Please review this phrase until you're sure you understand:

> Those who don't get the point prefer
> to whine about "endless war"

Thanks!

(PS- Toilet training is 'endless war', isn't it? The best victories can last almost a century, but you'll return to the battle someday, in senility... This is like that. What do you want for the prime of life?)

(Wash your hands before you come out, Achmed...)

Amy, I believe the term you're looking for re: Christians is "Christers." (They also show up at Easter; at both holidays, they end up trying to bogart the best pews.)

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent?

Because the latter is always easier than the former. Which is why more and more people are picking up libertarian tendencies. Overbearing governments that brought the hammer down hard on the guilty while managing to leave the innocent more or less alone would probably be quite popular, but that's not what we have.

The same religion existed long before the current crop of jihadists. What enables their success is funding by oil producing nations. The true threat is the sophistication of the attacks which requires such funding. I expect a dirty bomb or nerve gas attack against a major US city in my lifetime. Sadly, I do not see our current administration holding a similar concern.

Meanwhile, we're afraid we'll offend them if we fight back. Political correctness will be our downfall. That and our sellout politicians and educational institutions sucking up for Saudi money.

"Discriminate or die."

The above quote taken from an article by Phyllis Chesler on Pajamas Media. She, in turn, quoted an Israeli security agent who argues that it is time for airlines to drop the P.C. crap and give Muslims the full body and luggage search before they board.

Yeah, I am so afraid of some punk terrorists. They do about 1 percent of the damage as drunk drivers, but let's get scared.

How about this? Let's put a $250k bounty on the head of any identified terrorist. Make it a million, I don't care.

That is the way to fight terrorists. Fleets and fleets of aircraft carriers on red-alert? A huge waste of money.

OK, asshole, how do you fight terrorists? Or do you just ignore them and hope they go away?

Brian Corbino of Connecticut: If you read my post, I suggest we put a bounty on the head of terrorists.
Then local thugs or mercenaries, or perhaps Blackwater mercenaries, will go out and bring back the head of Osama bin Laden.
Start at $1 million, and raise the price by $1 million a week.
Or, alternatively, invade Iraq and spend $1 trillion and establish an Islamic state, and also invade, lose and attempt to re-gain Afghanistan for another trillion or so. Set up a narco-state.
While bin Laden yuks it up.

We should be advertising to the Afghani poppy farmers that we'll buy their poppy's at a 50% premium over what the terrorists are paying.

Over time Al-Queada will go broke, and we won't have to up the war on drugs.

> bin Laden yuks it up

He hasn't convincingly, audibly "yuk'd" since early October 2001. This was the decade where this very important personality was supposed to be leading an eager world movement of oppressed goofballs. Hell, Britney Spears did better in this decade than he did. It's almost like he died under one of those first daisy cutters...

Bin Laden not only got away with murdering 3,000 Americans (although we murder four times that every year by ourselves, just with guns), he then lured President Bush into spending $1 trillion, in marginal costs, in Iraq. Now Obama is going for another trillion or so in Afghanistan.
That's marginal costs. The full cost may be double or triple that. And we spend $100 billion a year now on Homeland "Security" and Civilian Defense.
Bin Laden is yukking it up.
He is free, and we can't even go to the bathroom on an airplane anymore.
Our "intelligence" agencies can't even score from the one-yard line: witness the panty-bomber.
Maybe we should just privatize the military-intelligence boobocratic confederacy of dunces.
Let the odious Blackwater trolls do everything.

> Now Obama is going for

You think he's alive? Why?

Whoops. I read "Osama"

Still...

Christopher Hitchens is more anti-religion in its entirety than he is anti-Muslim, and he's got many very good arguments as to why they'll evil and insidous. He had a wonderful debate about the Roman Catholic Church some weeks ago, with him and Stephen Fry basically stating that with all the evil the HRC is responsible for over time (and today), it should not exist. With this I must respectfully disagree.

What they (and most anti-religion people) do not see or accept is that the religion is not the followers of said religion. Great horrors have been waged in the name of religion, but great good has been done as well. There are some psychotic people who will kill innocents in the name of their God, but there's lots of nice christians too...

The thing that gets us in trouble is when we want to get others to believe the way we do. If tolerance were practiced by everyone, and we all acted like the Omnians whose idea of holy war is to print up a new informative pamphlet, things would be far different. But alas, we all too often decide that, to quote Delia Darrow, the single most effective way to bring about radical change is the historically proven path of violence.

The more of a stranglehold a religion has on a culture, the more dangerous it can be, but again, great works of art and discovery have been made in the name of various religions. As science and free thought increase, the amount of effect religion has on culture decreases. I don't think it'll ever go away, or more specifically, I don't think people will ever stop believing in things that (likely) don't exist. We'll call it luck or we'll cross our fingers or whatever.

I think bounties are not a bad idea at all. Why not give the entrepreneurs a crack at terrorist-killing? It calls to mind the privateers of Revolutionary War days, who were quite successful.

The ideology of Communism, a religion if you will, is responsible for the deaths of at least 65,000,000 people, dwarfing any "Bible" religion for genocide. Abortion has, according to some estimates, been responsible for 50,000,000 deaths, some consider pro-choice to be a "religion". From a death perspective, there is a knee-jerk reaction to prescribe so much evil to "Religion", when in reality there are far worse Ideologies to be aware of, and to castigate.
I do think offering sizable "Bounties" on known Terrorists and those that promote "Jihad" would be of value and would probably make said Terrorists think twice about the Prophet of Islam.

Ok jksisco how was communism responsible for 65 million deaths and in what manner were they murdered

And Vinne, molestation of children was commited by church employees for centuries, recall if you will the practice of castrating males to ensure they retained their prepubecnt singing voices.

The sitting pope was intremental in protecting modern preist molesting kids, and in the fincail restructuing of the church to limit finacail damages.

And what about the inqusition? All of these thing were endorsed by the pope and head cardinals, not 'lone nuts' or followers. They were done by church leaders.

With, if ou subscirbe to the doctrine of papal infalibility, the full approval of god.

Tell me Vinne what kind of god endorses the rape and mutilation if lttle children?

> What they (and most anti-religion people)
> do not see or accept is that the religion
> is not the followers of said religion.

Even if this is true in some wordy, delicate, legalistic way, I see no better way of judging a faith than by the behavior of its practitioners.

You gotta problem wit dat?

> I think bounties are not a bad idea at all

You might wanna check with Salman Rushdie on this.

You mean that the bounty on his head wasn't successful or that it's the immoral sort of thing they do?

I mean: Mr Big Whomever needs to make clear which team he's on.

Oh.

"I see no better way of judging a faith than by the behavior of its practitioners"

That was pretty much what I was saying, tho I think you're coming at it from the opposite side. There is absolutely greed, corruption, unspeakable acts and the desire to cover up same in the HRC, as there is (in varying degrees) to any organization that involved a large enough number of people. But while the management (for lack of a better term) may be engaged in said acts, the vast majority of the followers are not.

Most (I would love to say "all" but cannot prove it, and sadly I don't believe it's true) Catholics are quite upset with the actions of priests; many are upset with the idea that Catholic priests cannot marry, or that the church still declares homosexuality to be inherently sinful (two protests with which I agree). It's the reason that the "Cafeteria Catholics" are emerging - those who still call themselves Catholic but pick and choose which doctrines to support and believe, like they were at a canonic buffet. You can't/shouldn't say that all Catholics are the same, just as you can't say all Muslims are the same. We believe at varying levels of zeal and intensity, and at different resolutions of detail, and different modes of dress and diet. Hitchens and Fry in the aforementioned debate (well worth seeking out on Youtube - I'll try and find a link) both said while that are happy to excortiate and pillory the HRC and religion in general, they have nothing but respect for the individuals who may believe and practice it.

The HRC, or any religion/belief system, is not wholly good or wholly evil. Religion is at once responsible for some of humanity's greatst works of beauty and its greatest works of horror. They provide great comfort for many, and inspire great violence in many others. Like almost everything mankind has discovered, it is concurrently both beneficial and destructive. And try as we like, we'll never be rid of it. People are just too good at seeing patterns that aren't there, and filling in the blanks in reality with fluff and flumery. 200 years from now we'll have new religions or belief systems, and some of the current ones will be gone, and some will remain. And there will still be a doctrine one can use as a crutch to hold up the feeling that one is inherently superior to someone else.

---

"Tell me Vinne what kind of god endorses the rape and mutilation of lttle children?"

None, IMHO. That's rather the same point as above, trying to equivocate the organization with its followers, and the doctrine with the faith. If you're expecting me to defend the things the HRC have done in the past (and others they still do), you'd better have brought a book to read, as you're in for a wait. Like any group or person at the top, the HRC did horrific things to hold onto its power. But as I say, that does not directly affect or diminish the millions, indeed billions over the course of history who believed in the best and brightest bits of their religions, and used them to make their lives better, and those around them.

One does not forgive the other, it's not all a dogmatic wash. I make no attempt to hide the bad side of religion, but I feel obligated to point out its positives if only to show that it is not the monolithic and unilateral evil many maintain.

---

I must say that even though my standpoints are remarkably middle of the road (If the Pope's a 10 I'm at about a 2), I am ever amazed at the how my (I think) reasonable and tolerant arguments are met with such zealous fervor from those whose standpoint (it seems to me) is anti-religion). There is nothing inherently evil in believing that there is a person who created everything, and that said person would like us to be nice to each other, in exchange for a reward to be paid later. If the next statement is "And those who disagree must pay" then we're gonna have words. But there are those who attack and assail even the most simple and innocuous belief as above with the same level of fervor that a religious person would defend their faith. People who maintain that science and reason should rule over all reduce to vitriol and invective far faster than the faith-driven people they debate with. I've always found that hilarious.

Lets look at this logically Vinne.

If the leaders of the catholic church, who claim their power is god given, act in a way that god would not approve that would mean they are liars and con men. Which would also mean that the religion is in and of itself false as it was based on the rightings and actions of similar liars and con men.

Now if we can all agree that this religion is false and responsible for such horrific acts, then why are you arguing that it shouldnt be abolished?

I think part of the problem is it's very difficult to look at religion "logically". Religion is based on faith, which almost by definition defies reason. So trying to "convince" people out of their religion will result in a lot of "Yeah, but"s. It's like trying to talk someone out of their favorite flavor of ice cream.

"Which would also mean that the religion is in and of itself false..."

Not quite. Like anything that's passed through a lot of hands, you're going to get mission creep, but that doesn't neccessarily mean the base concept wasn't valid, or at least meritous.

Have you ever had a group or a store or other such company that got new owners, and they're not the same anymore, but you keep going there? That's what the HRC (and likely most religions) is for most people. I still choose to believe, and the HRC is what I grew up with and what I prefer to stick with most of.

Trying to abolish the HRC would likely be as hard as making tobacco illegal, or shutting down any major corporation that wasn't insolvent.

"why are you arguing that it shouldnt be abolished?"

Well, that wasn't what the initial article was about. Hitchens was talking mainly about Islam in this article, and I expanded it out to mention that he's relatively anti-religion equally (a position I allow him to have, and would happily debate with him myself were I ever important enough to do so). I then brought up the recent debate (found the link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XpGyHJZ9b0 ) and pointed out that I would have to come down with the "don't abolish" side, even thought the people they chose to defend said side made a right pig's breakfast of it.

As for "why" I say it, I must admit it goes back to the hard to pin down emotional connection I mentioned above. It's the best I've come along to meet my needs for beliefs, pomp and circumstance and fancy hats.

When the challenger blew up becaue of the faulty O-rings, they eventually awarded the new contract for O-rings to the same company. The argument they made was that they already had the machinery in place to make them. In short, even with the big mistake, they were still the best option. That's Roman catholicism in a nutshell for me.

And no, it doesn't make logical sense, for the reasons mentioned above. It's my belief. I'm happy to discuss and debate it (I enjoy it, in case you couldn't tell) but I hope that you (both personally and in general) will grant me the respect to have said beliefs, and be tolerant of said beliefs, as I am tolerant of your choice not to believe them.

"And no, it doesn't make logical sense, for the reasons mentioned above. It's my belief. I'm happy to discuss and debate it (I enjoy it, in case you couldn't tell) but I hope that you (both personally and in general) will grant me the respect to have said beliefs, and be tolerant of said beliefs, as I am tolerant of your choice not to believe them."

Actually, it is very logical.

If I worked at Snyder, how am I going to sell you, a Catholic, a condom?

If I were a Buddhist monk, you would never visit a temple and pay money for my service.

If I were a fanatic Muslim, I have an obligation to Allah to convert and show you the light.

If I were an atheist, I don't want you to run for an office in the government.

There are very logical reasons why the rest of us cannot respect your desire to remain as a Catholic. Yes, it does not sound fair but that is the harsh reality of it.

"If I were an atheist, I don't want you to run for an office in the government."

This suggests a belief that there is no such thing as a Catholic who uses condoms or can have a thought that isn't religion-related. We don't all "take our orders straight from the Vatican" as they famously claimed JFK would do.

Which goes back to the recurring point - painting an entire group with one brush is almost always a fail. It's the very reason I'm ever pointing out that not ever Muslim is building a bomb in their basement. You simply can't allow it for one group and not for another. There really are such things as rational reasonable people who still believe in God or a religion.

"We don't all "take our orders straight from the Vatican" as they famously claimed JFK would do. "

And you know what happened to him. God did not like what he said according to Vatican.

At some point in your life, I would say in your 30s or 40s, you must make a decision and choose a side. Either there is a God or there is not. There is nothing in between. And you hope that your decision is the correct one and live your life accordingly.

It appears to me that you want to take the safe middle road just in case. But I don't think you can sit on the fence for the greater part of your life.

That is not good for you and for the next generation, who are relying on your correct decision.

"At some point in your life, I would say in your 30s or 40s, you must make a decision and choose a side."

Well, I'm 43, and considering what I've been saying I think that decision's been made.

And we haven't been talking about the existence or non-same of God, we've been talking about the Catholic Church. No fair moving the goalposts mid-stream.

"Well, I'm 43, and considering what I've been saying I think that decision's been made."

OK, you are a Christian. Then we are going back to your original argument that we should respect each other for their each choice of religion or non religion.

If you were a true Catholic or Christian, how can you go to sleep at night knowing that your atheist neighbor will go to straight hell and burn? Don't you have an minimum ethical obligation to rescue someone from the burning fire?

If you don't knock on your neighbor's door to go to church with you on Sunday morning, you are not a Christian or ethical person.

So now the argument is that I'm not Catholic ENOUGH? I've spent the last few exchanges driving home the fact that I wished people were more tolerant and accepting, and now that's a bad thing, and makes me a hypocrite.

You seem far more keen on "saving" me than vice versa.

My argument has been that it's that very desire to spread one's belief system in any way more active than than osmosis is what has got humanity in trouble more than anything else.

So no, the desire to convert is not endemic to faith. It's far more important to some religions than other, certainly, but there's lots of people who are happy just having a faith and if you don't, that's fine.

I don't believe I've made any attempt to convince anyone into my faith in this interchange, yet there's been quite a few to talk me out of it. So who's the more tolerant and accepting?

"So now the argument is that I'm not Catholic ENOUGH? I've spent the last few exchanges driving home the fact that I wished people were more tolerant and accepting, and now that's a bad thing, and makes me a hypocrite."

Yes, you are a hypocrite.

It is like you are saying I believe in world peace, so I am going to be a peace activist. What I am going to do is to think about peaceful thought to myself but that's it. I am not going to do a damn thing about it to bring the peace on earth. But I am going to call myself a peace activist.

You might believe in peace but you are not a peace activist. With the same logic, you might believe in Christ but you are definitely a lazy one and cannot call yourself a Christian as Jesus asked his followers to spread his gospel to other losers.

In that sense, Jehovah's Witnesses are the true Christians. Here is my point trying to make it to you. If you were a true Christian, you cannot idly sit around when you see an atheist. It is just unethical.