate against, someone because they were of a differing faith or no faith."
----------------------------------------------------

I would say the latter is true. I have never been attacked or discriminated against for not being religious. My husband is not a practicing Jew. I know a great number of Jews who are religious and others who aren't.

I have to say though, in terms of Reagan, I respected the man and had no problems with his faith. He was far brighter, articulate, and knew diplomacy far better than Bush. But people forget that Jimmy Carter is a deeply religous man and he is a Democrat. I am not making excuses for anyone, again.

This is the United States. I personally see the Bible, the Koran, as history and myth combined. I do not take it as truth. (The Koran is more of a historical document).

*The thing is Martin, you are so rabidly atheist, and represent secular Europe ... I don't know how to discuss this with you. This is what comes out again and again. You say why? why? why? I say, you have to look at HISTORY. This is not some sort of conspiracy. It's who we are.*

I guess I again feel defensive when I shouldn't.
And my belief is that religioun/or rather spirituality is indeed a part of what is in the human mind. It is either an adaptation (which I don't think you buy) or an accidental adaptation. I am a Darwinist. I am a follower of V.S. Ramachandran.

Lord have mercy. I've learned a great deal, a good bit of which I knew from high school when I could pay attention, but this goes back centuries.

And again, if you look at Fundamentalists of ANY religion, you are going to witness the battle between politics and religion. And you will see corruption, even in a Buddhist Temple where the masters are sleeping with every woman in the Zendo. (or whatever it's all called)

I justify nothing in the name of God. And I will say again, one of my closest friends from college is an Episcopalian (her husband and 2 kids) and a hard line liberal. They are bright people, she a social worker, he a journalist for his local paper. If it makes you happy, they both hate Bush.

*I believe in the 10 Commandments. They simply make sense, I think some bright folks got together and figured they ought to write them down, or perhaps tell that these words came from God to frighten people. Home would disagree, and it's a simplistic interpretation of that. I also don't believe in the innate goodness of humanity. It is possible if there were no religion (especially in aeons past) we wouldn't have survived. There would have been anarchy as Dostoyevsky wrote:

"If God does not exist, then everything is permissible."

Hey, good ol' Dost was a great writer.

My hands are bleeding, and I feel like Sebastian's avatar. Need a nap, LOL.
I can't explain the actions of everyone in this world Martin. But it is very easy to say everyone is an idiot who doesn't espouse your POV. Maybe everyone is. I can't answer that.
Cheers,
Peace
D*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OY, one last thing. I always trot this pie chart out to illustrate that most of the world has some religous/spiritual affiliation.

*Martin, the question I ask of you is, OK, the US is a country of Christians, let's say that. Hence, Homeskooled will disagree, and so will I, we are all crazy. Most of the people on this board per the statistics have religious faith.*

But if you look at my fave site http://www.adherents.com/ where I learn something new every day about religion, and thier pie chart, and their wonderful divisions of "Famous people by religion", "Influential historical figures by religion", etc. ... if you look at that site .... you see that there is MORE FAITH in this world than NOT. Whether you have Faith yourself or NOT.

And you cannot say that these other religions have not used their "God" to justify any number of actions. And I would argue that neither all US citizens nor all Middle Easterners see the problems in the Middle East as purely religious, however, they are. They are the same tribal arguments about the "right" way to live.

I may be wrong, but I don't see the US any more guilty, or if anything LESS guilty of pushing Christianity on the world. And consider we haven't been around that long.

*Why do you say, "Why are AMERICANS so religious, when the majority of the WORLD is." And this indeed leads to sectarian strife in most countries. Religion, tribalism, competition for resources/territory. NOTHING NEW. I keep forgetting to ask you this, and of course you won't answer that either!*

Why Americans in particular? And don't tell me we're the Great World Power. There are MANY countries that have HUGE influence on various aspects of the world. We are not the be all and end all. And as noted, our "empire" will fall, sooner or later, as do all empires.

As noted. Fundamentalist Muslims could terrorize the US into submission. They could do the same to Europe, but they hate us in particular. And it is connected to Allah. They have declared a jihad against the US (and the West) -- that is outright a HOLY WAR.

Odd as it may seem. We are trying to defend ourselves against a jihad for crying out loud. And everyone in the Western world is at risk. And from China, India, Russia, all the other countries we see as being the next to step in line to be in charge.

Britain and the US are merely players in this whole game of bullies on the schoolground. But it would be the same w/out any God. It is tribal. It is cultural. It goes far deeper. But it can be fuelled by spiritual faith, and yes that is dangerous. But at this point, does it make a difference.

The French are afraid of their Muslim population, your government is.

I won't go on:


----------



## Fant?me (Feb 2, 2007)

As far as fundamentalism goes the Islamic world takes the cake but American evangelicals are almost as deeply insane. While some religious fundamentalism may be more detrimental in secluded pockets of the world, they do not have the profound effect that American Christians have on the world. Bush himself had weekly prayer sessions with a well-known evangelist minister Ted Haggard shown in the video below.






I found him frightening BEFORE the scandal. The world needs rid of religious zealots and those that oppose Science. I'll let you have your imaginary friend, but not when it interferes with Scientific growth or political subversion/manipulation.


----------



## Fant?me (Feb 2, 2007)

President Bush's personal religious adviser.






Religion is corrupt and sick.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2007)

====


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Fant?me said:


> As far as fundamentalism goes the Islamic world takes the cake but American evangelicals are almost as deeply insane. While some religious fundamentalism may be more detrimental in secluded pockets of the world, they do not have the profound effect that American Christians have on the world.


Well, I don't know enough about history/politics, etc. to answer that one, but on adherents.com there are some interesting stats. Of the 100 most influential people in history as noted by ... forgot the guy's name, (Hart) #1 Was

*Muhammad* Islam	Prophet of Islam; conqueror of Arabia; 
Hart recognized that ranking Muhammad first might be controversial, but felt that, from a secular historian's perspective, this was the correct choice because Muhammad is the only man to have been both a founder of a major world religion and a major military/political leader.


However, interesting that of the 100 individuals most were Christian. Crap, I forgot that number. But I think 13% out of the 100. I don't know what that means exactly. Many are religious leaders themselves (Buddha, etc.) hence are eliminiated from Christianity, inventors, explorers, etc.

Christ is noted as #3, however there is an asterisk which indicates that his followers could be considered critical in the propagation of Christianity. Don't quote me, but he was #3.

I also found the following an important point. And this is why atheism is a religion, as well as political affiliations, etc.:

*"Note that many influential philosophies (such as Marxist Communism or Confucianism) are not always classified as organized "religions" in the traditional sense, but are classified as such by sociologists because they are a primary motivational worldview for individuals, cultures or subcultures. Also, many founders never considered themselves adherents of philosophies or religions which later bore their name (e.g., Martin Luther and Lutheranism)."*

*"Adolf Hitler* his religion Nazism; born into but rejected Catholicism; allegedly a proponent of Germanic Neo-Paganism conqueror; led Axis Powers in WWII. His goal was to destroy Christians as well as all Jews. There could be no God above the State of the German Empire."

*William the Conqueror* Catholic	laid foundation of modern England ... well there's where they started growing Americans 8)

*Sigmund Freud* Jewish; atheist; Freudian psychology/psychoanalysis	founded Freudian school of psychology/psychoanalysis (i.e., the "religion of Freudianism)

John F. Kennedy was a Democrat and a Catholic and considered a highly influential president.

Not famous, but again noteworthy:
Bill Clinton, Democrat, has been critizized by hanging with the Black Southern Baptist Church in which he is very active.

Again, Jimmy Carter, Democrat. Deeply religious Southern Baptist. (Pretty sure...)
-----------------------------------------------------
*I guess my religion is "everything in moderation". FUNDAMENTALIST ANYTHING is damaging. Extremist views of any type blind people. Leaders and followers.

As noted as well, I do not have great faith in the goodness of humanity. If you consider Communism and Joseph Stalin (in the list of great influential people) -- well is Communism a "good religion"? IT IS A RELIGION. A PHILOSPHY THAT IS NON-THEIST, but frequently such a leader, like Hitler is "the God".*

What I don't like about terrorism is it is not a traditional enemy. It is insidious. It is everywhere, I think it is greatly underestimated. Again 9/11 is testament to that fact as well as even the recent invasion of Somalia. (I'm tired, I think Somalia).

So much influences history, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, can be excellent people. So can Democrats, Republicans, Secular Humanists. And all, every single religion and political party has the potential to become corrupt. And suddenly take center stage.

And stupid, ineffectual leaders such as Bush can take the stage as well, and make horrible mistakes.

I guess that's all I have to say. I like learning new things. Wish I could figure people out, and I do try. But go figure, if I were born in Iraq I would be a Muslim -- one of three main groups. I don't think I would have any option on that one, especially as a woman.

Also, America is not a Democracy it is a Republic, and I forgot what that means.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." There are many who will not say, "under God" here in the U.S. At least there is an opportunity, today, for freedom of speech.

Tomorrow, who knows?
Ciao,
D
Man I need a break.
Cheers, and I know I go on rants. No hard feelings. Forgive me for having a slight fit or something, LOL.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

Dreamer... I think you missed a bit =P


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Dreamer... I think you missed a bit =P


LOL.

Martin asked for it, and damnit if he doesn't respond. 8)

Oh, here's something interesting.

Michael Moore and John Kerry are Catholic. This is again from adherents.com Kerry makes sense. Moore -- I wonder if he has strayed from Catholicism.

People like Michael Moore because he's liberal. Period. And he bashes America. Americans bash American and foreigners bash America, yet they are all excluded from any wrong-doing of any sort. Apparently all other countries in the world are perfect.

If you read that adherents site Martin, you will get everything I'm talking about and angry with. No need to type until I die.

I do hope you respond in some fashion.

I'm movin' to Mars. My head is there anyway.

L,
D


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

The United States government has never been "secular". To be quite honest, anyone familiar with actual speeches and quotations of the founding fathers will find flat-out statements to the effect that we are a "Christian nation". I've read Supreme Court decisions since the 1800s regarding atheists versus the state, and until the 1960s (what was it, 1964?) they were rebutted by the Supreme Court with the _same bold comments_. I'll get the actual documentation on here, as I'm sure this is going to rile somebody up. In fact, the early US was SO Protestant/Puritan (which is why we have incredibly repressive views of sexuality even to this day - its our Calvinistic roots) that there were only 2 states that allowed Catholics to worship. Every other state had either an official Protestant denomination or an allowance for everything but Catholicism. Now I dont completely abide by the Church, but I do beleive in its Eucharist ie, Communion. And the only two states that allowed the celebration of the Mass were Pennsylvania, the FIRST state to allow freedom of worship, and Maryland, founded by Catholics, and, you guessed it, named after a very special Christian woman and mother. We were far more steeped in religion and relgious views when we began, and we've lost this.

Then in, I beleive, although this may be off by a year or two, in 1964, after the suing of an atheist parent, the Supreme Court ordered that prayers be stopped in American schools. No longer in the morning could the children say a Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and hold their hands over their hearts to say "one nation under God", followed by an Our Father. Since then, children wearing religious medals, praying with friends, praying at graduation, etc...have been asked by the state to cease, explain their actions, or go to court. Its a shame, its persecution, and there has ceased to be freedom of religious expresson for them. If one looks at the stats and the data leading up to 1964 and following it, you'll notice a distinct trend. Previously to 1964 there was only a rise in crime proportionate to the United State's population growth. After 1964, crime rates soared exponentially, completely decoupled from the growth of our population. If my memory serves me correct, the first year in which a rise in crime no longer was correlative to our population growth was in 1966. Also, since 1964, the divorce rate, which was actually decreasing prior to 1964, exploded. Tell me that the prayers of children do not have a strengthening effect on families, nations, and thier own character. There is something to be said for grace.

There have not been very many truly secular states. During the bloody French Revolution, and now I beleive, once again, France is an officially "secular" state. Under Sadaam Hussein, Iraq, too, was considered "secular". Not that these statements mean much. Part of the USSR's constitution guaranteed "freedom of religion". A great many people who died of religious persecution in the gulags of Siberia, I'm sure, probably wondered where that freedom was.

I am not pro-Bush. Nor am I pro-neocon. Nor am I pro-Michael Moore. I'm pro-Truth. I find his lack of respect for humanity, his blatant manipulation of our feelings, his disregard for truth despicable. If he has a point to prove, bring out the cold, hard data, or explain to me why the cold, hard, data doesnt matter (I do believe that there are higher ways to ascertain truth than numbers). But I cant agree that you can help people while showing how much you despise _their_ own ability to think, to feel, to know what is true or right. When I watch him, I always feel as though he hates people. That he doesnt really love other people. He says he's doing this for humanities welfare, but I always feel like he's a schoolyard bully, who likes to pick fights, and fights these fights for Michael. Liberalism is just a great excuse for his wanton disregard of people.

As for Neo-cons - well, neoconservatism has its merits. I dont consider myself one - I just want to stand for life, and its best uses. It emphasizes responsibilty for one's actions, fiscal responsibility (although under the past several republican presidents, the goverment has only gotten bigger, while under democrats, it has shrunk), respect for unborn babies, respect for Judeo-christian values, and most importantly, a certain respect for prayer. On the other hand, they espouse an old Testament view of judgment. They are war-hungry. They espouse capital punishment, which is almost as bad as abortion. They are tightfisted with the poor and the sick, and spend billions more on defense and weapons than social programs. The "liberals" on the other hand, while condemning capital punishment, are pro-abortion, saving the convicts but not sparing the unborn. They are pro-gay marriage, which I think is a way to sanction a dsyfunction - a dysfunction, mind you, that none of us should judge - but we could do so much better by doing things to strengthen true families. If anything, civil unions, I think, are appropriate, for gay couples. But in all fairness, civil unions should then be made available to all partnerships, including older sibling who live together and take care of one another. Liberals spend less on defense, and in many ways, are more "prolife" and have more compassion than conservatives. If I ever run for office, I'll probably please noone. Both sides of the aisle will revere and revile me. Anyways, that wouldnt be too much of a change from my life's status quo. Liberals, too, ascribe to an atheistic and revisionist view of history, especially our own, which I find very close to "wishful thinking" of the worst kind.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

====


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

When it comes to Bush, I blame the people who elected him, that means 50% (or whatever) of American citizens who turned up to vote.

Also, truth is a very easy word to use, but a very difficult concept to prove! Especially politically. Before we go out on our quest for truth, we should be doing the basic things to improve quality of life and reduce crime.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

Bush is so cute... lol


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

DelMar said:


> Reading the above post(s) I can only conclude (again), religion is poison.


It may be. But again -- where did I read this -- a NYTimes article there is NO CIVILIZATION WE KNOW OF IN HISTORY -- wait let me get the statement correct, I have the article .. that has been WITHOUT RELIGION.

This guy Scott Attran, Ph.D., 55, Anthropolologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, in his worldwide studies seeing religion as an evolutionary adaptation -- and at this time this is my POV -- so I'm not so rabidly against it -- it just IS ... anyway he as seen  "evidence of religion everywhere he looked -- at archaelogical digs in Israel, among the Mayans in Guatemala, in artifact drawers at the American Museum of Natural History in New York."

At any rate, why are we back at the beginning. Miss Starling, by saying that 50% of Americans are idiots for voting for Bush is such a huge generalization as you don't know the motives of every person. Aside from his/her religious background -- which I agree had a huge impact in that vote -- *each person here in the US votes for President and other representatives for TWO reasons, domestic policy and foreign policy. You are concerned about domestic policy. So are many others. Unfortunately as I see it, in this election, domestic policy was to enforce some strong religous policies, that stunned me in a time of war.*

Am I NOT going to beat up on those I know voted for Bush. No. I'm a civilized human being. And do we know what John Kerry would have done? I'd gather he'd have been a better president than Bush (Bush is a real surprise, hard to beat in the idiot department) ... *perhaps more articulate, dimplomatic. PERHAPS NOT* But he inherited a disaster. *WE WILL NEVER KNOW, IT'S DONE, WE MOVE ON NOW AND FIX THIS MESS.*

It is IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone no matter who you are. At any rate, in my POV, Bush was voted in again as some of the country was terrified by 9/11. I know I was. It is different in Europe. You have had many attacks on your soil, we have had nothing like that. Save Pear Harbor which was in a legitimate War. Not out of the blue with civilians as the target. They weren't "collateral damage", they were the target.

That was a huge factor in the WOMEN's vote. Others voted for their domestic reasons, financial reasons .... we're back to saying that Americans are stupid, and that's because they are religious, end of story. We haven't moved from the spot we started at in this conversation, and that is unfortunate.

There is NO COUNTRY in this world that has solved its domestic problems. NONE.

Ach, I'm tired of this.

*After all that, and Home, I appreciated your filling in the gaps re: history of religion in America, no one has anything but a simple "sound bite" again. Simple platitudes like "Religion is poison" and "We should take care of poverty." Back to simplicity. Easy platitudes trotted out at EVERY ELECTION.*

I especially liked one thing Home said, "I believe in Truth" ... and Moore and Bush would be examples of people who bend/break the truth. And in that sense Truth is not relative. *You tell things as they ARE or ARE NOT. Neither man does either.*

*Certain despots can be very truthful. "Oppose me and I will kill you, gas you, execute you, destroy your family." Truth isn't always PRETTY. It just IS. Hitler told the truth. I'm going to "cleanse the human race" and he damned well did a rather good job until he was stopped. Millions were killed like animals, and NOT JUST JEWS. He wished to eliminate religion (Christians),

also homosexuals, mental "defectives", the mentally ill, as he did not want any "power" to exist above the State, e.g. him. Saddam was the same in terms of secular control of warring sectarian religious groups. Yes he "kept the peace." I suppose he's a great ruler.*

The world is a religious place, we always have been, not just the U.S. And since the dawn of man.

I guess it is so, so, so, so tiresome to be an American who has no ill will essentially for other countries, who is trying to understand the PSYCHOLOGY of why we act the way we do, which seems very destructive -- ALL OVER THE WORLD, and all I get, and essentially all you hear if you arene't Liberal, is you are an idiot. Love that.

And as I said, I have explained 600 times. One can have many parts to onesself, many reasons for acting as one does. Again, I am more conservative. I believe in less Federal intervention. I believe the individual States are responsible for making many decisions for themselves.

Think of the US in a certain sense as 50 different countries! We do not have identical local laws.

Anyway, though I am conservative in things like education, I don't know what to do re: healthcare ... as it is a fear of mine! ... maybe we shoulc have socialized medicine, I don't know. I am PRO-GAY, PRO-CHOICE, equal opportunity, but not necessarily affirmative action. I believe in a strong military DEFENSE. I do not LIKE WAR! But war as never NOT EXISTED, EVER. And we have been attacked in history. It would be stupid to have no defense. Everyone hates our guts.

So how do I fit into any category. Oh and again, I am an agnostic. But I don't have complete disdain for religion/theism. I know amazing people who are quietly spiritual and sometimes I wish I had the faith or ritual they have in their life. But true, I don't like thing forced on me.

*I am so frusrated that all anyone can say is "Religion is evil, and Americans are stupid." Very unconstructive comments. What is your pat solution to these two things -- ANYONE?*

*Home*, you have the year about correct re: relgion being eliminated from schools. I believe I was in second or third grade when we no longer started the morning as follows:

1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Lord's Prayer (My Father who art in Heaven.....)
3. Sing "Onward Christian Soldiers"

After we did that, we mentioned nothing about religion the rest of the day unless it was part of our studies. And we DID study religioin. I new some fellow students from @1962-1976 -- I went to the same school with about 10 of them that ENTIRE TIME. Not one was the same in terms of political POV. Solutions to problems in society raised in class. There were blacks, Jews, Christians. Democrats and Republicans. And yes, atheists.

It was a fantastic school that saved my life. It was my family.

Anyway, let's see in 3rd grade ... that was 1965. We changed the morning RITUAL, to saying The Pledge of Allegiance in assembly. No more prayer, no more Lutheran song. My community was Protestant obviously.

And believe me there are MANY who want to do the silliest things such as remove the cross from the flag of California. Good Lord, the history of the STATE (we each have State Flags), was formed by the Spanish forming missions up the coast. THE FREAKIN' SPANISH INVADERS, LOL.
You'd think someone would have something better to do than take an itty bitty cross of the California flag.

Let's rewrite history. Cleanse religion from our brains somehow. Let us have our "Brave New World."

I give up.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

> NO CIVILIZATION WE KNOW OF IN HISTORY -- wait let me get the statement correct, I have the article .. that has been WITHOUT RELIGION.


Hey I brought that question up didn't I? =) ... some times i can be clever when i want... but I feel just as tired as you do after writing a reply, yet you write anything upto 100.000.000 words... bless ya.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2007)

Miss_Starling said:


> When it comes to Bush, I blame the people who erected him


 :lol: that deserved a mis-quote :mrgreen:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I would love to steal your avatar Sebastian and I can't, it's perfect for you, but I think I have gone a little mad over this again, LOLOLOL
All, please forgive me, but:

1. We can't make gross generalizations
2. We can't understand the motives behind everything/people
3. We try to give our 2 cents of something to the world and that's the best we can do.
4. I don't find the world an especially friendly place, but it has tremendous beauty and simple pleasures -- wherever you find them.

OK, I swear I won't have a fit or something like this for a while. I'm going to ban myself from this section for a while.... maybe.... ACH

Yes, this is Dreamer, literally. I read, research and type a LOT and fast every day much of the day. And I really just want to understand things, and I feel defensive, and I've said that 25,000 times. *And we are all unique. And that is a good thing, and a complicating thing for humanity.*

L,
D









Dreamer, The Hairball of Anxiety - and if I could, I'd use it as my avatar. But I do love my Boo Border Terrier. There's a simple pleasure and I miss him.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Here's another question for you Dreamer, since you like to write so damn much :lol:

Ok, I may be misinformed here and I am definately paraphrasing. But I am under the impression that somewhere in the American constitution (that article that Americans cling to dearly) it says something to the effect of:

"The military or government will never hold absolute power over the people. The people will always maintain a militia of equal size of the military. At any time if the government or military overpower the militia the people MUST rise up and overthrow the government, using force is necessary".

Obviously borne from the conflict of your civil war. Incidentally it wouldn't surprise me to see another civil war in America in the near future. And it won't be pretty.

This isn't really related to the thread but since we got off topic and I'm feeling mischievous I thought I'd throw a spanner in the works.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

I can't see there being an American civil war. Who would fight it? Everyone would unite over Dunkin' Donuts.  Americans care too much for their standard of living to bother with fight amongst themselves. I'm under the impression that as long as dad has a gun or two and junior can reign supreme in the college football team, everyone's happy.

Let's face it...the militia are running the government already. Look at Bush!!!!!!

Maybe I'm just being facetious.

I think it goes both ways though. I think American values have many benefits. It really inspired me when I was younger when I was still very much in the mind-set of self-denial and control. The sense of goodness in prosperity is a good thing I think. People should be able to enjoy that without shame. It's different over here. People would think it odd for one to say how well they are doing...it would be considered boastful, possibly a bit arrogant too, self-centred. But let's face it, if you can't take pride and enjoyment in your sense of achievment and basic enjoyment of life...what can you enjoy?

It is probably more interesting to compare US culture to the way of life on the Continent though. They still have the priority of family, unlike in the UK, but they seem to manage it without so much self-promotion.

All my comments are prejudiced, racist and narrow-minded. Please argue with me! =P


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Miss_Starling said:


> I can't see there being an American civil war. Who would fight it? Everyone would unite over Dunkin' Donuts.  Americans care too much for their standard of living to bother with fight amongst themselves. I'm under the impression that as long as dad has a gun or two and junior can reign supreme in the college football team, everyone's happy.
> 
> Let's face it...the militia are running the government already. Look at Bush!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Yes, Miss Starling, you do have a ton of rather narrow-minded comments :? 8) which I simply can't address. You can't possibly believe that every American is as you describe them. We have a class structure here where there is a weakening Middle Class, there are the very rich, and more and more the struggling.

Oh, I don't want to answer all of these points. Again, and this is sad -- have you been to the US? Have you lived in in various locations, have you been poor here, wealthy here, middle class here? Some here are very materialsitic, yes. I don't like that about America. We have many qualities I dislike intensely, but I don't know ENOUGH about your country to make such insulting comments.

Do you really know enough about mine?

Re: militia. And first re: the Constitution. If I'm not mistaken, again, every civilized country has an equivalent to The Constitution. It is the basis of how you carry out your entire political system, your laws. Why is that a problem for you Cecil? Because our system of education stinks, most people don't even know what it is. Our health care system is in trouble. This is NOT a perfect place to live any more than is any other country. Everyone here still has to work for a living.

You are watching movies and stereotypes. Where are you getting all your information from? Everyone with a kid who plays football. I see.

Also, I believe you're confusing something Cecil I don't know enough about, and I also ask people, why don't you Google it or read about it yourself IF YOU ARE SINCERELY INTERESTED in doing anything but being rude.

I believe, and I don't feel like looking it up, but when I Googled American Military History it was pages long. COMPLEX, get it. THINGS AREN'T just simple explanations.

We weren't always 50 states. All of America wasn't colonized in 15 minutes. It expanded Westward. There were 13 original colonies -- EUROPEANS WHO LEFT ... BRITAIN, ETC. We are immigrants. Our last State .. don't recall didn't enter the Union until the mid 1900s. Man, I don't know this history well at all.

Anyway, initially I believe the STATES were responsible for their own MILITIAs. (Before there WERE 50 States) This is not the same as a military complex. In essense each state's military wasn't under the umbrella of the FEDERAL government as it is today. So I suppose what you're quoting and dear God, I don't know the Constitution by heart, is from waay back.

We have changed, I don't know when, but in the late 1700?s, to a FEDERAL MILITARY complex. The President is "Commander in Cheif" of the military. Why the Hell am I explaining this, you can read a better version of it yourself. We don't have "militias" We have one centralized military complex as do most countries. You think there are tanks sitting somewhere near my apartment?

Also we have the reserves who help in disasters. Miliatary bases with the "Air National Guard", etc. Sadly we have been dipping into this pool in the Iraq war. That is unnacceptable.

There is no way this country would have a civil war unless sadly some of the "Confederates" in the South who still want segregation decide to attack the North again, but I doubt that will happen. Where would they get the military equipment, it is Federal property?

I really give up on this. It is truly insulting. I can't help it I was born here. I am not "wealthy". My husband works his ass off everyday as does every average American. And don't worry, we pay plenty of taxes. Bumper stickers here read "I owe, I owe, it's off to work I go."

Our country has many faults. So does yours. You have such a sterotyped version it is ridiculous. As noted, America is far from perfect, but it is astounding people won't discuss things seriously here, but make endless jokes about what goes on here.

I can't answer any of this anymore, though it really pisses me off again.

Go find books. Go look up American history and politics, and look it up in your own countries. Read about history. I am not an expert in any of this.

You were born where you were born. I was born here. So shoot me. And as noted, as a girl and young woman I travelled extensively around the world with my mother. And on one lovely trip with my father. I found tremendous beauty in every place I was. And I found ugliness. You could say the same about America.

You know the lack of YOUR diplomacy and desire to understand another country is the type of thing that leads to hatred. How ironic.

You know one of the most beautiful places in the world is Africa. I have been on the Serengeti plains. I was in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. It would not be a good idea to travel there now. I have never seen Israel, the Holy Land, I cannot travel there now. Not a good idea. I have been to Europe many times and find it astoundingly beautiful.

I have been briefly to the former Soviet Union. That was not pleasant. I have been in the Rome airport waiting 48 hours to get out as there was a hurricane on the East Coast. Itallian soldiers with rifles on their backs were patroling for terrorists THEN ... 1985. (The year of the Achille Lauro hijacking, etc. -- see below. We escaped being blown away in the Da Vinci airport by a few weeks?)

I have been through a number of scary events in my travels which were related to internal strife in the countries visited. What horrified me, was when I returned from Italy (and my father, safe), I saw on TV the VERY AREA we had spent for hours playing cards with many other people ... it was riddled with bullets from a terrorist attack. WHERE WE HAD BEEN SITTING -- not just with Americans, but friendsly Europeans -- we laughed, we crabbed there was no food, and slept on the floor in a group, LOL.

But I have never LIVED in those countries. THAT would be another story.

Yes, there are only full stereotypes, platitudes, biases, bigotry, and hatred in much of what's said. I can only say,

"He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Done,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

This is the crap that happens all the time over the world. My father and I took that cruise in the Black Sea on a Norweigian sp? ship in September. The Achille Lauro was hijacked in October. My father took me on this cruise. It was our "goodbye". He was 80, I was 28 or so.

Also, yes he was a doctor. He in theory would have been a wealthy man -- but not extremely wealthy. Sadly he had OCD and was a compulsive gambler, and a stranger in my life. I didn't know we couldn't even afford this trip. But it was his gift to me. I only got to know him a bit on that trip. He had virtually no money when he died.

Not every story is as you think it is....

We were given the option of canceling the trip with a full refund. We chose to go. There were not just Americans on the ship. There were wealthy Mexicans (very wealthy), Europeans as well. There are wealthy in all countries who live "the high life." One couple took the Penthouse for $25,000 for a two week trip. They were not American. I don't recall their country.

There has always been terrorism.

"Four heavily armed Palestinian terrorists in October hijack the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro, carrying more than 400 passengers and crew, off Egypt.

The hijackers demand that Israel free 50 Palestinian prisoners. The terrorists kill a disabled American tourist, 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, and throw his body overboard with his wheelchair.

After a two-day drama, the hijackers surrender in exchange for a pledge of safe passage. But when an Egyptian jet tries to fly the hijackers to freedom, U.S. Navy F-14 fighters intercept it and force it to land in Sicily. The terrorists are taken into custody by Italian authorities.

Counter- terrorist units from the U.S responded, including elements of Delta Force and SEAL Team Six, however the situation was resolved before an assault became necessary."

This is the world. Wake up.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

First off - Dreamer. You always start to fume when I post something like this; I don't know if is is because of some percieved offence towards your personal patriotism, or whether you think that *I* think that America is the only fundamentalist religious state in the world. Of course I don't! There are countries, notably the Arab states of course, which are far, far worse. The problem I have with America and the neo-con America taliban is that America is the most powerful country in the world, and thus any country with a religiously appointed agenda is extremely dangerous. America is meant to be the land of the FREE (including freedom from religion, not just freedom OF religion)! And I am not defending Blair whatsoever. His religious convictions (not just in regard to Iraq, but other, less well documented laws and controversies - such as the 'Encitement to Religious Hatred Bill' and his, documented, refusal to even _consider_ assisted suicide for teminally ill people - because of his religious beliefs). But in my country, and in Europe in particular, there is not the overt and realy quite shocking rise of religious fundamentalism. I can't think of one example of any european leader, with the notable exception of Blair (and even he does it under his breath, because of the knowledge that the British people are sick to death of religiously based violence and bigotry), who invokes divine power as the reason for his/her policies. As to your pie-graph, I don't understand what you were getting at. I know that a large proportion of people in the world are religious, and? My truck is not with the large proportion who practise their religion quietly, without evangelising, or discriminating, it is with those who's 'faith' compells them to do harm.

As for your demand for quotes, how about some of these:

"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." - Geroge Bush Senior.

?George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God.? - Lt General William G. Boykin

"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." - Pat Buchanan

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." - George Bush

"I think that actually AIDS is a guardian. That is I think it was sent, if you would, about forty years ago, to destroy Western civilization unless we change our sexual ways. So it's really a Godsend." - Paul Cameron, Chair of the *Family* Research Institue

"That lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers." - Catherine Harris, US Congress.

I could go on and on and on. Don't you see how scary this is to the rest of the world? These are people in POWER, in the most powerful country in the world. If a european politican, military or religous leader said something like this they would be hounded out of office, at the very least, or even charged criminally.

Homeskooled - I know it is the wont (and indeed, talent) and almost exclusive reserve of the religious to 'interpret' documents and scripture to suit their various religous vanity, but the simple fact is that the American constitution in based on church and state seperation. It's all there in black and white. True, it also says that people may be allow to practise their religion freely, but that is a far cry from saying that the religious have cart blance to interfere in state affairs.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." - The phrase separation of church and state was popularized by Thomas Jefferson, which is in the 1st Amendment of the constitution!!

"church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." - 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in New England.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. " - Roger Williams, baptist founder of the colony of Rhode Island.

"That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province" - New Jersey Constitution, 1776.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> I Yes, Miss Starling, you do have a ton of rather narrow-minded comments :? 8) which I simply can't address. You can't possibly believe that every American is as you describe them. We have a class structure here where there is a weakening Middle Class, there are the very rich, and more and more the struggling.
> 
> Oh, I don't want to answer all of these points. Again, and this is sad -- have you been to the US? Have you lived in in various locations, have you been poor here, wealthy here, middle class here? Some here are very materialsitic, yes. I don't like that about America. We have many qualities I dislike intensely, but I don't know ENOUGH about your country to make such insulting comments.D


You really shouldn't take me so seriously. Honestly. I like the US.

I have been to the US twice totalling about a month (Washinton, Virginia, Raleigh, Oregon coast/Portland/Eugene). I haven't spent really any time with the poor, and that means my views are probably very skewed. But I have been to a few places and stayed with six families (four religious, two non-religious) and students also. Some of the people were conservative, others well educated, others country dwelling. They were all middle-class I think...but it is hard to compare it to the class system here. With the exception of people like me, it is I think easier to define what social strata people occupy in the UK, though not always a case of wealth.

As I say, I haven't stayed with the poor, although I did visit some people who were less well off.

The thing is that being in the States is different from looking in from the outside. You have a very good quality of life -- everything is piled up and expensive in the UK. It's great how easy it is for you to drive so young and use more space....although driving has its downside.

Overall, I'd say the States is a nice place to live. People are warm and friendly, generous, proud in a good way, respectful, considering, kind. The American values have a lot of positive qualities. But to take all those would alone would be foolish. The world outside is very different, and I'm sure the poor people probably have a harder time than I can appreciate as a poor person in the UK.

I don't envy the people who have to work 14 hours a day with no minumum wage, only 2 weeks holiday a year, and no medical insurance to give them some sense of security.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Apart from that Dreamer, you really shouldn't take things so personally. At the end of the day if I think of Americans sitting in diner's over burgers and burritos - it really doesn't matter. I have a greasy spoon cafe at the end of my street and I wouldn't be surprised if they still use lard in their cooking! I don't take it personally if a Frenchy (  ) complains that "you can't trust a man who eats such bad food"...which is what Jaques Chirac said of the English lately. We are all inter-linked.

Ah, a nice track has just come on the radio:

John Barry, The beyondness of things.

We need to go beyond our differences.

(Excuse me for being so cheesy).


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> My truck is not with the large proportion who practise their religion quietly, without evangelising, or discriminating, it is with those who's 'faith' compells them to do harm.


Well, then you deal with Fundamentalist Muslims when they try to blow up the tube. They've pegged many European monuments, France's Eiffel Tower, etc. When they hijack your planes and fly them into Big Ben, etc., well then deal with it. Did you know that most of our Presidents have been pegged for assasination by terrorist groups? What this has to do with religion is with THEIR culture and religion as much as ours. Why don't you see the destruction THEY are inflicting.

So WE deserve to be beaten to a pulp along with anyone who is capitalist and Christian. Also, no good if you're a Jew. What else. And innocent peacefully practicing Muslims get kicked in the head in most countries as well. But as I recall, you got ticked off by someone in the tube angry with you that you were reading "The God Delusion" and a Jew was "mumbling the Torah under his breath". You HATE people with religious faith. I find that equally disturbing. And on an American public transit, that wouldn't happen ... at least not by the conductor! or train guy, or whatever the Hell you call them.

I get angry because the disucssionn never changes. I don't know what to do to make you happy. Shall I get a group together (and there are such people) who oppose much of what goes on in our Government, and our country allows that. There are better representatives of that than Michael Moore.

Out of order here -- you quote George Bush as an example of all of the US -- great, the fine inarticulate idiot, and PAT BUCHANAN? Oh please. Another idiot on the Right! You might as well have quoted Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh ... you are quoting extremists. But you support Moore.

I am not a PATRIOT. I live in the US and feel attacked for being BORN here. What the HELL do you want me to do about all of this? My focus in this life for me is to educate people about mental illness. I am not a politician.

But your RABID atheism is almost Fundamentalist ... I could say it is. I don't have such a problem with it. I never have. Good GOD I don't know why we swung so far towards the evangelical, but as noted, most of my friends who are religious despise Bush, so your theory doesn't fly, and same friends believe in separation of Church and State.

Remember that England is TINY, as are many European countries. England could fit about 4 times into ALASKA. We have power because of our size as well. Our population is huge compared to any one European nation. And hence we are looked to to "protect" our allies. I didn't set that up.

And of course there are AMMENDMENTS to the Constitution that have to be debated endlessly. I honestly don't know enough about it ... when we last had an ammendment. As NOTED I BELIEVE IN LESS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM. IF I BELIEVE IN THAT THEN I BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

What The Hell does Patriot mean? Again, I am not waving a flag. I am overly sensitive to your endless attacks on Religon and the US. You admit we aren't the only country guilty of the faults you talk of, including your own. Yet you CHOOSE to attack the U.S.

Don't worry, I am really expecting, I'm not kidding, a huge terrorist attack on our country within the next few years that could seriously weaken us. An attack on a nuclear plant, poison, biological weapons. Terrorists do not stop. Then you can be done with us.

You are a patriot of atheism then Martin.

Yes, I do take things far to personally. I'm glad a few people who are decent and have religious inclinations respond here. Few do, because they don't care to be attacked. I guess I do get sick of your endless atheism. Perhpas you remind me of my mother who also said all black people should be bulldozed into Lake Michigan and that the only profession anyone should aspire to is doctor.

Her hysterical laughter over religion PERSISTED AFTER she forgot her name, who I was, when she became demented. It was astounding. Also, others with Alzheimer's who WERE spiritual, also lacking in much understanding of anything found comfort in sitting in a sort of pseudo non-denomination chapel in the Nursing Home. I'm fascinated by that in terms of the brain. How could that be?

And you say, isn't it criminal how children are raised? Religion FORCED on them. Well that's been happening AGAIN since the dawn of man. As I said, I believe it serves some purpose that perhaps in modern times has become dangerous in certain ways, and remains positive in others.

I should stick to my interest in psychology, although it involves what we discuss here.

God, if I had the money and the mental health I'd move to another country just to stop getting verbally attacked for living here. My mother forced atheism on me. A hatred of humanity so great, well I've never met anyone like her since. I did not become like her.

Maybe that's what stings.
I don't know.
How should the world be Martin? Tailored to your needs?
I get grief here in the US, especially Michgan and Motown, for owning a Japanese car. I can't believe people here drive Humvees!

Never mind. You like Michael Moore, and you havne't explained why, though he is indeed a Catholic. That was the original topic. You tell me I'm a patriot of some sort which is ridiculous. You are against people being told not to smoke in public places but it is proven that second hand smoke can be deadly, and yet, no one (and I agree) should smoke around their children.

GIVE ME A SOLUTION TO ALL OF THIS MARTIN.
The conspiracy against you.
Every quotation you gave were from idiots that are the right-wing equivalent to Michael Moore.

Never Mind.
I'll stick to understanding human behavior which I believe is impossible. Have no clue where you fit in Martin.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

edit


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I have it: this is why I'm angry:

*EDIT: This is the point. You completely contradict yourself, endlessly.*

Again above you say:


> My truck is not with the large proportion who practise their religion quietly, without evangelising, or discriminating, it is with those who's 'faith' compells them to do harm.


_That isn't true!_ Again, if I could find the link to that other thread (among MANY) that are anti-religious about the conductor on the tube being angry with you for reading the "God Delusion" while he didn't bother the "mumbling and bowing Hassidic Jew." .... that isn't true. YOU DO have a problem with the "large proportion" <---------- YOU said that, "who practice their religion quietly"

Well I don't have a problem with them either. As noted in that thread, the CONDUCTOR was at fault, but you had to add that little insulting twist about the Jew. And you would have said the same about a Muslim, a Christian, etc. Your comment about the Jew was purely gratuitous. He was a quietly practicing Jew. If he were too loud and bothering people fine, but he wasn't.

My concern, yes, is with Fundamentalism of any kind. ANY kind. Extremeism of any kind. And yes, I suppose it stings as that was my mother -- in many ways, you sound like her, especially re: religion. Interesting, it all comes to some form of enlightenment at least.

She would say, "Oh, you're going to Church with your fat friend on Sunday?" and laugh. My "fat friend's" name was Lisa from school who had invited me to her house over Saturday night. She had a name. She had Faith. That isn't an innocent comment. And it was completely unnecessary.

*But you regularly are stunned by religion in this world -- that's why I endlessly put up the pie-chart. You are in the minority. So am I. But I look at religion with curiosity, not with hatred. And then you pull in the US. As Home said, the US has never been secular. What has resulted over the past 200+ years here in terms of our becoming a world power is out of my hands. Bush is felt to be a menace (at best) by most Americans. He will NOT be re-elected in 2008.*

That is how I feel.

I'm not an American, I am a member of the human race and I live on a tiny ball called Earth that has a lot of problems. My place of residence is the country I was born in and as a citizen I do as best I can. I'd rather live here than in many other countries. I'm simply lucky.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> I have it: this is why I'm angry:
> 
> *EDIT: This is the point. You completely contradict yourself, endlessly.*


?


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2007)

Miss_Starling I think that post wasnt directed at you, but at Martin. Correct me if Im wrong?


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Yes, how foolish of me.

I don't want to get dragged into some massive argument...but I really don't see the point in all of these statistics and trying to convince an atheist that he should be something else. We each have our own path and own life and the freedom to choose what we hold true to ourselves. I see no point in trying to convince anyone of anything other than that each person deserves respect. In theory, being an atheist does not mean being disrespectful of faith. I find most of Martin's points tongue in cheek in a way, he is a comedian and novelist, he uses his mind to single out the rediculous in everything and does a good job of it. As well as that, the world is rediculous and contradictory! There is some truth in that.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Miss_Starling said:


> Yes, how foolish of me.
> 
> I see no point in trying to convince anyone of anything other than that each person deserves respect. In theory, being an atheist does not mean being disrespectful of faith. I find most of Martin's points tongue in cheek in a way, he is a comedian and novelist, he uses his mind to single out the rediculous in everything and does a good job of it. As well as that, the world is rediculous and contradictory! There is some truth in that.


Miss Starling,
No, no attacks on you. I am not convincing Martin to not be an atheist!!!! he never stops attacking sprituality of any kind. I myself am non-religious, non-theistic, yet cannot say for certainty if there is or is not a higher power, hence I am agnostic and in Martin's group. Martin believes an agnostic is an atheist and will not agree to that fact. I also don't preach agnosticism as he does atheism.

*He is indeed disrespectful of faith, very, he thinks people with faith are fools at best. He complains about evangelism and fundamentalism -- so do I. Yet he is evangelizing about atheism like a fundamentalist. He is concerned that children in religious homes are given no right to make a choice about being religious or not. And after a while it even hurts me. Have a look at the debates in the Spiritual forum. I used to enjoy them. Now I don't go there anymore.*

I have a variety of interpretations of spiritualiy, but I don't judge people of faith and don't care to change them.

I am concerned of Fundamentalist anything.

Also, my husband who is truly an expert on this ... we talked some hours on the phone last night. He's the Ph.D. (almost -- has OCD and never finished) on Political Science but studied it since 8th grade. The one whose father was a communist. My husband is a moderate conservative and sometimes libertarian now which is completely to the other side. Also, in case you think he just graduated, he is much older than I. 63. And has lived through more history than anyone here. And reads voraciously about it AND works for the Federal Government in Consumer Fraud Protection.

I can't explain it now but he says that the U.S. is a secular nation, but no one understands why (note he was also raised a non-practising Jew who is interested in Buddhism) as they don't read intellectual history of the US.

He recommended some books to me.

The Liberal Tradition in America by Lewis Hartz

Democracy in America by de Toquevile

If you go to amazon you'll find pages of this type of intellecual analysis of history as well as why Europeans hate the U.S. So much of the little I know isn't strong enough to debate Martin, but he's studied as much US history as I've studied British history.

My beef, if you note the thread was about Michael Moore lying in a film. It veered off almost immediately to the destruction "Evangelical America" has caused the world. And again how stupid Americans are. I'm just plain tired of it.

I explained why Martin's atheism, and his way of preaching it, literally has hurt me. I got sick of it, and blew a fuse. He is indeed very much like my mother who was not only an atheist, but talked about it endlessly, made fun of her sister and my cousins who attend/attended Church.

If Martin could, he would eliminate religion from the planet. I believe it. I don't know if religion is "good" or "bad" but that is the most extreme thing I've heard save from dictators.

My mother was a misanthropic, fundamentalist, feminist, atheist. She had no friends. She hurt everyone around her. I don't know Martin, I sent him an email. I'm sorry that I can't enjoy the positive intellectual, humorous side of him, because I can't stand this other part of him. He does remind me of my mother's cruelty and her rigidity of thinking,

I enjoy debates. I learn from them. One can't learn or exhange ideas with someone completely in denial about the other side of the coin. The way he describes this country as well, wel my God, I must be living somewhere else. The more I contemplate what he's said, he isn't talking about where I live at least.

Also, sometime back he has blamed America for the MacDonald's popping up all over 
England. I only ask then, *in the tone I receive about America all the time, "Why do you STUPID idiots allow for MacDonald's deals to go through. We didn't come over with tanks and set up barriers while the buildings were unders construction! British businessmen sold themselves out. What IDIOTS. And the British (what percent I don't know) are fools to have elected Tony Blair." What got into you fools?*

I don't expect to change Martin. I can only change myself by not getting riled up by him. That's my problem and I own it.

Sorry.
I started a thread on Michael Moore.

D


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> I don't expect to change Martin. I can only change myself by not getting riled up by him. That's my problem and I own it.
> 
> D


Teehee, good idea. I have a book by Jeremy Clarkson (oh what you miss out on by being American! Good ol' British wingeing!)...it's called Born to be Riled.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Miss_Starling said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't expect to change Martin. I can only change myself by not getting riled up by him. That's my problem and I own it.
> ...


Bless you. 8)

I'm now going to have to google this Clarkson, and wingeing! LOLOLOLOLOL.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> I'm sorry that I can't enjoy the positive intellectual, humorous side of him, because I can't stand this other part of him. He does remind me of my mother's cruelty and her rigidity of thinking,


I feel a lot of pain when I respond sometimes...it's okay Sandy, you don't have to equate Martin's humour with what happened earlier in your life. If you could just work through your mother's influence first, it would give you a whole new attitude to what Martin writes. Do try and see it for what it is. It's not a personal attack on you, but a queer fascination with the absurdities of peoples' lives. He doesn't mean any harm I don't think.

In fact maybe a bit of Clarkson would do you some good. It's very entertaining. He's pretty much dismissive of all things green and ethical, but he doesn't half speak some truth. You've got to take these things with a pinch of salt sometimes.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Dreamer, I'm never attacking you and I'm sorry you get so upset about these things.

As for the civil war - if it was to happen I think it would be because people would realise their civil liberties are being stripped from them and because they are tired of living in fear.

But I'll tell you what we can all do right now to make this world a better place:

Just stop putting our energy into all of these systems we've created that don't work. Politics, government, religion - let it all just fall down. If enough people stop putting their energy into it, it'll all just sort of crumble under its own weight and dissapate peacefully. Then we can start to rebuild from the ground up with a system that actually works.

Just a thought though.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

CECIL said:


> Dreamer, I'm never attacking you and I'm sorry you get so upset about these things.
> 
> As for the civil war - if it was to happen I think it would be because people would realise their civil liberties are being stripped from them and because they are tired of living in fear.
> 
> ...


Thank you Cecil. I have calmed down considerably. I really appreciate that, and I KNOW I get impossibly crazy, knickers in a twist, etc. I'm glad I understand why I was so angry about this. And I do owe an apology to Martin.

Again, Cecil, I wish I had the same optimism as you do. I would like the world to be the way you say. Like John Lennon's song "Imagine." I know this sounds cheesy, but I cry EVERYTIME I hear that song! I just don't have enough faith in humanity, though on the other hand I do know a lot of decent people. I've met many over my lifetime.

Here's an irony to all this too. I was at the bookstore, and TIME magazine is out. I'm working on that, then de Toqueville ... the article ...
"How the Right Went Wrong" We ARE aware of extremism, in both parties. How we solve all of this, I don't know. I take heart in everyone working for positive things, whatever they are -- there's something very good about that. I need to focus on that, more than the negative. VERY hard for me to do.

"Maybe someday you'll join us, and all the world will live as one."

Also cry over "The Long And Winding Road" .... "You left me standing here, a long long time ago. Don't leave me waiting here. Lead me to your door."

Cheers indeed,
I enjoyed The Celtic Women on St. Patty's Day 8) What a beautiful concert, on PBS.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I'll get back to this, but I'm in a rush and it's snowing (yey! snowman time!). But just a quick one.



> He is indeed disrespectful of faith


Yes, I am. Because I thought respect had to be earnt.

I love you dreamer, steam coming out of your ears and all. As Ms Starling said, I'm not attacking your personally, for gawds sake. You started a thread, I responded (with unusually mild restraint, I might add), and suddenly I'm burning your house down and drowning your pets!!!!!!!


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

> Because I thought respect had to be earnt.


Well, yes, that may be true. But properly researching one's claims may be the first step to this. I want to back up what I said earlier. Mind you, these arent my opinions, they are practically stifling to anyone's religion which was not their brand of Christainity, which is actually the way it was in the colonies besides Marlyand and Pennsylvania, but they ARE historical.

In George Washington's letter of August 20, 1778 to Brig. General Thomas Nelson, found in John C. Fitzpatrick's The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XII, Washington writes about his beleif that God guided the American Revolution:



> The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.


I often feel this way about my own life. After a certain point, assuming His existence doesnt seem like faith - its just being realistic.

" You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington, speaking to a band of Indians near the Delaware

" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

They were VERY opinionated on this subject, especially the opinonated and creative Benjamin Franklin. Whether or not one agrees with him, it does show the audacity the Founding Fathers had in being outspoken about their beleifs.

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and *the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.*" Benjamin Franklin

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Quincy Adams

And Thomas Jefferson, who like you, Martin, did NOT like the Bible - as a matter of fact, he referred to it as a dunghill, and despised organized religion, said this:

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man."

Again, a quote from the first Supreme Court Justice:

? Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.? Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

Honestly, I dont even agree with alot of these quotes - nor all of Thomas Jefferson's opinions - but this argument is about historical truth and context, whether or not we agree with it. George Washington is rumored to have said alot more, but I cant really substantiate it. Here, however, is a line from his final address in office, September 17, 1796, paragraph 10:

"The name of American, belongs to you?[and] with slight shades of difference, you have the same religion.?

It was understood by the early Americans, and the founding fathers, that they had founded a Christian republic where they and their descendants could freely practice their European ostracized forms of Protestantism. From the annals of one of the first House Judiciary Committees:

"Christianity ...was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants."

So what does all this prove? Again, I dont agree with alot of the founding father's affirmations. They beleived in slavery, eventhough they said God created all men equal. They didnt allow freedom of religion in the early colonies as well, eventhough this was expressly guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, just as it was in the constitution of the USSR. I DO see us as a republic espousing Judeo-Christian morals. Should we be proselytizing Indians on the shore of the Delaware? That depends on one's views of how and when to proselytize. I beleive in example and debate. But I'm not quoting these things because I beleive in ALL of them - I'm quoting them because I beleive they HAPPENED, WHETHER OR NOT IT SUITS MY AGENDA. The United States has always existed because of Christianity, for one reason or another. The Colonies' founders were fundamentalist Puritans seeking asylum from the spiritual oppression of Europe. As their descendants matured, with the same irascible spirit, they sought out freedom from the economic oppression of the Crown. But they still clung to the beleifs of their not-so-distant forefathers, who were willing to uproot their entire existence and seek out lives in a new land, for the sake of freedom, and not just freedom, but freedom to worship. This has always been the ways of the States. And we will further evolve. We will become more accepting of what it means to have "freedom of religion" just as we became more accepting of what it means to say "God created all men equal". We do not have to BE the founding fathers. But we inherit a legacy from them, and its good to know what the Truth about one's history is, despite how good or bad it is. Aye, and we have dark chapters to our history, too. Perhaps not so dark as the French have in their own Revolution of the same era. But Contra-Iran, anyone? Fruitless searches for WMD's at the risk of a tyrannical nation's autonomy? The Vietnam War? Truth, with all of its nuance and context, is just as important in knowing worldly fact as it is in knowing spiritual ones.

One question - can you get me a footnote/source for the George Bush Jr. quote about God telling him to attack Al Quaeda? I believe the George Bush Sr. one - I beleive he said that as a private citizen after leaving office.

Peace
Homeskooled
PS- I guess I'll also put up the Supreme Court decisions of the 1800's and possibly even 1900's where atheists who sued the government for allowing prayers in the schools lost. Of course, that all changed in 1964.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Ah I feel like crying when I hear "imagine" too.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> Well, then you deal with Fundamentalist Muslims when they try to blow up the tube. They've pegged many European monuments, France's Eiffel Tower, etc. When they hijack your planes and fly them into Big Ben, etc., well then deal with it. Did you know that most of our Presidents have been pegged for assasination by terrorist groups? What this has to do with religion is with THEIR culture and religion as much as ours. Why don't you see the destruction THEY are inflicting.


What? You want me to waste my breath - no, actually justify what I have been saying on the count that I seem to be focusing on the American Taliban instead of the terrible harm that fundamentalist islamists do? We all KNOW the madness of what they are doing, we get it shoved down our throats every day. The whole point of my post was to try and point out that the American Taliban, and their British poodles, are just are frightening - perhaps more so, because they shroud their religiosity with democracy. Yes, perhaps a thousand times more frightening because we are meant to be the most powerful nations in the world! But for the sake of parity, religious fundamentalism is religious fundamentalism, whatever the flavour of belief.



> So WE deserve to be beaten to a pulp along with anyone who is capitalist and Christian. Also, no good if you're a Jew. What else. And innocent peacefully practicing Muslims get kicked in the head in most countries as well.


Sorry? What on earth are you on about? Of course I don't agree with this.



> But as I recall, you got ticked off by someone in the tube angry with you that you were reading "The God Delusion" and a Jew was "mumbling the Torah under his breath".


Yes, that's absolutely right. I was extremely annoyed because I was told that my book might cause offense (!!!!! - I still don't understand this 'offence' business, I really don't), and was making the comparison with a jew on the tube in London. Did the SAS come crashing through the window to arrest him, in case the terrible ogre god of the old testament book he was reading caused atheists/hindus/muslims/christians offence? No, they didn't THAT was my point, that the hysteria around 'protecting' people who believe in god/s is totally out of proportion. Nothing to do with...



> You HATE people with religious faith.


Not true. How many times have I got to say this. I really don't give a rat's arse what people believe in. In the same way that I don't give a damn what a person's sexual preference is. I may not like it, but as long as it doesn't interfere with me, then live and let live. It's none of my business. And in both cases, I'm perhaps a little jealous. I'd love to believe in (not the biblical version!) a loving god, but I don't. I'd love to be bi-sexual and get the best of both greasy worlds, but I'm not.



> I get angry because the disucssionn never changes. I don't know what to do to make you happy.


That's not true, Dreamer. You get angry because I get angry. If you get tired of my (entirely legitimate - whether you believe them to be true or not) religious rantings, then don't reply. It's a red rag to a bull and everyone else finds it boring. I'm the only one who bangs on against religion here, apart the occassional one liner now and again, so I bear the responsibility to take the brunt of the rage.



> Out of order here -- you quote George Bush as an example of all of the US -- great, the fine inarticulate idiot,I am not a PATRIOT.


WHAT!!!!! Astonishing! HE'S THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD! And you think that religious raving that comes out of his mouth is irrelevant! And he was voted (!) in by the american people? And that's irrelevant?



> But your RABID atheism is almost Fundamentalist ... I could say it is.


My atheism may be RABID, but it is not fundamentalist. In the same way that I'm not a-tooth fairy, a-father christmans, or fundamentalist about either of them. I repeat, for the zillionth time, yes - I DO have real problems with religion. Yes, I do hate it. Yes, I think it's absurd. People I have reasons to believe so. I have seen, first hand, the harm it can do. The bone shaking hypocrisy of it all. I feel the same way about certain aspects of religion as you might do about a child molester. And you expect me to keep my mouth shut about it?



> I am overly sensitive to your endless attacks on Religon and the US


.

Why?



> You admit we aren't the only country guilty of the faults you talk of, including your own. Yet you CHOOSE to attack the U.S.


See my first paragraph.



> You are a patriot of atheism then Martin.


No, not at all. I'm not mindlessly and hysterically protective of atheism. Neither am I proud of it. Atheism is just a lack of faith. End of.



> Yes, I do take things far to personally. I'm glad a few people who are decent and have religious inclinations respond here. Few do, because they don't care to be attacked.


Tough tittys. Boo-hoo. Evil Martin goes on and on and on and on about religion, and people get upset. Tough. They should grow up and live in the real world like the rest of us. If I called their parents sluts and losers then I'd understand the vitriol. (and no - I don't regard their god/s as their father/mother/whatever)



> I guess I do get sick of your endless atheism.


What? Do you get sick of people evangelising on the spiritual forum? I've learnt my lesson and stay out of there. But even so, I get attacked for sharing my views. Astonishing. Maybe I should just get back in the foxhole.



> Perhaps you remind me of my mother who also said all black people should be bulldozed into Lake Michigan and that the only profession anyone should aspire to is doctor.


This is shocking dreamer, I can't believe you've said it. You're comparing me to a racist now? I treat ALL people equal, unless they treat me and the people who I love otherwise. I demand an apology! You're not the only sensitive, troubled soul on here Dreamer. Who, despite this, I still love.

(Homes - I'll get back to you)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

OMG, no time to respond to this or Home. And I feel Home is upset to, and I want to make it clear I have no argument with him. I'll explain later.

Brief observation, do you see how all of us here have such varied responses to this -- it is a microcosm of the world. Get a few of us in a room and we'd be offing each other ... this is crazy.

*Too much to answer, but I explained, what hurts me Martin, is you are reminding me of my mother -- as noted, a rabid, fundamentalist, atheist, who hated men with a passion, who openly ridiculed people of faith, said it was (as Freud said) "one of the two acceptable psychoses -- love and religion". I see I have a sore spot for her insults at me, my friends (who hated to visit our house), and continued this literally until she was so demented she was lying in a bed all day.*

It is a personal hurt I have to work on. But this is what I grew up with, and I am nothing like her. Nothing. This was beaten into my soul, and perhaps I have no religious faith because of her. I had no chance to rebel against it. I am not baptized. It doesn't matter to me, didn't matter to my friends, but I was given no choice either... also with her second hand smoke for literally my entire life. LOL

I also think you underestimate GREATLY, the power of other nations. We are part of a huge power struggle amongst many great huge powers. I don't know if you read everything I've posted.

Anyway, back to a bit of my theory on at least morality ... in the NYTimes this morning ... this is PART of my theory on why we have RELIGION and RITUAL -- not necessarily FAITH.

*Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Illustration by Edel Rodriguez based on source material from Frans de Waal*
(Published recently in Nature I believe) ...

Social OrderChimpanzees have a sense of social structure and rules of behavior, most of which involve the hierarchy of a group, in which some animals rank higher than others. Social living demands a number of qualities that may be precursors of morality.

*By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: March 20, 2007*

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Multimedia
Slide Show

*The Beginnings of Morality?*
"Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are.

Moral philosophers do not take very seriously the biologists? bid to annex their subject, but they find much of interest in what the biologists say and have started an academic conversation with them.

The original call to battle was sounded by the biologist Edward O. Wilson more than 30 years ago, when he suggested in his 1975 book ?Sociobiology? that ?the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized.? He may have jumped the gun about the time having come, but in the intervening decades biologists have made considerable progress.

*Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book ?Moral Minds? that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language. In another recent book, ?Primates and Philosophers,? the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes.*

Dr. de Waal, who is director of the Living Links Center at Emory University, argues that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped.

Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality. But he argues that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.

*Dr. de Waal?s views are based on years of observing nonhuman primates, starting with work on aggression in the 1960s. He noticed then that after fights between two combatants, other chimpanzees would console the loser. But he was waylaid in battles with psychologists over imputing emotional states to animals, and it took him 20 years to come back to the subject............"*

Pages longer ....

If you read the news, you will see so many other countries have tremendous power in this world, power for good and for destruction. That is the gist of what I'm trying to say. That doesn't make me a Patriot, I don't even know what that means.

I truly believe spirituality is IN us, somehow for some reason.

It is sad that you can't go into a Church, a Mosque, or a Synagogue, and I have been to some of the most beautiful in the world (yup, even Istanbul). I know/figure, you can't feel an inexplicable peace in these places. A place to contemplate. Like being with few people in Nature (which is hard for me to do as I feel much worse outdoors). I don't think we can extract that from the human brain.

Corruption of all of this, is the same as corruption of all our social behaviors. America is no more or no less culpable. We have an awful President. Every country throughout history has had many destructive leaders.

If it's of any interst the US Communist Party is having some annual meeting. Forgot the details, but maybe we will be communist some day, and I hope to God we aren't. I'll be dead by then, but I find it rather sad. And we will be Chinese or Russian.

Read de Toqueville .... it's a helluva long thing. Brilliant man who :shock: in the 1800s predicted much of American history, even our conflict with Russia. He's no Nostradamous, he is a keen reader of human nature and the Nature of what America is, and again you forget, we are a country of immigrants.

More to say. OY man, you are such a devil when you still say you put up with me after all this..... gotta go. Beautiful day out. Want a dog. Sorry to keep you in bubble rap. The tax man took away all our money, LOL.

Ah, Martin, the charming devil indeed.

Peace,
D :evil: 8)


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Dreamer, 
Dont worry - I'm not upset at you. Honestly, I havent even read the whole thread. Just skimmed some posts, read Martin's - I like this last post of yours. One can arrive at truth using all sorts of avenues - including scientific fact. Of course, it helps most of all to pray and use one's heart. But I think you DO use your heart - just not as much as even you would like, since it seems that your mother virtually beat rationalism and skepticism into you.



> (Homes - I'll get back to you)


As long as its about your sources. The fact that they've stated these things _isnt_ subject to debate. That's the great thing about historical debate - unlike the philosophical kind, it can have an endpoint. If I had quoted the Valley Forge prayer (around which there IS controversy) or speculated as to the intent of their writings, etc, etc...then yes, I could see some debate. But I think that the writings of American judges and Founding Fathers is really, really self-explanatory. You dont need to re-write history or take things out of context to see where their sentiments were. They were some good men, in my humble opinion. They were a little rabid in their religous views, but then again, your a bit rabid in your atheism. Only Jefferson and Madison offer up much anti-religious sentiment, but its never anti-Christian.We're differently constructed as a country, historically and ideologically, than the countries over on the Continent, or you, our brothers are, across the pond. I've met a whole heap of Europeans who've immigrated to the United States, and there is a very, very different worldview. Europe is older, more jaded, more cynical. Almost all of it has its root in the Catholic Church, almost all have rejected these roots. Be that good or bad, they are cynical about God. The Poles are really the only Catholic Europeans I've met who feel young and fresh, and perhaps the Yugoslavians. They really have joy. But Europeans in general seem, to me at least, to exude a certain condescending "older brother" attitude towards the US. There are critical "I told you so's" when the US stumbles, and jealousy when we do well, and I hear cynical, jaded remarks about how silly our exuberance about life is, and how we should know better. Its not just the English. I know Czechloslovakian monks who talk this way. There is a fierce nationalism in Europe which divides nations the size of our states, and the simplest problems can cause years of bickering, like for instance, the constant hullaballoos about England joining the EU, Europes only source of unity beyond football. But just because unity doesnt work for you guys doesnt mean it cant work for us. Just because optimism doesnt seem to work for you guys, doesnt mean that it doesnt work for us. We certainly have our share of foreign policy blunders, but they nowhere near rival those of Europes history, near or far. Americans are incredibly self-critical, relish debate, and these are healthy signs of a young country willing to grow. We are a young nation - a teenager on the world stage, and we exude that youth. But dont hurry us along to cynism too quickly - by all indications, it just makes it harder for countries to get along.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS - And Dreamer, I really like the above abstract about morality in chimpanzees. I do beleive in evolution, so it makes sense to me that a creator who would use this to fashion creatures who could have a relationship with Him would slowly introduce consciousness and morality into species. Although the whole natural kingdom reflects God and morality to varying degrees. As for maturity among nations, I think the Canadians have a nice balance between our recklessness and Europe's apathy. All of my Canadian friends have been very moderate people.


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Let the debate begin!

Just as you cannot argue with the fact of your forefathers words, you cannot argue with the fact of what the USA is doing in the world. Although Europeans may be sqeamish over Americans' ability to open themselves personally - just the way you scream, shout and hollar is actually quite embarassing to us - our cynicism over American foreign policy is much needed!

Okay, here's a starter: the internet being used by civilians trying to protect themselves against sectarian violence. No American (or British person, indeed) would want this on home turf.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 357129.stm


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I think we are all friends again, OMG. Again apologies for having my regular quarterly fit. LOL.

Miss Starling, I'm not sure what you are stating with that article. Sectarian violence in Iraq, in the Middle East has existed long before US intervention.

Please explain further?

And Home thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

Here's something very odd to contemplate. The US gained its independence in 1776. I graduated from high school exactly 200 years later -- Class of 1976. That is a helluva lot of change in 200 years. We are NOT the same country now that we were then. It is impossible to take things so dramatically out of historical context.

Cheers to all.
And hey, Miss Starling, I don't holler much no more 'ceptin on this here board (I used to when I was knee-high to a grasshopper), but I quite like it when a soccer goal gits scored in any of these here countries where they holler:

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!

.... and then when everyone gits to smackin' at each other, and even the stands come crashin' in, an' folks have to be rustled up to the infirmarary and all, and after all the carryin' on then they git themselves drunk and start jumpin' on themselfs like a barrel o' toads!

Git on' little dogey! 
LOL 8)


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

> As long as its about your sources.


Well, no atually. Before we start pinging quotations and misrepresentations back and forth, I'm still waiting for you to clarify why religion deserves, de facto, respect. And, perhaps, why your flavour of religion especially.



> Of course, it helps most of all to pray and use one's heart.


I always thought that the heart was a muscle designed by evolution to pump blood around the body? :twisted: Sermons in stone, home's, and good in everything.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Miss Starling,
I think I now understand what you're saying. That religion is divisive. It is. But so is political theory. So are views on how to handle the environment. So are views on how to view Pro-Choice, (I am pro-choice, but abortion makes me feel terribly uncomfortable, and late term is completely unnacceptable to me), Pro-Gay civil unions -- I have no problem ... even NON-religious people have a problem with that.

I also think re: Home's point, I don't like the word "respect" so much as again, tolerance. And again that is tolerance of different religious practices *without forcing these practices onto anyone else*.

But here's a weird thing. If we all pay taxes for public services, we frequently pay for things we disagree with. The first thing everyone here will say is we help fund the military with our taxes. I agree with it as I see we need defense, but I'm not pro-war or the mess we're in.

People of certain religions find abortion unnacceptable. But they too pay into a tax system that helps pay for abortions in the public sector, and/or we pay for our own health insurance coverage pools which covers abortions. So in essense it becomes purely political.

We want people to have freedom of choice, yet we also want to define these choices according to our personal beliefs and understandings and I don't think that is possible to sort out when you are talking about huge populations of people.

In murder trials, one must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. One must weigh evidence VERY carefully, eliminating all prejudice. Our justice system works pretty well re: this, frequently to the horror of victims' families, etc. How can one defend a murderer? But we know that individuals have been wrongfully accused and imprisoned. Enough to give one pause (especially before DNA testing, etc.).

But what I'm saying is, I've served on a jury twice. My husband on two murder trials. Mine were not murders. NONE of the four cases were easy, cut and dried. There were numerous counts of criminal activity.

I think my jury, in my trials did a very good job with our verdicts. But again, get 12 people in the room, realizing you may be putting someone in jail for 15 years, and you start getting heated over the most minute details. 12 different people take sometimes weeks/months to come to a conclusion when people from the outside (who don't know all the evidence) say, "But it's obvious so and so is innocent/or guilty." What is interesting is it very difficult to set aside one's personal feelings, even on such agreements.

Some trials are truly easy. Others are extremely complex. One jury my husband was on aquited sp? a particularly unsavory individual as IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, there was no proof he did what was alleged. 12 people came to that conclusion after WEEKS of deliberation.

I forgot my point... well, no, I've said it before. Put 12 people in a room and NO ONE will agree on every point in a decision. I don't care what it is.

So freedom/tolerance of religion, various political actions, etc.... they are on a grand scale.

Yes, I also don't like the word "respect" -- but "tolerate" fits better for me. And that is NOT easy, especially when one feels someone else is forcing their views on others, or literally MAKING others do things that are against their OWN beliefs.

It seems so simple. But it's not.

D


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

Dreamer said:


> Miss Starling,
> I think I now understand what you're saying. That religion is divisive. It is. But so is political theory. So are views on how to handle the environment.


Hi, I was really surprised by your saying this...couldn't work out why you thought that. But then I thought you might mean it in relation to saying not to try and convert Martin to spirituality? I don't know how to justify myself on this one> shall have to be airy-fairy as usual to explain what I think:

I believe that spirituality (from the monist approach ie that the body is sacred also) is the authentic root of religion and I see religion as being conductive to self-actualisation, in this way. So while it is useful to be religious and spread religion in a bid to improve the happiness of the world at large, each individual also has the choice whether or not to be religious....and if Divine Love is indeed accessable through a monist approach, then are not atheists also included in the real religion of Divine Truth? So I do not like to see religion used to coerce people to be one way or another. We all have a choice how we live and likewise have not control over other peoples' choices.

Freedom of choice.

Having said that I am anti-abortion. I see the government as being responsible for promoting good as far as possible in society and the world at large. If people are allowed the commit murder against their own children (sorry to be extreme about this but it is the way I see it), then how can society find a standard of appreciation of goodness in life? Whether it is convenient or not? Life is changing for the better in many ways, but there is a lot of negative stuff going on to...and I hope that people can learn the benefit of regression as well as progress.

But more on the level of political debate, yes, I do see the propagators of world religions as being destructive in their desire to spread their own religion...but that is defensive thing also. I personally believe one of the reasons the US attacked Iraq was to subdue the influence of Islam in the world. To be fair, Islam is aggressive in its approach to being adopted...with Christianity losing popularity it is actually quite hard to see Islam (with its totalitarianism) not over taking Christianity in some way.

I agree that it would be a back-step because although many aspects of Islam are good - like total submission to God and regular daily prayers for all - their oppressive attitude to women and creativity - is diabolical.

I would much rather see Christianity boosted in popularity.

In that way, I still take sides....it is a political thing.
--------

Uh...I'm a bit slow. You thought I considered religion divicive by my adding the link about Iraqi segregation? Your point about there already being a problem was a good one. In fact, it is true the finger can't be pointed at the US on this one. But my original point was that Homeskooled mentions Europes inability to integrate small states. He says that the USA are able to keep a massive country stable. That is true and it is impressive -- a testament to the vision of the Americans, their unity.

But the US do contribute to divide elsewhere in the world: the middle east. So they can't say they are whiter than white in this respect. The only difference is that it is not on their home soil, that is what makes it easy to live with...until young men come back dead, let's face it.

It's not only the US who take this approach. It is generally human to care more about your own security than other peoples'. It just can't be defended as being superior to the European skepticism over such an "optimistic" approach to world unity. The world needs to be integrated as a whole, but not by force and submission to powerful states. Not that I believe there is an a solution to world conflict...there would need to be a spiritual revolution!

New Age followers really believe in this "Age of blah blah blah" where we will all be more evolved and able to be nice to each other.

I think it is a bit too optimistic for the real world, but it's a nice idea itsn't it? I mean, it makes sense that *people* would have to move on before world unity could.


----------



## walkingdead (Jan 28, 2006)

Moore in reality is a liberal **** hag!!!!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

walkingdead said:


> Moore in reality is a liberal **** hag!!!!


Oh my, LOL, somone responded to the original post, LOLOLOLOLOL. For the Love of God, would someone just answer, if we know he lies and manipulate, why is Moore so admired? Many others lie and manipulate us and are not admired. What is it about him -- for those who don't feel as walking dead does, LOL.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Miss Starling said:


> Okay, here's a starter: the internet being used by civilians trying to protect themselves against sectarian violence. No American (or British person, indeed) would want this on home turf.


This is what I was asking about. Indeed, this is what we are discussing.

*I felt you were implying the US invading Iraq caused this sectarian strife in Iraq. It didn't. It was there long before. The war, and the fall of Saddam, simply opened the floodgates, and our administration was stupid enough to not see how divided the country really was -- sectarian divisions are HUGE there. Always have been.

We had/have no clear plan as to how to support a country -- post Saddam -- which has no infrastructure to begin with. That was another bit of information the average American didn't even think about initially or understand. Our President should have known better, and he ignored his advisors who were concerned about this. He is ignorant on foreign policy in the Middle East. Full stop. A catastrophe.*

My response again is that this type of sectarian violence, is the same as tribalism, political conflict, conflict about ANY topic. And any of these things can cause conflict and destruction.

The conflict between the Communism of The Soviet Union and those opposed to Communism in many other countries, but especially the United States could have resulted in another World War. That's two political "philosophies" or "religions" causing tremendous conflict.

I don't know if Spiritual Religions (Muslim, Christianity, Judaism), etc. are the WORST problem in the world. As Home noted, we have a lot of other horrible things to deal with one way or another.

In the case of Islam, there is a closer bond (no matter what anyone says about the US) between culture and religion, Mosque and "State", religion and foreign policy. Islam is a powerful religion, practised by many here in the US, not only by immigrants here, but by converts -- such as Muhammed Ali (whose pre-conversion name I just forgot) -- the boxer who has Parkinson's.

Saudi Arabia is funding schools that teach Islam in certain beleaguered countries in Africa, and simultaneously teach hatred of the US and the West.

Yes, the US is standing up for certain belief systems. But so do other countries. And so do individuals regarding personal beliefs and domestic policies.

And yes, now suddenly Global Warming and pollution is a huge concern for future generations.

The US has made many foreign policy blunders before, so have other countries. This is a bad one, yes.

At any rate, I'm not trying to convert Martin to religion ... I think I said that in another post. As noted I'm agnostic, he is atheist -- so I am not a spiritual person; as noted I was raised without any religion. I simply get upset when he complains about evangelizing when I sometimes feel HE is evangelizing. But I think that's sorted out. Yet you see there still is a debate with Homeskooled.

Again, I can see both sides, but who are any of us to say truly in the end what is RIGHT and WRONG save the most obvious things as don't murder your spouse, don't steal from people, etc. Don't drive drunk and kill someone with your car. The most BASIC things we can agree on.

As noted, I said you can get 12 people in a room, and not ONE of them will agree 100% with any other person. Some will be more in agreement than others. But in the end if 12 people can't come to "full unity" of thought, how can the world?

This is where I am a cynic, and where I cannot believe in John Lennon's song "Imagine", and I suppose it makes me sad, as I truly believe it is not possible for us to live entirely in peace.

On the other hand, I won't be here in 200 years to find out. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the US invading Iraq did not cause this sectarian strife in Iraq. It has been there forever. And it exists all over the Middle East. It makes that area extremely politically unstable and dangerous. These countries, such as Iran, are dicey in terms of perhaps not thinking twice about using a nuclear device. The Israel/Palestine/Jordan mess has been going on since 1948. (the modern chapter, it goes back centuries before that).

And yes, I always forget, as I don't see it as having enough power, and it is also corrupt in certain ways, the United Nations which is the "police" of all nations who are members including the US. So there is a greater entity above the US. It tried to intervene in Iraq's games for 10 years, looking for WMD. The UN was as stumped as the US in figuring out Saddam's games on that one.

Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan have been a powderkeg forever.

Muhammed held together a huge empire, but slowly the Middle East fell behind the development and strenght of the West. There has been resentment about that for quite some time.

The US stands for the ultimate "success" in capitalism for example. Capitalism is both reviled and envied.

Can't go on. I do need a break. But if you could explain what you intended by posting that article. The point being ... (I'm sorry, I'm slow)

:? 
Peace,
D


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

I've decided that I dont wish to squabble like this anymore. I want to build up. People are too precious. My apologies, Martin.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Rozanne (Feb 24, 2006)

How sweet are you? Now we just have to see if Martin is going to do atheism proud and give you a man-hug.


----------



## CECIL (Oct 3, 2004)

Moore at least has the balls to stand up and disagree with the mainstream. That is one positive thing about him.

I don't personally like the man or even put much stock in his documentaries. But I certainly don't hate him either and there are some good points in his films.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2007)

Homeskooled said:


> I've decided that I dont wish to squabble like this anymore. I want to build up. People are too precious. My apologies, Martin.
> 
> Peace
> Homeskooled


Best post in this whole thread. What wisdom!

Cecil wrote:


> Moore at least has the balls to stand up and disagree with the mainstream. That is one positive thing about him.
> 
> I don't personally like the man or even put much stock in his documentaries. But I certainly don't hate him either and there are some good points in his films.


What I thought as well.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I too want to build people up, or rather release them (or at least offer them the option) of being released from the shackles of religion. We want different things, that's all.

So, no squabbling. Big man hugs to thee Home's. Hope you are feeling well my friend.


----------

