Man is going to worship something and to say that all religions are bad and therefore equal displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of mankind and Christianity in particular. Personally, I believe that were it not for Christianity, the death toll and carnage would be far worse historically than it is. We are witnessing an on-slaught against religion and Christianity in particular because it makes an "exclusive Truth claim" which is offensive to many others including for some reason, atheists.Religion has been under more fire than usual lately. Daniel Dennett wrote "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", Sam Harris wrote "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason", Richard Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion", and Christopher Hitchens wrote "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", to name just a few attacks.
Most reviews of these books and interviews with the authors have raised the not-so-hot record of atheistic societies. The authors, of course, promptly dismiss these concerns. As The Economist review of Mr. Hitchens "God is not Great" puts it:
"To the objection that irreligious fascists and communists found plenty of non-religious reasons for murder in the 20th century, Mr Hitchens retorts that these beliefs were types of secularised religion, and as such do not count."However, it is not clear at all why "secularized religions" should not count. A world in which everyone stopped believing in God would likely provide fertile ground for such secular faiths. These secularized religions are what we would really have if we somehow got everyone to stop believing in God. Realistically, atheists (and we atheists take pride in only thinking realistically) may only have a choice between living in societies that are traditionally religious or ones that have adopted secularized religions.
So, far from "not counting," secular religions must be taken very seriously, and their implications understood, before we preach the benefits of godless society.
The obvious examples of secularized religions are communism, socialism, and fascism, each of which generally involves worshipping/government by slightly different rituals or for slightly different reasons. As these convictions faded, faith in the welfare state, and especially environmental protection, has risen to take their place for reasons government should be worshipped. Environmentalist devotees claim that we will experience the apocalypse/disasters, for which some people are rebuilding Noah's Ark. These disasters can be prevented if we take the advice of prophets people who understand, like Al Gore. Of course, if we sin/pollute a little too much, well, we can always buy indulgences /carbon offsets.
I have heard the distinction made between religion and faith. Religion is man's attempt to organize and institutionalize faith. Being, "of man" it is inherently flawed but that doesn't mean that it is without merit. One simply has to remember that man is corrupt and therefore anything he touches, even religion, may be corrupted. Hitchens, like many others before him, seems to be shaking his fist at God. He seems to be mad about something. He has pointed out the age old criticism of a mean-spirited, demanding God. He claims that Christianity is arrogant and ignorant and irrational. In the end, it's always about sin.
The Way Us'ns Xenophobes Look and Live
ReplyDelete(THATS ME IN THE DOORWAY)
---
Grass Roots Derailed Immigration Plan
By JULIA PRESTON
The legislation sparked a furious rebellion among voters like Monique Thibodeaux, who lives in suburban Detroit.
---
The Caucus: John McCain Discusses Immigration in Iowa
---
Times Topics: Immigration
It's a little early in the morn for St. Augustine's, City of God, but here goes;
ReplyDelete... For why is it you put blame on this Christian era, when things go wrong? Is it not because you are anxious to enjoy your vices without interference, and to wallow in your corruption, untroubled and unrebuked? For if you are concerned for peace and general prosperity, it is not because you want to make decent use of these blessings, with moderation, with restraint, with self-control, with reverance. No! It is because you seek an infinite variety of pleasure with a crazy extravagance, and your prosperity produces a moral corruption far worse than all the fury of an enemy.
p.41,42
Religion's ok. All preachers are worthless motherfuckers that ought to have their tongues cut, and their dicks cut off.
ReplyDeleteAmazing link by AlBobAl in previous thread about the demise of Iceman.
ReplyDeleteBut an analysis of his gut in 2001 found that he had possibly drunk water containing hop hornbeam pollen grains that could only have been present in early summer.
---
...irony of the unfrozen Caveman Lawyer's Death Was Impossible to Ignore.
Occuring in modern times, naturally the unfrozen man's demise came at the hands of an unhinged female.
Phil Hartman
RIP
Love him or hate him, Hitchens speaks his mind and you never get the impression that he has an agenda except to explain the world as he sees it. The guy who debated Hitchens on Hewitt was not in Hitchen's league. I would loved to have heard Jerry Falwell and Hitchens. Buchanan as a moderator would have been even more entertaining.
ReplyDeleteThe opposite of "love" is not "hate"; it is apathy.
ReplyDeleteHitchens is a jilted lover, bewailing the loss of the object of his obsession. Or not.
Clearing the air.
ReplyDelete(also from previous thread)
Allen mentions hidden agendas re:
Killing Iraqis.
No hidden agenda here:
I figure anyone carefully reading my Haditha link for Trish might have a high probability of sharing the opinion that rubbling the entire place might have been a great tradeoff at the outset, in terms of Marine lives saved, and WOT aims furthered.
Raising kids to find glee in unspeakable horrors is just not my cup of tea, you see, and one US Marine's life is worth more to me than a town of 90 Thousand that have their kids watch DVDs of Decapitations, draggings, stonings and etc for morning cartoon entertainment.
Mr Hitchens, a legal immigrant, finding a woman to marry him. Not sure who holds title to his mobile home.
ReplyDeleteThe neoist of neo-cons, fun to watch and read. Not always right nor unbiased.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano writes in the WaPo that the reality of the Immigration Bill demise is "Silent Amnesty".
She sets the stage for the real debate. She is accurate in her history:
For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986 legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those who crossed our borders illegally to work for them. Accordingly, our current system is, effectively, silent amnesty.
If we have no comprehensive immigration reform this year, and if we do not deal rigorously and openly with those already here, silent amnesty will continue. As a border-state governor who has dealt with immigration issues more than any other governor I know of, I am certain that continued inaction by Congress -- silent amnesty -- is the worst of all worlds.
if we do not deal rigorously and openly with those already here, SILENT AMNESTY WILL CONTINUE.
Panama wants a $40,000 USD investment in their economy, before they'll begin to grant a residence visa.
The President proposed to sell the US visa, for $5,000 USD.
Seems to be a divergence of value.
Costa Rica values it at $100,000.
ReplyDeleteMake a $40,000 "investment" in an approved teak farm, a very LONG TERM payoff, or invest a minimum of $40,000 USD in a small non-retail business that has a minimum of 3 Panamanian employees.
ReplyDeleteEach program takes about fives years to recieve a final "life time" residency.
If we could get about a dozen recall petitions going I think we could put a stop to some of the treason, and get to work on something sensible.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to try to find one to support in Mississippi; but, I'm really loathe to start one (I've had my taxes audited, before - It ain't no fun.)
I have a post later on where Bush is calling for Kosovo independence. Let me remind you how that happened. Kosovo was part of Serbia. They did not pay attention to immigration from Albania over many years. The Albanians became a majority. The Muslim majority which started as a minority asserted the rights over the original Christian Serbs. It looks like majorities have rights if they have the courage to assert them. If they do not assert them, they will surely lose them.
ReplyDeleteRufus is da Man!
ReplyDeleteYour service in Vietnam is nosing compared to braving the IRS!
Rat:
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be the argument du jour. "For twenty years, you did nothing when we came here, you gave us jobs, you took our taxes, we worked for you and this is how you repay us?"
That is a powerful argument. I blame the frigging Federal Government for not enforcing immigration laws. As much as it pains me to do so, I also fault Big Business. The fact is though, that it is the American taxpayer who will subsidize Big Business as it employs illegals who will work for a dollar or two less per hour.
My position remains as it has been for some time now. Let's secure the borders, stem the flow and then talk about what to do with the massive screw-up. Also, there should be some accountability this time. Those who selectively enforced or did not enforce immigration law should pay a price.
I encourage Mr. Henry Waxman (D) decided to investigate this issue (selective enforcement) I would be delighted to let the chips fall where they may. But that ain't gonna happen.
Nosing is right. "Boom-Boom" in the joint takes on a whole new meaning.
ReplyDeletedoug,
ReplyDeleteHow does your post relate to the Haditha case?
If you believe the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi women and children is allowable because they are Iraqi women and children, then, why not just say so? But don't insult by portraying alleged murder as collateral battle damage. Again, Doug, war and murder a not identities.
As to the worth of the life of a single Marine, I doubt you personally know a serving Marine. If you did, you would know the shame felt by that Marine when one of his own goes off the reservation and sullies the honor of the Corps.
'Rat,
ReplyDeleteRe: Silent Amnesty - I posted a Heather MacDonald link that I will repost later regarding that.
Both she, and Byron Dorgan, Democrat, North Dakota, know that there are plenty of laws on the books NOW to solve our "Immigration Problem."
…the problem is finding folks willing to enforce the law.
W being the last man on Earth to call, re: "Immigration"
Doug mentioned Rudy and nation building. Rat threw in his 2 cents (Rudy gets points for candor).
ReplyDeleteI'll throw in mine:
Sayeth Rudy:
"Maybe we have to start thinking about some kind of hybrid organization of our military and our civilian agencies of the government. There’s a lot here that the Justice Department can bring to bear in places like Iraq and if we have to do another Iraq in the future. There’s a lot of skills that the Commerce Department can bring to bear, the Treasury Department, and a lot of our private businesses. This nation needs to get started again. Maybe we didn’t see that because this idea of nation-building is not one you want to undertake lightly. But whether we wanted to or not, it’s now our responsibity. We’ve got to get it done right."
Well, here're the facts: We can draw down to @30,000 troops if we change our mission to one similar to JSOC in Afghanistan. Or we can continue on with the nation building/nation policing to the current tune of almost 200,000 troops in and out every year. This last, too, is about to run into more serious problems yet, as we can't keep the ballgame going to 09 without making the 15-month deployments 18-month deployments. And that would have to be done during a company and field grade officer exodus.
So a new government organization (always a bad idea, but that's another issue) can be christened for future nation building endeavors, but will not aid the current one. And subsequent nation building endeavors are going to be an extremely hard, perhaps impossible, sell over the horizon - no matter what shiny new department you've put together. Might as well be selling syphilis for all the appeal it will have.
Sun Jun 10, 10:38:00 AM EDT
No, Allen, that was not my point at all.
ReplyDeleteSorry, and I understand, given our dustup the night before:
My statement above stands alone, as do my similar sentiments for Warizistan, where RUBBLING ENTIRE VILLAGES 3 years ago would have saved countless Civilian and Military lives so far, and God knows what in the future.
It sounds as if Bush (commrents about Kosovo) is still quite the fan of nation building. I will have to hear more from every candidate on that thought.
ReplyDeleteWar and Nationbuilding are major undertakings, not to be entered into lightly.
ReplyDeleteIf we are going to enter into another project, we had best do so more effectively than we have.
Are you now postulating the US will drawdown to 30,000 troops in Iraq, as the goal of "Plan B"?
"Plan B," Rat? We've been waiting for "Plan B" to take effect for, oh, almost three years now.
ReplyDeleteIraqslogger.com gives the Tom Ricks rundown:
US commanders in Baghdad are projecting details of a “post-occupation” force in Iraq, which could number in the tens of thousands. By far the most important read of the day, Thomas Ricks’s front-pager in the Post surveys the current long-term thinking of US military planners in Iraq, against the backdrop of the “Korea analogy” that has been bandied about of late. US commanders are expecting a withdrawal of up to two-thirds of US forces in late 2008/early 2009, but the logistical reality, and US long-term ambitions, Ricks writes, mean that the US is drawing up long-term plans for an Iraq presence. The fastest withdrawal US forces could make, with only one exit through Kuwait, would still take 10 months and thousands of troops. However, the really interesting bits are the outlines of the four-point plan that US commanders are moving toward for a long-term Iraq presence, totaling over 40,000 troops: 1) A mechanized infantry division of 20,000 soldiers to protect the Iraqi government. 2) 10,000 trainers and advisors, 3) Special Operations forces to combat al-Qa'ida, and 4) HQ and logistical support staff numbering over 10,000, along with civilian contractors. Top officers “now dismiss the 2004-06 years,” Ricks writes, saying that this period represented unrealistic expectations of “transition.” "We had previously 'transitioned' ourselves into irrelevance, and the whole thing was going to hell in a handbasket," said a senior official. Even the 2005 elections are regarded as problematic in top planning circles. The big question marks in planners’ minds, however remain: the debate in Washington, the capacity of the Iraqi security forces, and the ongoing lack of political consensus in Iraq.
doug,
ReplyDeleteThe pathetic Mr. Bush has brought us to where we are today. Personally, I would impeach, try, and run the son-of-a-bitch out of DC on a rail. But we both know that is not going to happen.
The institutional damage done by team Bush is incalculable, and remediation will take decades, if indeed the damage can be repaired.
At this writing, my primary concern is salvaging the honor and integrity of the Corps. We, i.e. all of us, are going to need the Corps in the days to come. Consequently, the scandal of Haditha is the focal point of my efforts, at the moment. When in doubt, I recall these truisms:
Marines do not rape to honor the fallen of the Corps.
Marines do not batter to honor the fallen of the Corps.
Marines do not mutilate to honor the fallen of the Corps.
Marines do not steal and pillage to honor the fallen of the Corps.
Marines do not murder to honor the fallen of the Corps.
Marines do not violate the oath to honor the fallen of the Corps.
I always liked:
ReplyDelete"Plan B?
There is no Plan A."
---
Peters might have said that.
"If we are going to enter into another project, we had best do so more effectively than we have."
ReplyDeleteI'll say it again, Rat:
Might as well be selling syphilis.
Allen,
ReplyDeleteCould not agree more.
The opportunity he was given on 9-12 and where we are now is a testament to the Depth of his failure and proof of his being way over his head.
My personal opinion is that his MBA based core relied entirely on the expertise he chose to surround himself with, and since the time that that failed him, the easiest way to describe his response is to say it has been the opposite of Churchill, FDR, and Truman.
ReplyDeleteSeems incapable of taking decisive action on his own appropriate to his office.
Syphilis and AIDs are sold everyday, trish.
ReplyDeleteAll over the United States and the world. Nothing hard about it, at all.
Have to wrap it in another package, but that is no big deal, either.
Mr Bush wrapped "Nation-building" in a War on Terror Package, sold like hotcakes.
ReplyDeleteStill has some folk eatin' his flapjacks, even today.
About 1 in 3.
"Have to wrap it in another package, but that is no big deal, either."
ReplyDeleteYou keep that happy thought, Rat. And I promise never to refer to Candidate Rudy as a syphilitic whore.
CH gave too many sourceless suppositions and obviously uses the liberal argument that beleif in God disturbs our evolutionary right to have sex. He said:
ReplyDelete1-the majority of scientists do not have religious faith, according, actually, to a very fascinating recent study by a group of sociologists, about 40% of university scientists in this country have some kind of religious faith, about 60% don’t, about half of those are atheist, half of those are agnostic, which is kind of fascinating.
2-it seems to me absolutely invariably true based on sexual repression, and out of fear and disgust, robbing the sexual act, the most important thing that we do.
CH loved paraphrasing Einstein yet Einstein's dilemma about wave-particle duality gave him the idea he discussed with the late prime minister of Israel David Be-Gurion that there is evidence of a higher force directing the universe. The fallacy I see with CH is his evolutionistic determinism that denigrates free will. Another fallacy is that there can be a moral secularism-politicisns disprove this hourly.
I submit a quote from "The Brothers Karamazov" If there is no immorality, there is no virtue."
Well, trish, either he or Ms Clinton.
ReplyDeleteBoth have worn a dress.
Better to be prepared, than to think we're gonna "swear it off".
Read General Butler, War is a Racket, all that's changed are the names.
Back to Tampico, or Haiti, or Cuba!
The "need" will remain, to extend God's inalienable rights. One brick at a time, using whatever packaging is required.
If the audio is available, or I can find it on my hard drive, I will listen to it in it's entirety.
ReplyDeleteI stopped early on when Hitch refered to Einstein in a way that betrayed his "atheism" IMO.
Seems they both believe in a higher power beyond our understanding.
...but what do I know.
"Better to be prepared, than to think we're gonna 'swear it off'."
ReplyDeleteI've sworn it off. If we end up with a CIC that ran on a platform of "better nation building," it won't be trish's fault. If the country ends up electing a CIC that ran on a platform of "better nation building," well, the country deserves to get it, good and hard. Again.
Just what we need.
ReplyDeleteA new more brilliant Disaster.
ReplyDeletetigress,
ReplyDeleteAs Hitchens well knows, Einstein underwent a late-life epiphany (of sorts) abandoning many of the certitudes of his youth.
For all his bluster (and I do love Hitchens) he reminds me of nothing so much as the man whose errant mistress (Christianity) transfixes with her beauty, while simultaneously repulsing with her insatiable demands. Hitchens does protest too much to have divorced himself from faith.
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
ReplyDelete-George Washington farewell address
Ahh, Father George, he laid the first brick.
ReplyDeleteWith all of the Americas, what need have we of Europe?
We have achieved but part of the vision, there are more goals to be achieved, fruits to be plucked, before we return to the roots of Europe
And to that, dear host, we can add Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket" and Eisenhower's warning against the MIC.
ReplyDeleteAnd throw in ash's Chinese handcuffs, lest the point be lost.
But, we have not yet brought all of the Americas into the American Empire.
ReplyDeleteIs it too late? Or, is the unification of the Americas occurring without design?
With W in charge, it will be the former, by design, but resemble the later in outcome.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think there is no design, allen?
ReplyDeleteMy own father worked on the Program, in the 1960's.
Nelson A. Rockefeller created IBEC in 1946 with the aim of promoting economic development in Latin America after he had observed the poor living conditions in those countries during his service in the U.S. government. The new company was special insofar as it sought to combine philanthropic goals in developing the basic sectors of local economies with an adequate profit on the investment. Philanthropic organizations had all too often failed in their final aims, without in the least changing the situation of underdeveloped countries. And private corporations had often simply exploited local resources with little or no advantage to the local people. Rockefeller's idea was to find a reasonable compromise by creating a company that could be useful for the host country in the long term while at the same time operating profitably.
IBEC started operations in Venezuela and then Brazil in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, finance and industrial production. After ten years of operation IBEC decided to expand its activities into other countries and, following its company policy, looked to identify other economically underdeveloped regions or less-advanced fields within developed nations.
He operated in South America and Mexico, before Cancun was Cancun.
The offical program does not tell the whole backstory.
But the Trilaterals, are part of reality, there is a program.
It advances on the sweat of the Skull & Boners.
Since the beginning of the Republic, before.
The Inanlienable Rights of Man, granted by God.
DR,
ReplyDeleteI asked a question. In doing so, I may have implied a paucity of knowledge.
It is a personal observation that life offers unique opportunities for action that, when missed, seldom come again. The moment for the annexation of Mexico was the 1830s, I suggest. Had ignorance and racism not prevailed, it might have happened.
I first read the "Illuminati" at the age of 12. It did not inspire confidence then, and it doesn't now.
By the way, had the United States had a plan for the garnering of Central America, rather than its exploitation, General Butler’s complaint would be without merit.
IBEC entered the supermarket business, in Italy, successfully there as they'd been in Latin America
ReplyDeleteThe emergence of new forms of mass distribution, self-service stores, and supermarkets was not only an economic phenomenon: it also had important social and cultural consequences and influenced the way of life by becoming an integral part of modern
society. Many tasks once performed within the family unit, such as the procurement, preparation and preservation of food, were now carried out by the trade system. The advantages for the consumers were considerable: more available products, more freedom of choice, savings of money and time, and also a new sense of relaxation and amusement provided by the supermarket system.
Ignored by the official political propaganda, a new pattern of consumption spread rapidly among the Italian people. Some contemporary observers did not consider this to be an important development because it only affected people's day-to-day lives and not socalled "higher" values or principles. But a new vision of the world had been born, a vision modeled on the American way of life. And, as Richard S. Tedlow noted in New and Improved: The Story of Mass Marketing in America (Basic Books, 1990), this new
vision had a deeper implication: the idea that freedom of choice as consumers was somehow linked to political freedom as citizens.
Believe what you wish, allen.
ReplyDeleteBeen there, done that.
It won't be a military conquest, allen.
ReplyDeleteA blending, economic, then political. It's been the Plan since before I was ten years of age, listened to the discussions, around the pool, then.
The Rockerfellers were never that concerned about profits, but success surely mattered to them and their friends and employees.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteI'm a Christian who is working on a series on Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" at my blog at:
http://michaelkrahn.wordpress.com/richard-dawkins/
There's already a good discussion underway. I just might switch to reading Hitchens' book as he seems to be getting compliments from both sides. We'll see.
DR,
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, there has never been a large population shift, as is now occurring in the south, without accompanying violence. Indeed, Doug's "crime" numbers suggest this very thing. Moreover, I need not remind that just last week many, many Americans were fully prepared to shoot members of the Senate on sight for daring to tamper with American sovereignty. Consequently, if there is a design to the process now in play, it is sorely lacking rationality.
Personally, I believe the unification of the US, Canada, and Mexico is inevitable. A well conceived plan would make that inevitability far more pacific and mutually advantageous. For example, were the realty laws of Mexico consistent and compatible with those of the US, Americans would folk there en masse.
The "Plans" exist, allen, things are moving in the "right" direction. Yes there will be violence, more in the borderlands, the previously conquered lands, now back in contention then in other areas.
ReplyDeleteThe question is which side is modified the most, first. Then later which side is overwhelmed, demographicly. 300 million of US or 100 million of them.
Do you really believe that the total lack of enforcement of the 1986 Law was an oversight, while 12 to 20 million infiltrators entered the US?
That no one noticed, until recently? Or that no one cared.
Or that their entry was not by design?
Even the best laid plans sometimes go awry. Israel in Lebanon, US in Iraq come to mind. Where Government Announced Plans fell apart. To move under the radar, culturally, is a tad more difficult. Moving along though.
Mr Bush41 failed to enforce the Law. 88-92
ReplyDeleteMr Clinton failed to enforce the Law, 93- 00, as Wal-Mart of Arkansas, began to open stores and banks in Mexico. Using the IBEC model, US most effective middle class creator, it's largest employeer, to compete with old line Mexican oligraphies.
Mr Bush43 failed to enforce the Law. 01-07, to date.
Coincidences?
There are 60 million people in Italy, today. In 1960 many less, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteUsed as an test bed, cultural modification through applied economics was shown to be possible.
Mexico has 110 million residents, a larger problem of modernization, especially when PRI was so politically dominant, with its' Institutional Revolution.