Religious fanaticism is the issue, not religion

Daniel 12 on Peru:
"A nice country."

If you don't mind dodging all the spit on the sidewalks.

Schaum,

Here's sub-text from the first link that echos your very question -

Obviously, the cultural intricacies, attitudes, and practices of a deeply entrenched peasant culture were major factors to consider. At the risk of grossly understating the case - folks don't always do what's in their best interest......

http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/patat/seafood.html

'It does not, however, answer my question about how, surrounded by seas full of fish, a prosperous fishing industry failed to develop.'

Schaum,

Cultural resistance and destructive fishing techniques (net trawling) are factors in Ireland's history with commercial fishing, including the period of the Great Famine.

Even today, the same destructive over-fishing combined with inefficient technology continues to haunt the global commercial fishing industry - the world's ever-diminishing availability of many kinds of seafood is the 'net' result.

See more on the history of fishing in Ireland and the Great Famine here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/cbladey/patat/ws.html

http://www.angelfire.com/mn/marion/fishing.html

Peru has many types of potato which have never been exported as far as I know which are nevertheless delicious. And the Peruvians also eat a fish dish called ceviche. Trust me, ceviche is delicious. raw fish is marinated and served with potato and corn cob. The Peruvian climate also conduces to vigor. A nice country.

Once again:
Alles,

I just caught up on the last several posts on Waters' last thread. Great stuff from everyone. Along with Persiflage's "ET phones home" comments, these, I think, should be stored for future reference. Next time CCNL1 gets off on his "masturbation" "argument," we can simply fire these off, one after another. What say?
----------------------

Is mutual masturbation a civil right and therefore protected by legislation or is it a genetic/psychological defect(s) that should be addressed/solved by the global medical research community????

And the answer is??????

Posted by: ccnl1 | November 16, 2009 11:26 AM
---------------------------
CNNL

Masturbation is rubbing the genitals. Above and beyond that, I don't really see your concern in this.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen
----------------------------
CCNL wrote:

"Is mutual masturbation a civil right?"

Clearly, you are unacquainted with foreplay.

Posted by: Skowronek | November 16, 2009 1:19 PM
------------------------------

"Is mutual masturbation a civil right?"

...or is it more like a responsibility?

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | November 16, 2009 1:35 PM

Schaum:

I just found it on the net and thought it was funny.
-----------
It was, how shall I put it, magnifique! But, along with Walter, I half-wondered if it was authentic, half yearned to congratulate the "forger." I'd love for it to be "real."

Thank you Persiflage. I am familiar with much of that agricultural history which you cite.

It does not, however, answer my question about how, surrounded by seas full of fish, a prosperous fishing industry failed to develop.

System is behaving strangely tonight.

test

Islam is Fanaticism.Because,Islam based on Hate.

You shall hate from
-Idolaters
-Infidels
-Hindus(Shiva Linga)
-Trinity Followers
-Jewish People
-Converts(islam welcomes converts to islam from other religions,but hates and says Death Panelty to converts from islam to other religions.Only this sample shows how islam Fanatical Cult is)
-Adulterers
-Mischiefmakers(whetever it means,everyone may be mischiefmaker in a way)
-Seculars
-Wine Drinkers(but,there are Wine Rivers in Paradise)

If any muslim is not Fanatic,it is not because of islam,but despite of islam.

Islam is Fanaticism which based on Hate.

Schaum,

An excerpt from the link provided:

'Tenants, subdivisions, and bankruptcy
In 1845, 24% of all Irish tenant farms were of 0.4 to 2 hectares (one to five acres) in size, while 40% were of two to six hectares (five to fifteen acres). Holdings were so small that only potatoes—no other crop—would suffice to feed a family.

The British Government reported, shortly before the famine, that poverty was so widespread that one third of all Irish small holdings could not support their families, after paying their rent, except by earnings of seasonal migrant labour in England and Scotland.[20]

Following the famine, reforms were implemented making it illegal to further divide land holdings.[21]

The 1841 census showed a population of just over eight million. Two-thirds of those depended on agriculture for their survival, but they rarely received a working wage. They had to work for their landlords in return for the patch of land they needed in order to grow enough food for their own families.

This was the system which forced Ireland and its peasantry into monoculture, as only the potato could be grown in sufficient quantity. The rights to a plot of land in Ireland could mean the difference between life and death in the early 19th century.[14]

continued............

Potato dependency

The potato was introduced to Ireland as a garden crop of the gentry. By the late seventeenth century it had become widespread as a supplementary rather than a principal food, the main diet still revolved around butter, milk and grain products. In the first two decades of the eighteenth century, it became a base food of the poor, especially in winter.[22]

The expansion of the economy between 1760 and 1815 saw the potato make inroads in the diet of the people and becoming a staple food all the year round for the cottier and small farm class.[23]

The potato's spread was essential to the development of the cottier system, delivering an extremely cheap workforce, but at the cost of lower living standards. For the labourer it was essentially a potato wage that shaped the expanding agrarian economy.[23]

The expansion of tillage led to an inevitable expansion of the potato acreage, and an expansion of the cottier class. By 1841, there were over half a million cottiers, with 1.75 million dependents. The principal beneficiary of this system was the English consumer.[23]

The Celtic grazing lands of... Ireland had been used to pasture cows for centuries. The British colonized... the Irish, transforming much of their countryside into an extended grazing land to raise cattle for a hungry consumer market at home... The British taste for beef had a devastating impact on the impoverished and disenfranchised people of... Ireland...

Pushed off the best pasture land and forced to farm smaller plots of marginal land, the Irish turned to the potato, a crop that could be grown abundantly in less favorable soil. Eventually, cows took over much of Ireland, leaving the native population virtually dependent on the potato for survival.[24]

2.

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.

What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing.

What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids.
Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.

However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.

We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar”, same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation.

No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the American people”.

The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don’t have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded.

1.

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.

My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing.

A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units.

A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation. On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.

There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.

We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is unconscionable.

This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.

WalterIFC:

"being a sports trash-talker myself, i saw the letters as clever "needling" of the french by the irish. "

And you are probably correct.

Persiflage:

"The fact that Ireland was a one crop economy at the time, went directly to British exploitation."

Strange thing: the potato is not native to Ireland. How did the Irish manage to survive for thousands of years BEFORE the potato was imported?

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that the potato famine was initially the direct result of a potato blight - which the British did virtually nothing to alleviate.

The fact that Ireland was a one crop economy at the time, went directly to British exploitation.

schaum,
being a sports trash-talker myself, i saw the letters as clever "needling" of the french by the irish. the feigned sincerity in describing the 2 sizes of boxes...("we have 30 and 60 cm versions..." ha!)...then after having it "explained", still offering the boxes for the "diminutive" frenchman... i'm still cracking up about it.

it's got to be fake - put out by some french-hating irish soccer fan.

'What, the exchange of letters, or the notorious thickness of the irish? Dunno about the letters, but the irish: what can you say about a nation of people who could starve, during the potato famine, while they were surrounded by seas full of fish!'

Who could afford a boat?? The famine was caused from first to last by a prolonged feudal system under the rule of the British Empire, that finally came to an end more than 70 years later.

No doubt the memory of the famine continued on as an inspiration for independence - while considerable migration to Great Britain and the USA was a more direct and immediate result.

British hegemony in Ireland was complete, and festered until the Irish War of Independence.......much like our own.

Unfortunately, Irish independence has not spread to Northern Ireland, but of course Scotland still suffers the same fate. The persistance of this state of affairs in both cases has not been for a lack of trying to break free of British rule.

In the USA, East Coast/Midwestern Irish continue on as Catholics, while the South is populated by Protestant Irish - and a good many with red hair :^)

The Irish have been fishermen for centuries....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

WalterIFC:

"that's not real, is it?"

What, the exchange of letters, or the notorious thickness of the irish? Dunno about the letters, but the irish: what can you say about a nation of people who could starve, during the potato famine, while they were surrounded by seas full of fish!

schaum,
madison and jefferson were "mofos" in the best possible sense of the expression.

schaum,
the best line was, "the boxes will then be placed discretely inside." LOL!

that's not real, is it? it's great sports "trash talk" humor by the irish if it is.

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government.

At question was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.[1] The case centered on three Supreme Court precedents: Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982).

Throughout both this case and the precedent setting cases it cited, James Madison's 1785 document Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was cited. In particular the quote:

"Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"

"Clicked on link. I am trying to process what I have read. Please to explain."

Explain it? Mmmmm, well...its an exchange of letters between the French and Irish consulates, in which the French announce their president's intention to attend the World Cup match between the two countries. The French want to arrange for a VIP box for the Prez. The Irish, noted for their thickness, mistakenly assume the French want a box for the Prez to stand ON, not IN. Its tongue-in-cheek....at least, I assume so. I just found it on the net and thought it was funny.

Its probably an INTJ thing.

Schaum,

Clicked on link. I am trying to process what I have read. Please to explain.

http://i.imgur.com/nAqPa.jpg

I asked alot of questions over there on that other thread, but no one is answering.

At least, they are not calling me a fascist.

Schaum,

Have you checked out Waters' thread recently? DITLD wrote more, and Persiflage drew from his scholarly arsenal.

A comment from my other half, about the catholic church in Austria:

"here, we heasr many times a year in the news that a priest violate boys and so on. and we have to pay taxes for the church. i dont want to do that. i am gay, for the church, thats a sin, but my money, they do want. i am not that foolish"

DITLD:

"About CCNL's posts:"

CCNL is non compos mentis. He isn't even good for a laugh.

About CCNL's posts:

He says that homo-sexuality is "mutual masturbation." Aside from being vulgar, childish, silly, and irrelevant, so what?

There is no serious point to this comment, and no need to reply.

And he says that even if gay people contribute to society, that their genes are "wasted" since they cannot pass them on.

But of course, any dope knows that alot of gay men father children, and alot of lesbians have children, as well, but even if they didn't, so what?

Again, a comment with no point, needing no reply

And, yes, DITLD done us proud. We've all done ourselves proud! Congratulations to us!

Persiflage,

"ET phones Rome." LOVE IT!!!

Farnaz and all,

DITLD done us all right proud over on the Waters thread.....he's a spunky little fellow!

Hi WalterIFC,

Thanks for the links! Icelanders had a good idea. Maybe, we could organize such an event, to be followed by Civility Day.

As for the Haredi, forgive me, but I don't trust Reuters to report on anything having to do with Israel. I'm not saying that the demonstration did not occur, but I suspect certain relevant facts may have been left out.

That said, Israel, at one time, was very much like the US and Europe, regarding weekend shop closings, etc. Just as stores and offices were closed here on Sunday, so they were closed in Israel on Saturdays.

That all changed, along with some very, very good things, such as the nation's radical egalitarianism, a few decades ago. Simultaneously, as a result of endless attacks, more consciousness of extra-national antisemitism, the presence of activist Jews, many of them religious, the ancestors of the current Haredi generation were born. Their numbers have grown. Not only do they have large families, but they are attracting outsiders, not only from Israel.

The more antisemitism, it seems, the more Haredi there are. Of course, they don't see it that way.

See any similarities do any other groups?

Schaum,

Great posts on the Waters thread! Thanks very much for the reference. I confess I had not heard of the organization, but I will contact them. Hopefully, along with others on this thread we can support them.

By grass-roots, I think we meant gathering up the grass via an established entity. This one looks very promising!

Thanks, again!

Farnaz

Hi Persiflage,

Congratulations on your victorious battle in the fight for moral sanity! I had always wondered about Crossan's views on same-sex marriage, perhaps, avoiding minimal research from fear of what I might discover. I am greatly relieved.

It is, indeed, sad the confused, the muddled, perspective that our paranoid "Catholic nonCatholic" brings to picking and choosing from this or that sacred Crossan text, a seven-year-old book review, etc., to make a point, elusive to all, in part, even to himself.

Initially, I had thought him intelligent, educated, and he may be, but his theology is self-serving, biased hodgepodge to say the least. However, I did, finally, get him to reveal the source of one of his obsessions.

He believes that Judaism is the well-spring from which the Christian/Catholic and Islamic focus on "angels" and the like derive! When he revealed this, merely a few months ago, I inundated him with resources demonstrating that the opposite obtains. Angels play almost no role in Judaism. Christianity greatly "elevated" their role, and Islam took it further, as you, no doubt, know.

But my endeavor to enlighten proved fruitless. That great searcher for origins, the scholar CCNL1, responded by having a virtual nervous breakdown.

What can one say? Hope lives eternal....

Great post on the Waters thread!

Farnaz

farnaz,
when i say, "one exemplifies government acknowledging religious values", i'm speaking of what would happen if the ultra-orthodox jews got their way - they'd ban work on the sabbath.

farnaz,
i've assumed you've heard of the "freedom from religion foundation". good, secular people there...

i smiled and thought of you when i noted the juxtaposition of these two "blurbs" in today's news. one exemplifies government acknowledging religious values, the other totally secular.

"Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews demonstrated Saturday at Intel's new electronic-chip plant in Israel in protest against work taking place at the site on the Jewish Sabbath."

"...The protesters said this was a desecration of the Sabbath, which runs from Friday night to Saturday night. They were dispersed by police."

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSLE14196720091114

vs.

"Icelanders, still stunned by the collapse of their banks a year ago, chose "honesty" as their chief national value on Saturday at an experimental assembly of politicians and ordinary people to map the island's future.

"...Honesty topped the list of Icelandic values that resulted from their conversations, followed by respect, equality, justice, responsibility and compassion."

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5AD1EW20091114

crazy icelandic atheists...

Farnaz, I had to add my two cents worth over on the Waters thread - CCNL drove me to it with his bizarre obsessional rants.

As far as Church apologists go, dogma lovers come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. A lot of them wear Roman collars...

“The greatest contribution of atheism is the provision of a firm basis for ethical conduct. Atheism explains that morality is a social obligation but not a passport to heaven and salvation. The theistic belief in divine retribution sidetracked moral behavior. Believers were more prone to please the god of their imagination by prayer and ritual than to conform to rules of moral conduct. Consequently immorality and anti-social activities spread wild wherever people were absorbed in the worship of god and in the propitiation of fate. Atheism brings about radical changes in the outlook of people in this context. Truth, tolerance, love and equality are the basic needs of social harmony.”
-- Gora, Note on Atheism

Farnaz:

I wonder if rather than begin a solo grass-roots effort, it might not be better to link with, support, and seek support from an already-established organization, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Wisconsin?

Persiflage,

cprFerry has, once again, chimed in, conveniently proving my point. No offense intended to Ferry, but if you trace the trajectory of his earlier post to this, you will note a resemblance to Satan's downward spiral in Milton's PL.

Schaum,

Don't get mad at me, but see what happens if you add to your preferences hatred of "The Wizard of Oz."

Just askin'

Hi, Again, Persiflage,

RE: CPRFerry and Martin Fox

Yes, they are both well spoken. In part, it is people like them that are the most problematic.

At the Jesuit university, where once I worked there were several lucid, intelligent priests. (I had expected there to be more, in light of what I had heard about the Jesuits.)

Despite their erudition, they were ultra-right-wing bigots.

As you know, such clerics exist among all religions. Therein lies a big, big part of the problem.

Hi Persiflage,

Fr. Martin Fox has written to yours truly, yours truly having posted most provactive.

I have written back to the fellow. We shall see what we shall see. Where, oh where, is DITLD?

Farnaz :0

PS. Fr. Martin seems okay, so far. Too bad, he just won't get this whole church-and-state religion thing.

Farnaz,

I was thinking of CPRFerry, although I might have confused a formal letter that he posted with the Bishop's name affixed at the bottom of the letter, with the poster himself - could have been a copy I suppose, but he appeared to be a pretty well spoken poster....without being nearly as strange as TTWSY,etc. He could well be a priest at the very least.

Schaum,

I can only imagine your surprise. A passel of positive responses to your outrageous demographics blacklist would be completely unexpected!

The kind of quirky stuff that research sometimes produces - on the other hand, everyone probably has 'elitist' tastes of one kind or another when it comes to mates, partners, at least to outside observers.

On the other hand, the list was so outlandish you wonder why someone didn't take it personally, and call you on it .....since one would expect that out of 77 responders at least a few would have made your list!

Could have been a fluke. BTW, the Wizard of Oz is such a Thanksgiving tradition it should be playing on TVs everywhere - although I believe you said you didn't have one. I might even watch it again myself.....

Persiflage

Persiflage:

"Irritating Catholics - not much in this cyber-world that's more fun than that!!"

I'm doing something fun! Finding out about how tolerant gay men are. I have signed onto a gay meeting site, where you post your profile and look for whatever pleases you. You can mount photos on it.

So...I wrote a profile that is nothing but negatives. Did not say one word about myself. I posted a list of NOs...what I don't want! VERY prejudiced listing of NOs. Well, I might as well post it here:
25-45 only. No pic, no response
No blacks
No Italians
No lawyers
No orientals
No moslems
No Irish under ANY circumstances!
No uncut
No baldies
No nail-biters
No fems, CDs, TVs
No unemployed
No hustlers
No bipolars/PTSDs/persons on antipsychotics
No amputees
Hispanics considered on a case-by-case basis

Not one positive word, all prejudical negatives. I expected a firestorm of protest from gay men who would be offended. Guess what!
So far, 77 responses. 5 -- yes, 5 -- have been condemnations of my intolerant, bigoted profile. The other 72 have ranged from "like what you say" to "I agree" -- to proposals to meet.

I'm very disappointed in gay men. This surprises me very much.

Persiflage,

Fr. Martin is an archbishop? Jeez, not much of a debater. Posting to DITLD may be his undoing on David's thread.

Hope Dan gets to reply before the essay is removed from the blog.

Good God! Farnaz and DITLD are bringing down the wrath of the Almighty over on the the David Waters thread - we have an actual Arch Bishop and one or more priests weighing in, not to mention that ever-present non-Catholic Catholic, CCNL. That guy is a piece of work.......

Irritating Catholics - not much in this cyber-world that's more fun than that!!

Persiflage

Persiflage:

"likely to be perceived as 'anti-religious' in the South."

Uh, you think???

Hi Persiflage,

Thanks for your reply. If SUSAN JACOBY, will tell us which secularist organization we might profitably approach, I will pass the info. on to someone who might begin to nudge that entity toward activism. We cannot wait for a healthy "meme" to descend upon religionist thugs.

Farnaz,

You're definitely right with regard to this being a grassroots issue from the 'get go'.

Another of your good ideas is to forego the 'atheist' brand and position this as a secular issue. Declaring oneself non-religious really tends to irritate people in my experience, so best to avoid it!

Frankly, this sound like an East Coast/West Coast kind of movement in the beginning - too farout for your placid Mid-Westerner and likely to be perceived as 'anti-religious' in the South.

I could become a volunteer post-retirement, but would have to relocate from Columbia, SC. For better or worse, that would mean my old stomping grounds, Kalamazoo, MI. Yes, there really is a..... :^)

Persiflage

I believe people who do such evil acts believe that they will be rewarded after live based on these acts. Because of his background, president Obama understands this belief. Rather than making pronouncement on after death, I see it as he wanted to invalidate the very specific reason for committing such actions so the perpetrators are less obsessed by such thoughts.

This is in line with your message that we must not judge the religion by some of its believers who do evil acts. They do these acts, from my opinion, because of tarnished implementation and understanding of the noble messages of the religion.

I did not read any religion which message are not noble and has high value of humane.

In any culture we should judge people by their contributions and deeds and force ourselves to avoid questioning their beliefs. The person’s belief is so sacred and even for the same religion, probably each person has a peculiar implementation that is so personal.

Let people who are minority feel they are at ease. Let them show their best. This will make them transparent, participative and caring. They will feel they are in same boat as the rest of the society. This is a possible root cause that we need to think of, in addition to punishing of perpetrators of such evil acts.

I believe people who do such evil acts believe that they will be rewarded after live based on these acts. Because of his background, president Obama understands this belief. Rather than making pronouncement on after death, I see it as he wanted to invalidate the very specific reason for committing such actions so the perpetrators are less obsessed by such thoughts.

This is in line with your message that we must not judge the religion by some of its believers who do evil acts. They do these acts, from my opinion, because of tarnished implementation and understanding of the noble messages of the religion.

I did not read any religion which message are not noble and has high value of humane.

In any culture we should judge people by their contributions and deeds and force ourselves to avoid questioning their beliefs. The person’s belief is so sacred and even for the same religion, probably each person has a peculiar implementation that is so personal.

Let people who are minority feel they are at ease. Let them show their best. This will make them transparent, participative and caring. They will feel they are in same boat as the rest of the society. This is a possible root cause that we need to think of, in addition to punishing of perpetrators of such evil acts.

Persiflage:

Re: Your posts

I've offered several ways of ending religionist oppression in the US. Here are the most recent. What say you?
------------------
The solution is easy to conceptualize, difficult but not impossible to implement. Religion and politics must be separated. Legislation must be passed to prevent religious institutions from lobbying the Congress. Nonprofit status for them must be eliminated. "Faith-based funding" progjects must be replaced by NGO-style agencies.

How to make this a reality:

Organizations such as Susan's must gather together and lead the intitiative.

While it's underway, secularism not atheism, should be its priority. There are countless believers who are not religionists, who support a wholly secular approach to US governance.

Prior to establishing a popular base of support, these organizations must publicize, raise funds, identify within their organization the brainiacs, born "propagandists," henchmen, executive talents, fundraisers, and a "personality" to deal with the public.

Whatever talent does not reside within the organization must be located from without.
-----------------
Freedom from religion can, within a few years, become a reality in the United States.

Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | November 14, 2009 2:33 PM

The secular status of government operations is further complicated by the fact that while most Democrats support this concept fully, there are notable exceptions on certain issues e.g. abortion and gay marriage definitely have their opponents among the Democratic ranks.

We've just seen this in the Bart Stupak ammendment to the House Public Health Option bill. Democrats or no, representatives will vote according to their constituent preferences for the most part.

Trying to pass legislation that eliminates tax exemptions for religious organizations would first require some daring soul to sponsor such a bill - can anyone really imagine this happening?

We can't even get elected representatives that are willing to admit to 'no religious preference' much less to agnosticism or to a far more politically lethal atheism - other than that solitary and longstanding Florida congressman whose name escapes me.

Take a trip through the South and see churches being built by the side of the road as we speak...........

Hi Farnaz,

I've been following your commentary on various threads regarding the 'freedom from religion' concept, and generally post a few comments of my own along the way, regarding Catholic Church issues.

I fully agree that freedom from religion should adhere in all public venues and in all legislative processes - ideally. This really is a constitutional issue.

However, the current make-up of the Supreme Court is just one very large factor that will complicate all of this for a generation to come - notwithstanding possible Obama appointments that may bring more balance to the court.

The Catholic Church in particular is out of control lately and fully immersed in public policy debates concerning abortion and the government health insurance option, as well as their long-standing position opposing gay marriage rights - with accompanying threats to leverage their position by withholding charitable services, etc.

Indeed, remove all tax exemptions for religious organizations and their affiliates without delay. I completely agree!

And then there's the real world.......

Persiflage

Many, many Americans are outraged that Muhammad will not be tried in a military court. IMO, strong legal arguments exist on both sides, and unlike many others, I do not think the final decision was, primarily, based on partisan politics.

The trial, IMO, was brought into the federal domain in order to protect what remains of a positive American image in the Muslim world.

As for the location, New Yorkers do not want the trial held here. We've already endured several terrorist attacks, the last one quite memorable.

Persiflage,

Humans are now insisting more than ever on complete freedom of thought - which implies your 'freedom from religion'.

I, not schaum, have been posting on freedom from religion as a basic human right.

It is our right as much as it is the right of the people of Pakistan to have a government free of religionist domination.

At present, Americans are suffering under the yoke of Christian Fundamentalism and the Roman Catholic Church. That the RCC bishops, whom we did not elect to Congress, have significantly interfered with American health care reform is terrifying.

That so few media prominents have taken them on is almost worse. Together, the Fundamentalists and the RCC are acting like a bunch of gangsters, while our elected officials bow down and the media cringe. If they could be Zia, I have no doubt that these Christian institutions would.

It is too late in the day for us to rely either on elected officials or on the media to free America from from these pernicious influences.

It is up to us, the people, to separate church and state.

WalterIFC:

"it's crazy that this course of public criminal trials wasn't the policy from the start. bush (or who-ever's idea that was) was such an idiot.'"

No, he was not an idiot. He was extremely manipulative, and willing to set aside the regular course of due process in order to have the suspects tried in a forum in which their conviction was guaranteed. But, that was GWB for you.

Walter IFC:

'we were talking about hasan here, but the issue is magnified 100 times for KSM. his being tried in public court at ground zero is awesome. it's crazy that this course of public criminal trials wasn't the policy from the start. bush (or who-ever's idea that was) was such an idiot.'

There's no ironclad guarantee Muhammed and his cohorts will get the death penalty - perhaps the perfidious 9/11 'mastermind' could share a cell with his role model just below - who I am sure retains all of his religious privilages, prayer rug, etc.

However, symbolically speaking, I imagine the public demand for Muhammed's head will be great, but who knows??

What we do know for sure is these maniacs aren't much into 'symbolic' behavior themselves, having orchestrated far too much of the real thing....no one will forget Daniel Pearl any time soon.

Hasan, being a military type, will probably get the needle, unless he opts for a firing squad...which will be made easier by his confinement to a wheelchair.

In all cases, justice will be meted out one way or another. Unfortunately there is no way to penetrate the religiously insane, murderous self-righteousness that permeates their every fiber.

They can never be made to comprehend what they've done from the point of view of their victims - a role that witnesses, survivors (and the rest of us) play by proxy....and that's the worst part of all. In that sense, they escape punishment altogether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman

Persiflage

schaum,
nice jefferson quotes down there. man, that guy was brilliant. thank god we had him (and madison, adams, franklin et.al.) right there at just the right time and place to create the first "freedom from religion" government.

persiflage, you said,
"The undesirable effect of creating martyrs for Allah/Islam by administering said death penalty will not prevent it from being applied - we're a vindictive lot."

we were talking about hasan here, but the issue is magnified 100 times for KSM. his being tried in public court at ground zero is awesome. it's crazy that this course of public criminal trials wasn't the policy from the start. bush (or who-ever's idea that was) was such an idiot.

a public trial is a great p.r. opportunity. let him rant to a disgusted jury about the righteous nature of jihad. let the world see the extraordinary lengths to which we go to insure a fair trial. the judiciary system is one of america's best things.

anyway, we really shouldn't martyr him. he's already told us that's what he wants. wouldn't it be more vindictive of us NOT to martyr him. like i've said, koran, prayer rug, imam poster. we can "punish" him by piping in loud recordings (in arabic or whatever) of the UDHR, and pointing him the wrong way at prayer time.

Schaum,

The solution is easy to conceptualize, difficult but not impossible to implement. Religion and politics must be separated. Legislation must be passed to prevent religious institutions from lobbying the Congress. Nonprofit status for them must be eliminated. "Faith-based funding" progjects must be replaced by NGO-style agencies.

How to make this a reality:

Organizations such as Susan's must gather together and lead the intitiative.

While it's underway, secularism not atheism, should be its priority. There are countless believers who are not religionists, who support a wholly secular approach to US governance.

Prior to establishing a popular base of support, these organizations must publicize, raise funds, identify within their organization the brainiacs, born "propagandists," henchmen, executive talents, fundraisers, and a "personality" to deal with the public.

Whatever talent does not reside within the organization must be located from without.
-----------------
Freedom from religion can, within a few years, become a reality in the United States.

Farnaz:

"The article below presents the Religion of Love version, of yelling Allah akbar while going on a rampage. The rampage, however, has already cost nearly two million lives."

As someone...was it Susan...mentioned earlier: "ONWARD, Christian soldiers!"

Freedom from religion is a basic human right.

The article below presents the Religion of Love version, of yelling Allah akbar while going on a rampage. The rampage, however, has already cost nearly two million lives.

Donald Rumsfeld's holy war: How President Bush's Iraq briefings came with quotes from the Bible By Paul Thompson
Last updated at 9:50 AM on 20th May 2009

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was sold as a fight for freedom against the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

But for former U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his elite Pentagon strategists, it was more like a religious crusade.

The daily briefings about the progress of the war that Mr Rumsfeld gave to President George W Bush were illustrated with victorious quotes from the Bible and gung-ho photographs of U.S. troops, it has emerged.
Enlarge Gung ho: This image of a jet taking off, including the words of Psalm 139-9-10, was on the briefing for March 19, 2003

Gung ho: This image of a jet taking off, including the words of Psalm 139-9-10, was on the briefing for March 19, 2003

The news is certain to anger Muslim critics of the invasion, whose claims that a Christian superpower was trying to overthrow an Islamic nation were rebuffed at the time by the White House.

One of the top-secret 'worldwide intelligence updates', which were hand-delivered to Mr Bush by Mr Rumsfeld, includes an image of an F-18 Hornet fighter jet roaring off from the deck of an aircraft carrier.

On it were the words of Psalm 139-9-10: 'If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast, O Lord.'

The cover of another featured pictures of U.S. soldiers at prayer with a quote from Isaiah: 'Whom shall I send and who will go for us? Here I am Lord, Send me.'
Enlarge Foolish men: Rumsfeld used biblical passages to convince Bush that America was on the right path in its invasion of Iraq

Foolish men: Rumsfeld used biblical passages to convince Bush that America was on the right path in its invasion of Iraq

A photograph of Saddam Hussein included a quotation from the First Epistle of Peter: 'It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.'

The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.

But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.

Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush: Religious crusade in Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush: Religious crusade in Iraq
continues

continued

However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim analyst said to be greatly offended.

A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' - the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.

But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' - Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.

The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine by a source at the Pentagon.
Enlarge The biblical quotes were the branchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a strongly religious man who was director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The biblical quotes were the branchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a strongly religious man who was director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Mr Bush, a born-again Christian, believed the invasion was a 'mission from God'.

However, the news that his war cabinet meetings had a biblical theme will only add to criticism of the war, which has claimed the lives of around 4,300 U.S. servicemen and women since March 2003.

Another of his briefings included the words 'Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed' alongside a photo of a U.S. marine with a machine gun.

And on an image of U.S. tanks rumbling through the Victory Arch monument in Baghdad was a quote from Isaiah: 'Open the gates the righteous nation may enter, the nation that keeps the faith.'

Enlarge Pious: U.S. troops pray, captioned with text from Isaiah

Pious: U.S. troops pray, captioned with text from Isaiah, on the front of this security briefing for George Bush

A photograph of U.S. tanks in Iraq used a further passage from Isaiah: 'Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung, their horses' hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels are like a whirlwind.'

Anti-war campaigners said the images and words were used by Mr Rumsfeld to curry favour with his boss by playing on Mr Bush's devout religious beliefs.

The Reverend Barry Lynn, of the U.S. campaign group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said U.S. soldiers 'are not Christian crusaders, and they ought not be depicted as such'.

He added: 'Depicting the Iraq conflict as some sort of holy war is completely outrageous. It's tremendously damaging to America's reputation in the world.'

The Pentagon said yesterday it did not use biblical quotes on the daily briefings for President Obama.

great/horrible article, schaum. this part broaches farnaz's pipe dream idea of "banning" religion from the U.N.:

The only long term solution to Islamic terrorism is to have an Islamic reformation....First, what is a reformation? The U.N. convention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 enunciates the basic principles of human rights that...transcend any and all particular cultures or religions. Where this universal law of human rights is breached, international law is supposed to prevail. Separation of church and state does not imply that religions are free within their realms to violate universal human rights. Islamic states ultimately must accept the basic principle of separation of mosque and state, and implement observance of UDHR principles.

"Islam And Its Discontents"... VERY worthwhile reading.

http://www.writersreps.com/feature.aspx?FeatureID=133

...and a few more:

> Don't let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and
> the enemy of Allah. 8:59-60
> When you fight with disbelievers, do not retreat. Those who do will go to
hell. 8:15-16
> If you refuse to fight, Allah will afflict you with a painful doom. 9:39
> If you refuse to fight for Allah, he will punish you with a painful doom.
48:16
> Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in
you. 9:123
> Those with Muhammad are ruthless toward disbelievers and merciful toward
themselves. 48:29
> Disbelievers will be tormented in this life, and suffer even more pain in
the Hereafter. 13:33-34
> Allah will make non-believers taste humiliation in the life of the world
and the doom of the Hereafter which will be even worse. 39:26
> For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114
> Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all
going to hell anyway. 9:73
> Be stern with disbelievers. They are going to Hell anyway. 66:9
> Those who deny Muhammad's revelations will be destroyed. 25:36
> Those who oppose Islam will be slain with a fierce slaughter. 33:60-61
> Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are
bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for
it. 9:111
> "Lo! it is the fire of hell Eager to roast." 70:15

Verses from the Religion of Peace:

> Allah is severe punishment! 2:165-6
> Many generations have been destroyed by Allah. 6:6
> How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they
> slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. 7:4-5
> Those that the Muslims killed were not really killed by them. It was
Allah who did the killing. 8:17
> The people cried out for mercy, but Allah killed them anyway. 20:15
> Fight in the way of Allah. 2:190, 2:244
> War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight,
whether they like it or not. 2:216
> Allah loves those who fight for him. 61:4
> Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars.
> 4:74
> If you're willing to fight for Allah, he will provide you with lots of
booty. 48:19-20
> The worst beasts in Allah's sight are the disbelievers. 8:55
> Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to the rich and greedy
Christian monks and Jewish rabbis. 9:34
> Don't let idolaters tend the sanctuaries. Their works are in vain and
they will be burned in the Fire. 9:17
> Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the
minions of the devil. 4:76
> Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for
tooth.
> Non-muslims are wrong doers. 5:45
> The good works of disbelievers are all in vain. They will go to hell
anyway. 18:104-105
> Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. 2:191-2
> Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5
> Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.
4:89
> Don't make friends with Allah's enemies. For those who do so, Allah has
prepared a dreadful doom. 58:14-15

Schaum,

Merci beaucoup!

Persiflage:

"Since religion is fundamentally static and the mind is in a constant state of motion, its no wonder that science replaces/supplants religion for a large and growing number of folks. For many others, atheism equates with the highly desired intellectual freedom from religious tyranny."

Donc très bien rédigé!

Schaum,

'An amusing thought: what, after all, typifies the economics of human behavior more clearly than the Catholic Church selling indulgences?'

Salvation and absolution have always been commercial enterprises! Real freedom consists in never having to say you're sorry.......

.....if one views economics as the necessary interaction between biological organisms and their respective environments in order to survive, then I think we'll all in agreement - and this is of course a much researched area. Beyond that, the profusion of economic theories is legion.

Humans are now insisting more than ever on complete freedom of thought - which implies your 'freedom from religion'. As I've been reading recently, the emerging evolutional trend of the last several generations pits intellectual freedom and the supremacy of the human intellect against the restrictions inherent in society, societal structure and stability, and the prevailing moral/legal order - these societal structures include religion in a big way.

Since religion is fundamentally static and the mind is in a constant state of motion, its no wonder that science replaces/supplants religion for a large and growing number of folks. For many others, atheism equates with the highly desired intellectual freedom from religious tyranny.

Other than the comfort and solice found in ritualistic beliefs/behaviors, nothing new emerges from conventional religion, and that's a huge problem from an evolutionary standpoint.

Persiflage

Re: events at Ft. Hood...

"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play and reasons and laughs it out of doors without suffering the State to be troubled with it." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782. ME 2:224

"It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere [in the propagation of religious teachings] when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

Schaum,

"Freedom from religion, and the religious, is a basic human right."

I'll go along with that as well.

"ALL human actions are economic in nature. All human actions have economic valuation, in one way or another. There is no human action which cannot be shown to have economic value. All human behaviour is a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."

OK. If that is what you mean by it, I agree.

Persiflage:

An amusing thought: what, after all, typifies the economics of human behavior more clearly than the Catholic Church selling indulgences?

There is even an economic explanation for the lunacy of Daniel12.

Persiflage:

Come up with a real-world question, and then apply the principles of economics to find an answer. Economics explains all behavior, everything from the birds and the bees, to the price of eggs, to serial murder. All human action results in benefit to the doer. And I have no intention of further debating the non-existent altruism!

Economics serves both as a paradigm and explanation for all of the social sciences by dealing with actual problems of society, improving and enlarging our understanding of human behaviour. It also suggests solutions to social problems in such areas as the environment, politics, art, family, history and academia. Economic models explain and emphasize love, issues of fairness, morality and any psychological issues you can name.

Schaum, here's an excerpt from the conclusion part of the research paper that I provided in the link:

'........All of this casts serious doubts on the explanatory viability of rational choice theory as a designated paradigmatic exemplar for all social science, including sociology and political science, alongside economics.

Admittedly, in its current versions rational choice theory is “not a general [social] theory because it uses a much too rigid and narrow conception of rationality”15 (Boudon 1998:821), as attempted to show in the preceding.

This narrow conception grossly neglects both the logical possibility and the empirical evidence that human behavior can be rational not just on economic criteria but also on extra-economic ones.

Neglected is thus the incidence and salience of non-economic rationality in favor of its economic form. That rational behavior exhibits both economical and non-economic rationality can be deemed the key argument and inference of this paper. Hence, the foregoing suggests that human behavior can be not only economically rational but also non-rational in economic terms and yet rational in non-economic ones.'
==================

In the body of the article you will find mention of altruistic behavior, among other exemplars. As you can see, I'm still working on this theme!

Your approach to economics at the fundamental/individual level appears to be purely egoistic. All I'm doing here is demonstrating that this is not a universal point of view.
_______________

Ref. The death penalty as applied to both Hasan and the so-called mastermind of 9/11 and 5 accomplices, whose trials are about to commence......I believe the death penalty is being sought in all cases.

The undesirable effect of creating martyrs for Allah/Islam by administering said death penalty will not prevent it from being applied - we're a vindictive lot.

BTW, I'm in full agreement that the Army was seriously remiss in allowing Hasan to continue on with his military career as a psychiatrist - he should have been received a medical discharge as mentally unstable. The Army is culpable in this regard.

However, there is every reason to believe that he would have acted on his religious delusions of persecution in any environment, with similar deadly results.

Since the USA has been busily denying a religious connection with regard to the global war on terrorism from the inception of the invasion of Iraq, it's doubtful a point will be made of the religious angle now - even during the upcoming trials I believe this 'elephant in the room' will be downplayed for all kinds of political reasons.

We're far too entangled with Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, et al) and issues of oil and nuclear containment (Pakistan) to do otherwise....unfortunately.

I also like Fiddler on the Roof.

DITLD,

I believe this is Schaum's way of telling us that he is not going to see the Wizard of Oz.

As for me, my favorite musical is Brecht's "Threepenny Opera," the original, in German.
(It's an Iranian thing.)

WalterIFC:

I agree with you. Executing him would merely make him a martyr to radical Islam. Who the hell needs that.

DITHLD

"I am sure that I am not the only person who feels this way, Susan Jacoby, to name just one."

And I repeat: if you are offended by it, don't look at it.

On the subject of the swastika, I did not say that people should not look at it, nor that I would not look at one.

I was merely pointing out, that to alot of people, any beauty in its geometric design has been ruined. I base this on my mental association of the swastika with Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust, and World War II.

I am sure that I am not the only person who feels this way, Susan Jacoby, to name just one.

One day at work, a couple of years ago, two plumbers were working on a water fountain in the hall. After awhile, I noticed that they were humming something ... someting that sounded familiar. They were humming the chant of the "Russian like" guards of the Wicked Witch of the West. They were humming, "oh wee oh; ah-weeeeee yoh!"

And then, after awhile, people in their offices up and down the hall chimed in and then it was a loud chant.

You had to be there.

Yes. There are two paintings, however, from the same vantage point, painted first when he could see, and again when he could not. I was thinking of those
----------
Okay. I think you should see the Wizard of Oz. At this point in your life, your not having seen it could become an embarrassment. Gay men all over the world have seen it, and sing tunes in bars.

Frankly, I can't imagine what you could say if someone in Germany should strike up a conversation on the Tin Man's rite of passage, and you look at him blankly.

What will you do? Say that you are suffering from amnesia?

any comments on my idea that we SHOULD NOT give hasan the death penalty - even if he "deserves it" per standard sentencing guidelines?

Persiflage:

Any act that brings personal gratification, or satisfies any other personal need -- including those of psychotics -- has, by definition, an economic value. I get something (however intangible it may appear to others) from the transaction.

"He painted Giverny many times"

Yes. There are two paintings, however, from the same vantage point, painted first when he could see, and again when he could not. I was thinking of those.

Schaum,

? He painted Giverny many times. The iron cross, it is. WE now have one delegate. I'll check to make sure, but I don't think you can legitimately call yourself a "fag" without having seen the Wizard of Oz.

Schaum,

'ALL human actions are economic in nature. All human actions have economic valuation, in one way or another. There is no human action which cannot be shown to have economic value. All human behaviour is a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.'

Interesting! Here'a a (lengthy) paper that discusses rationality and economic valuation vs non-economic behavior - one wonders how to classify the behavior of the clinically insane? A vast topic indeed....

http://www.sociology.org/content/vol7.2/02_zafirovski.html

Persiflage

"Freedom from religion is a basic human right."

OK...sign me up. I'll support this, provided it is changed to read "Freedom from religion, and the religious, is a basic human right."

Farnaz:

I think I'm the only gay person on the planet who has never seen "Wizard of Oz". Its showing at the student center at Virginia Tech tomorrow night. Fighting with myself as to whether I should give in and see it, or go to my grave an unwashed fag...

Farnaz:

"I'm willing to negotiate on Gardener at Giverny"

He painted the garden twice, once while his eyesight was good, and again after it was shot. I like the second painting better...its a bizarre mixture of shapes, colors and textures which is really quite pleasing, like someone describing an lsd trip.

Farnaz:

I agree...iron crosses would be much more appropriate.

COMPCHIRO:

ALL human actions are economic in nature. All human actions have economic valuation, in one way or another. There is no human action which cannot be shown to have economic value. All human behaviour is a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.

Schaum,

"You have confused the words "economic" and "economical".

Please explain what you mean by an "economic action" then, becaause I do know the difference in the two words.

Moi:
"It may also negate future and wish when yoked to verbs..."

i.e. shall NOT

Hi Farnaz,

Thee:
"I've been considering the iron cross, which, may resonate more with the nazis."

Since we're talking symbolic repo, we may as well include the cross...

In hieroglyphs, the crossed staves (Gardiner's Z11) means "who is within". It may also negate future and wish when yoked to verbs...

I believe the significance of crux in Vodun's antecedents far predates the advent of RCC.

Athena4

Lovely Pallas
"My Goddess gave birth to your God."

And look how HE turned out! :^0

Maaaw! Yer boy's killin' ageein...

Schaum,

I've been considering the iron cross, which, may resonate more with the nazis. Moreover, it better reflects their positions on any number of issues.

Schaum,

I am sick and tired of having my swastika replacement proposal ignored.

Further, I suggested that a delegation be formed to broach the subject with said cretins.

I'm willing to negotiate on Gardener at Giverny. Perhaps, something else from the Giverny series, or another icon altogether.

Frankly, I think I'm being infinitely reasonable about this.

Farnaz

"Who's gonna proect those walls"...me?

"Who's gonna protect those walls"...me?

'Twas a beery night...

Walter,

Dan-le-Douze Either/Or:
"The role of religion in the military? Either choose one religion or none at all. Either is preferable to hodgepodge."

Thee in response
"hodgpodge?! why does the military have to choose anything? it would be MUCH WORSE if they chose a religion."

If they must choose, I would suggest they choose Mithras - ideal for protecting empires. Just ask Diocletian.

As for Hodgepodge - she's far too funky for the troops. She tends to dull the brass, loosen the bootstraps, and trump mess hall fare with her irresistible gumbo...jumbo...

She is much preferable to me; but I am no troop, merely a yob. "Who's gonna proect those walls"...me?

DITLD:

"It [swastika] is a symbol of all that is putrid and stinking."

For Buddhists and Hindus, the swastika is a very religious symbol that is commonly used.

If it offends you to look at it, don't. That seems simple enough that you can do it. Give it your best shot.

Freedom from religion is a basic human right. The people of the United States have as much right to freedom FROM religion as do the people of Pakistan.

This is a human rights issue and should be brought to the United Nations.

IN the meantime,

1. End non profit status for religious institutions

2. End "faith-based" funding, and set up local service delivery via NGOs.

4. Get religion out of the marriage business altogether. All persons must be married by a civil servant. Later they can have whatever religious ceremony they wish.

Some will say that what we have is tantamount to this. All right but what I'm proposing makes a statement that the current "wedding" process does not.

5. REligious institutions must be prevented from lobbying, period, even after they lose tax exempt status. Separation of church and state.
--------------------
Until the foregoing is enacted,

1. Atheist lecturers in the army and every other public venue in which clerics figure.

2. Tax exempt status for atheist/agnostic study centers.

Atheist-based funding

I agree with Susan.

The swastika is a very ugly symbol, indeed.

For me, it represents every foul sensibility imaginable.

It is a ghoulish symbol of brutal murder, the incineration to ashes of a whole race, of unburied and rotting corpses piled up to the skies, of cites bombed and ruined, of high culture brought low, and sunk into the darkest deparvity of the human heart.

It is a symbol of all that is putrid and stinking.

That is what it is to me.

Because I know about Adolph Hitler and all that was accomplished in the name of the swastika under his direction, I cannot ever see any beauty in this terrible and awful symbol.

regarding religious killers, susan said,
"They know what they're doing, but their delusions about the absolute truth of their religion lead them to view immoral acts as moral. That's insane by my standards, but it's not insane by legal standards. Although I must admit that I would take great pleasure in seeing certain forms of religion declared officially insane in a courtroom."

very interesting. that WOULD be hilarious to have hasan declared insane because of his religious beliefs. also, it could solve another problem i see. there's a good chance hassan will get the death penalty. i DON'T want that. not for high-minded humanitarian reasons, but becsuse that would be "martyring" him. he should be locked up for life with a koran, a prayer rug, and a giant poster of his favorite imam. (we could play mean tricks on him like point him the wrong way towards mecca.)

COMPCHIRO

You have confused the words "economic" and "economical".

Schaum,

"There are no human actions -- including those of organized religion -- that are not economic."

That depends on what one means by an economic action. If you mean that there may be personal economic consequences (forseen/considered or not) to an action that assertion may be valid. But if you mean that economics is always a motivating factor thatn you are wrong.

For Instance, although having a pet might have an economic effect on someone, that does not mean that getting a pet is an economic action.

Susan Jacoby:

"The swastika will never be a symbol of anything but mass murder in the post-Holocuast, post Nazi-world"

That is your opinion only, Susan.

As is your opinion that the purpose of a military is war. The purpose of a military is to obviate war.

I can't resist interjecting once more. People, who cares that the swastika had a history predating the Nazis? Some historical appropriations wipe out whatever other meaning a symbol might have had in the past. The swastika will never be a symbol of anything but mass murder in the post-Holocuast, post Nazi-world. So what!

The purpose of the military is war. Various governments, at various points in history, claim that their military's only purpose is defense, but the very need for a defense is predicated on the belief that we will have wars as long as humans exist. And that, alas, is probably true.

The notion of having just "one religion" in the U.S. military makes me wonder, to paraphrase the inimitable Barney Frank's response to a "birther," on what planet this blogger is actually living. Or in what country. Perhaps he (or she) was assaulted by too many choruses of "Onward Christian Soldiers" at an impressionable age.

--Susan Jacoby

Hitler took a lot of things from a lot of religions and perverted them to his own ends. The sideways swastika is one of them.

Ender, I LOVE it! My favorite is "My Goddess gave birth to your God."

daniel12, you said,
"The role of religion in the military? Either choose one religion or none at all. Either is preferable to hodgepodge."

hodgpodge?! why does the military have to choose anything? it would be MUCH WORSE if they chose a religion. it bugs me that we have military chaplains, but i guess given the reality of the demographics, and the fact that god people really seem to like to talk to god experts etc... i suppose it's ok to have them.

There are lots of human actions that are not religious.

There are no human actions -- including those of organized religion -- that are not economic.

DITLD:

"The business of the military is war."

Actually, the business of the military is to DISCOURAGE war. That the military sometimes engages in war is secondary to its primary focus.

The business of the military is war.

WAR!!

That is not the business of religion.

Therefore, to be logically consistent, the practice of religion has no place at all in the military. The very existence of the military goes against the grain of religion, at least of Christian teaching.

Yes, I said it, as politically incorrect as it might be.

Yet, the young people being sent to war face a fearsome enemy and death. They, more than most people, may be intersted in religion, not as a political game to see who is ahead, and who is behind, not as a court case to keep "God" in the pledge, but to make peace within their souls, before they die.

It is a real shame that so many religious posers take this predicament of the young people being sent to war, to exploint thier own political aims, to promote and proselytize.

To me, that is what "taking the Lord's name in vain" means.

DanielintheLionsDen, you said,
"Thank God for the secular influences in the West that moderate this kind of behavior in Christians, and the Secularization of the Moslem world, likewise, cannot come too soon."

amen, brother.

Daniel12 is the only remaining member of the Flat Earth Society.

Part one.

The proper role of religion in the military?

First we have to ask what we mean by military. Do we mean successful military or failed military? If successful military history demonstrates that all members of the military should belong to a particular city-state, particular religion, particular ethnic group, particular nation.

History demonstrates the best way to ruin a military is to make it a jumble of various religions, ethnic groups, and so on. History demonstrates that the very word military is inextricable from a particular pattern of belief all the members of the military share.

In modern times--say America--there is less and less heart in the military because all the traditional beliefs by which a military would cohere are being disrupted. We have individuals in the military in America--individuals capitalized. We have no group identity worth speaking of. Each member of the armed forces is to his own.

Part two.

The exception to this disintegration process are the elite forces. By being elite, by being in a clear category which is recognized as exceptional, they can stand the loss of all other forms of group identity such as religion, ethnic group, etc. They most of all members of the military fight for their unit, their pride. In other words, they cohere by pure warrior ethos.

And it is precisely these elite forces who are most hated by those that seek to eliminate any one religion, ethnic group, etc. dominating the military. In other words the entire leftwing trend in the United States is a force which disintegrates the military and only the elite forces are preserved from this disintegration. Everyone else does not add up to a group identity--not even identity in the sense of "fighting for our nation".

Why not even in the sense of "fighting for our nation" is because the U.S. is not a nation in the traditional sense. More and more it is insisted upon that it be a multiculturality. But this is the disintegration of all belief which gave heart to man all through history. This is the replacement of belief by bloodless abstract values such as human rights and tolerance of all. etc.

Quite simply the U.S. military is less and less an actual military--a successful one--because it is a hodgepodge, and those that celebrate hodgepodge do so precisely because they feel it is possible to get all peoples, races, ethnic groups, etc. to get along without the need for military action.

Part three.

But actually it is difficult to see if the multiculturalists have a way to unite disparate peoples etc. or simply have no heart to fight for anything--even their very beliefs. To go into battle determined to succeed because one believes in multiculturality? Is that a contradiction or not? Yes, unfortunately it is.

The more a military is a hodgepodge the more it is culturally sensitive meaning it cannot organize with any heart to succeed against any one ethnic group, religion, nation, etc. Even in world war 2--when America was peopled with mostly white people no matter their ethnicity, religion, etc.--it was recognized that man for man the German and Japanese armies were superior--because they were united in traditional fashion, were not a hodgepodge. They were "nation" in the traditional sense. They were Japanese, German.

The U.S. military can only decline further. Everyone insists various beliefs or none at all must be held by military members. No one belief--nothing by which the members can truly cohere and believe in and fight for.

The role of religion in the military? Either choose one religion or none at all. Either is preferable to hodgepodge. But then again the course of no belief at all--and this extended to no particular ethnicity, etc.--is just as damaging to the military as hodgepodge. The fact is we moderns have no right to say what a military should be like, for we are all bent on destroying such, on reducing as much as possible all which made militaries successful in the past.

What is the role of religion in the military? Try a more honest question: What is the role of the military?

It is clear that the swastika symbol has importance that precedes the nazis' claim. I maintain that Monet's "Gardner at Giverny" is a plausible alternative, worth bringing to the nazis' attention.

For obvious reasons, I think it best that I recuse myself from the mission. Still, I would suggest a delegation as diverse as the situation allows. The nazis' need to see that accepting this exchange will impress all the right people.

When I was growing up in the South, I remember hearing a phrase that was used to describe religeous fanatics. The phrase was, "... being eat up with Jesus."

If you were to say that somone is "... eat up with Jesus," then you have said just about all that needs to said about THAT person.

Even in the Bible-belt South, these freaky religious kooks are suspect, and not well thought of. Of course, the people who ARE "eat up with Jesus" are not aware of how crazy they are. Peter Huff? Are you there?

Anyway, a Moslem can suffer the same syndrome, "... being eat up with Mohammed." I assume that in Moslem countries, Islam is politically and culturally more powerful and more dominating than Christianity is in Christian countries. So, it is more socially acceptable for someone to be "... eat up with Mohammed" in a Moslem country. But that is not to say that many, many Moslems may secretly not be as interested in Isalm or Mohammed as they are compelled to pretend to be.

(This is a preface for what is next, what I really want to say:)

This guy, who shot up Fort Hood, seems to have been a lonely, isolated, socailly maladjusted man, preoccupied with the friendship of Mohammed and God over real people, "eat up with Mohammed," suffering a kind of religious mania, which, is just as common amonge Christians.

Thank God for the secular influences in the West that moderate this kind of behavior in Christians, and the Secularization of the Moslem world, likewise, cannot come too soon.

Schaum,

The ancient swastika does seem to be something of a universal symbol. Jung apparently had a lifelong fascination with it - even an obsession. I suppose that's no surprise. It may have originated in the Indus Valley, or perhaps everywhere spontaneously.

I remember first seeing it as a prolific presence in Vietnam back in the 1960's and was baffled, more likely historically confused - for obvious reasons.

I didn't know the first thing about Buddhism at the age of 21. But as fate would have it, knew quite a bit more by the age of 25....by then a war protester and fledgling Zennist. I'm not sure I've seen much progress!

Funny how it all works out.

Persiflage:

Indeed, Quetzalcoatl -- who else?

The swastika was also featured among some of the art of the Aztecs, or so I've read. Never seen it myself. Interesting.

Ref. 2012 - The return of Quetzalcoatl?

""The military should crack down on all forms of proselytizing on all military bases, here and abroad.""

Ah, well...after December 21, 2012, it will all be irrelevant.

I have been reading the comments and here are a few of mine.

Susan said:

"The military should crack down on all forms of proselytizing on all military bases, here and abroad."

The military is already corrupted by Conservative Fundamentalist Christianity. This is a problem since even alot of "Fundamentalist Christians" are not really all that into it. Aside from that, this "religious tilt" is off-putting to every religious person who is not a Fundamentalist Protestatant Christian, and to, of course, atheists. This is a real problem.

Then Susan said:

"Let's face it, people: extreme religion is a sickness. Extreme religion (like extremist patriotism, by the way) can drive people to commit evil acts that they would not otherwise be able to justify to themselves."

Isn't this obvious? Being religious doens't meant that a person is crazy, but alot of crazy people end up crazy over religion. Everybody knows a religious kook; everybody is related to one. Religious mania is not really about any spiritual quest; it is a manifestation of paranoia, which can sometimes be VERY dangerous, and which is common to all religions, all alike.

When I think of this shooting at Fort Hood, I think, oh, another shooting. Don't we have one of these every few months, LIKE CLOCKWORK? Sometimes its at a McDonalds; sometimes at a school; sometimes at a mall; sometimes at a church; this time it was at a military base. And how do all the conservatives reply? "Give everybody a gun; that would stop these shootings." But this was at a military base? Didn't they all have guns? Why didn't it have any effect?

Also, about the symbol of the swaztika: That is truely the UGLIEST and most sickening symbool that any hand can draw, or that any printing device can print. It is truely hideous. Whenever I see this ugly, ugly symbol, I have the same reaction that I have when I see a snake, or when I spot a poison ivy leaf.

Maybe it was beautiful at one time. But not anymore, at least not to me.

"The seminal moment for christianity is when Constantine's mommy invented all of the relics and holy places and helped his scribes create the religion."

The founding moment, perhaps, but hardly seminal. It did not confer upon popes the authority to create kings. Constantine did.

"And Vitruvius apparently recognized the dangers of lead."

Was that before or after everyone had died from having lead used to sweeten the wine?

The seminal moment for christianity is when Constantine's mommy invented all of the relics and holy places and helped his scribes create the religion.

Yo Athena4, the best bumper sticker I've ever seen is "Your God died nailed to a Cross, Mine Wields a Hammer. Anymore questions?"

"Yeah, well, that and lead cooking/eating utensils."

Their aqueducts had lead pipes, too, but interestingly, the motion of the water and the deposition of minerals kept it from being very harmful.

And Vitruvius apparently recognized the dangers of lead.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/roman/watering2.html

"i propose a blob of just-barely-organic molecules as the atheist symbol."

There already is an atheist symbol - the atom. It's in use in Arlington.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html

Athena4:

"Deifying leaders is where the Romans went wrong, too."

Yeah, well, that and lead cooking/eating utensils.

Hitler's religion was himself, just like Stalin's, Mao's, and Kim Il-Sung's. That's why they're called "cults of personality." Deifying leaders is where the Romans went wrong, too.

Thanks, Susan, for mentioning the Wiccan Pentacle Quest. A lot of us fought long and hard for the right to have our religious symbol on the graves of our fallen soldiers. The quest continues for the Thor's Hammer and Druidic oak symbol. Along the way, we had to fight a lot of disinformation, like "we wanted to take away crosses", etc. No, we just wanted to be treated like everyone else.

WalterIFC:

"obviously the "seminal moment" for christianity was when it became roman "

The "seminal moment" for christianity was when Constantine allowed the pope to put on a purple cloak and assume political power.

farnaz, re tombstone drawings, you said,
"What do you think of the proposed alternatives of Schaum and yours truly? Do you think the nazis would consider them?"

that's up to the nazis...they've already stolen the swastika. unfortunately that's theirs. the "extend and turn right rule" gives "movement". schaum mentioned how it's rotated 45 degrees sometimes. clever - even more dynamic that way.

i like the pagan 5 point star - how it can be drawn with one continuous line. the jewish star is an expansion (fractal, even!) on my all-time favorite 2d shape - the triangle. it's magically strong.

i propose a blob of just-barely-organic molecules as the atheist symbol.

schaum,
obviously the "seminal moment" for christianity was when it became roman - when it became the government, when it "got" power. (~300 a.d.)

once the romans co-opted christianity as a tool to control their christian subjects, it really took off... for the west, this marriage lasted until jefferson et. al. separated them, at least in theory. of course, they need a divorce.

but i'd say that until the romans became christian (or the other way 'round?), "the powers that be" were against christianity, to the extent they were interested. even if we suppose late authorship for the new testament, most of it must have been written by members of an oppressed population. what the romans added/edited, i don't know. what's the "earliest complete manuscript" we have?

As I think of it, those persons killed at Ft. Hood actually died out of political correctness.

We live in interesting times.

"chronicles of riddick" comes to mind on the fiction side of things.

In the real world I think any religion/government that gains enough
control over the will of it's followers will begin to push it's morality
onto non-believers - by force if necessary (and it almost always is). The
desire being to gain more and more power for and to quell the fear and
paranoia of the control-freaks that administrate it.

WalterIFC:

"i'm just saying islam was built for being abused by those in power - no twisting required."

Off the top of my head, I would say as much for/about organized christianity.

schaum, you said,
"Organized christianity has never had much to do with Jesus or his teachings. It is, in fact, historically a very militant and aggressive endeavor. It has spilled a LOT of blood, as you know."

yes, christian have been bad...very bad - especially when in power. and that's a testament to their creativity in "twisting" scripture. you said how it's not based on christ's teachings. i'm just saying islam was built for being abused by those in power - no twisting required.

WalterIFC:

"yes, but i would say it is SO MUCH easier to become an islamic jihadist than a christian jihadist."

Why would you say that? Organized christianity has never had much to do with Jesus or his teachings. It is, in fact, historically a very militant and aggressive endeavor. It has spilled a LOT of blood, as you know.

WalterIFC:

"it's funny how EVERYBODY uses hitler's religion as an argument in their "toolbox."

I don't think you can say Hitler had a religion, regardless of the fact that he was raised Catholic as a child. His narcissism was entirely too aggressive to be consistent with any religious belief:
his glibness and superficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, cunning manipulativeness, inability to feel remorse or guilt, emotional shallowness, callousness, lack of empathy, inability to accept responsibility for his own actions...actually, I could be describing Richard Nixon.

schaum, to sklein19 you said,
"The end result, nevertheless, remains the same, variations in motive not withstanding."

yes, but i would say it is SO MUCH easier to become an islamic jihadist than a christian jihadist. jesus, apocalyptic promises aside, was apparently a pretty nice guy. at least peaceful anyway. he was just a lone figure living under roman oppression, so the story goes. to twist anything jesus said into "fight (physically) with unbelievers" has certainly been done, but it requires some creativity.

with muhammad, not so much. he WAS the romans of his day. there's no "twisting the scriptures" necessary to find "slay the idolators" stuff in the koran. and muhammads instructions are from the perspective of the ruling powers. this is why separation of mosque and state is such a tough sell in islam. the koran (and ahadith) was written BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Susan wrote: "I'm equally disgusted with the grandstanding Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who is going to garner himself some publicity by holding his own hearings on whether Hasan's action was part of a terrorist plot."

It is my understanding, a large part of his investigation will center on the question, why was this man promoted rather than dismissed from the military for his patently violent manifestations and words? What sort of political correctness is endemic in our military and our national security institutions that permitted this travesty to happen? This is a necessary, even a an indispensable requirement on the part of Lieberman, given his capacity as Chairman, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Susan Jacoby thinks otherwise?

it's funny how EVERYBODY uses hitler's religion as an argument in their "toolbox."

christians consider him atheist or the "wrong kind" of christian (or pagan, apparently). atheists quote his god statements. i imagine pagans would say he's christian or atheist (but certainly not pagan). and so on.

SKLEIN19:

"Christians who murder in the name of Christianity are misinterpreting the plain teachings of Jesus. Not so Muslims who kill in the name of Islam."

The end result, nevertheless, remains the same, variations in motive not withstanding.

"Would you say that pagans, as a group, incline toward homicide?"

Posted by: Schaum

No. Not at all. In Islam, Hindus, Buddhists, (according to some) Zoroastrians, are all pagans. These are not "people of the book." Yet you cannot find more peaceful peoples than these. I know from first hand experience. I patronize my Indian neighbor's store. The same holds true for non-religious, atheists, agnostics, etc. My late stepfather was a self-professed atheist. You could not find a more decent human being.

Hitler was a psycopath raised Catholic, and probably a self hating Jew.

Susan wrote: "If I heard that someone shouted "Jesus is the Lord" before shooting up an abortion clinic, I definitely would blame the man's interpretation of Christianity."

Indeed. But Susan, you are mixing apples and oranges here. Allahu Akhbar ("Allah is greatest!") is the jihad battle cry of a Muslim believer. This is codified in Islamic teachings and jurisprudence; in the holy Qur'an itself. Killing in the name of Jesus is not sanctioned, either in the Christian Bible or in Jesus' teachings. Nor did Jesus - unlike Muhammad - sanction killing or slaughter in his name. Christians who murder in the name of Christianity are misinterpreting the plain teachings of Jesus. Not so Muslims who kill in the name of Islam.

SKLEIN19:

"Adolf Hitler was a pagan. He is responsible for the systematic murder of millions in the name of his pagan ideology."

Would you say that pagans, as a group, incline toward homicide?

Susan Jacoby wrote: "The particular nature of this man's religious belief, not his general "religious affiliation," is the issue. When someone shouts "Allahu Akbar" before taking aim at a roomful of people, I'd say that's a sign that religious fanaticism -- specifically, a brand of Islamic religious fanaticism -- had something to do with his state of mind."

The problem is, Hasan's religious beliefs are embraced by a significant portion of the Muslim world as mainstream Islamic beliefs. The same is not the case with Jewish terrorist Yaakov Teitel who was recently arrested in Israel. His ideology is neither sanctioned nor embraced by Judaism or by Jews.

Furthermore, Hasan's religious belief find sanction in Islamic teaching, in the example of the prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Qur'an 9:29 states: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled."

This is a call to arms embraced by millions of faithful Muslims. To deny this as Susan Jacoby does, will place millions of innocents in the West in mortal danger.

Walter,

Thanks for the link. Here are a couple on holography - see especially the second link on holographic cosmology.

Every selected 'bit' in a hologram contains the hologram in it's entirety. String theorists, among others, are warming to the idea of various applications of holography/virtual reality.

For example, super-string theorist/author Brian Greene sees it as the next frontier in cosmology.

Quantum physicist David Bohm proposed holography as the primary dynamic principle in the 'explicate' or manifest universe quite a few years back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

regards, Persiflage

Religion is the problem, at least those made up of the Cults of Abraham.

Posted by: ender2 | November 12, 2009 8:40 AM

ender2, Nazism is pagan. Adolf Hitler was a pagan. He is responsible for the systematic murder of millions in the name of his pagan ideology. In Mein Kampf, Hitler made it clear, he hated at least two of the 'cults of Abraham'.

Ah, Rumi, yes...I've read a lot:

"If thou wilt be observant and vigilant, thou wilt see at every moment the response to thy action. Be observant if thou wouldst have a pure heart, for something is born to thee in consequence of every action."

I haven't read the others. Sadia the mystic?

persiflage,
nice link, as usual. in college i read "the fractal geometry of nature" (by mandelbrot). blew my mind, as they say. it had a great little essay called "how long is the coast of britain?" it turns out depending on how "fine" your increment of measurement, it could be almost infinitely long....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Long_Is_the_Coast_of_Britain%3F_Statistical_Self-Similarity_and_Fractional_Dimension

here's a very simple example of a fractal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake

I usually agree with your post Susan, but you are way wrong on this one.

All of the variations of the Cults of Abraham were created by men to control humans.
The Rabbis of the OT used the Torah to exconerate the tribe to kill millions in order to take land and wealth. Supposedly their god often insisted that they 'kill them all and slaughter every sheep and goat" so that other tribe wouldn't be around to return to power.

Constantine created Christianity in such a way that it included the old testament and played down and even contradicted the pacifist and communal words attributed to the christ figure. To Constantine, the Cross was a sword and the religion a way of uniting the empire for one last chance of survival.

Mohammed was as brutal a warlord as the Abraham myth(built on tales of many Jewish warlords) or Constantine. The sole function of the quran is to make sure that his Arabic tribe was first of the first, Aramaic was the only language for the priesthood, and Mecca would always be the center of the religion, and the return myth, or Great Caliphe, could only be an Arab.

Of course his son in law was Persian so they claimed the true succession, and created their on return myth, the thirteenth imam.

These religions, these violent, tribal cults of a mythical warlord, Abraham, are the cause of more death and human suffering than can ever be justified by any good they may have done. Christianity stifled medicine, science and law since it's enception. To this day, humans claiming to be conservative christians are fighting tooth and nail to stop genetic and environmental science.

Religion is the problem, at least those made up of the Cults of Abraham.

farnaz, you asked,
"Ah, but have you read Rumi, Hafiz, Sadia the mystic, Firdausi?"

i have not.

One thing the U.S. really needs to do is send a clear signal to the rest
of the world that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the overall war on
terror are religious, not economic or otherwise geopolitical. Purging
Muslims from our military would help a lot with that.

I understand that Islam is a religion of peace. My question is this: what would a religion of war look like? Was this army major nuts and put a religious twist on his rampage, or was his rampage primarily religiously motivated? Shooting incidents like this are not unique. The best evidence so far that I've read is that he was a religious Muslim fundamentalist who, being close to one of the Imams who was close to two of the 9/11 murderers, decided to become a suicide killer. He wasn't closed mouthed about his beliefs or subtle about his goals. The army was caught in one of it's PC traps and decided that the best thing to do was to just watch him closely so that if he did anything they might be able to stop him in time. Just hope for the best and cover your ass. That's what the rule of the day is: do stuff you know to be stupid, hope for the best, and be sure to cover your ass.

There would seem to be only two choices: those are our only two choices: Purge no Muslims from our military or purge all Muslims from our military. Purging Muslims who advocate the beheading of Americans, who have publicly proclaimed themselves jihadists, who have claimed that the war in Iraq is a war against Muslims, who are being watched by the FBI and the Military Intelligence, and who shout "Allahu akbar!" before pulling the trigger on anyone who happens to be around is not an option.

Walter and all,

Here's a link I've posted in the past - Sacred Geometry. I liked Walter's fractal analogy.

Fractals mimic 'moving' mandalas, and are in my view an even more perfect symbol for the esoterica of Buddhism e.g. the interdependent interpenetration of all phenomena - where each phenomenal object contains all and everything....also true of holograms! Science is getting there...

http://www.crystalinks.com/sg.html

Persiflage

"We are in agreement! Should we re-evaluate our positions???"

Regarding what, Schaum? I think we're almost always in agreement, except for altruism, and I think that's just a matter of reading the same evidence in different ways. I understand your viewpoint - I even argued for it myself, many years ago; but as I learned more about the evolutionary origins of such traits, I modified my views.

I'm in the middle of Frans de Waal's latest book, The Age of Empathy. I think you should read it - it might give you a little more insight into the naturalist perspective.

Re: The shootings at Ft. Hood

"Gen Casey, the Army's Chief of Staff, added: ... "It's too early to draw conclusions but we will ask ourselves the hard questions about what we are doing and the changes we should make as a result of this.""

It's not too early to draw conclusions. Everybody already knows the deal, and naturally this event is the topic of much
discussion in many venues.

I think the First Amendment is soon to be re-examined and the distinction between Congress making law and the *Military* making law will be made sharp. Necessarily, I think that we are fast approaching the point where religion in the Military becomes a burden, both on the
Christian proselytizing issue and the Islamic threat issue. I expect discussion to begin in regard to eliminating Muslims from the U.S. Military.

This event is only one more in the long list of ass-covering in the Military which has come back to bite them.`

WalterIFC,

you'll see clever geometry in islamic architecture. if i can summon a positive thing to say about "islamic culture" it would be architecture-related.
-------------------------
Ah, but have you read Rumi, Hafiz, Sadia the mystic, Firdausi?

i said,
"once you develop the geometric "rule" of extending then turning right (or left) you can continue with that rule to develop more and more complex "nested" figures. very pretty (and often reflective of patterns found in nature)."

you'll see clever geometry in islamic architecture. if i can summon a positive thing to say about "islamic culture" it would be architecture-related.

Schaum, you asked,
"Shall we outlaw Islam?"

oh...only in my perfect world. actually, in my perfect world that would not be necessary, as we would all realize how silly islam (and all religions) is.

the libertarian in me abhors the idea of outlawing anything, but, islam particularly has proven to be incapable of leaving the rest of us alone. i have absolutely no problem with any crazy religion, say buddhism, that leaves the rest of us alone. islam's "reach out and touch" (with bombs) attitude makes it festering carbuncle.

schaum, you said,
"But I agree...the swastika is a visually satisfying object."

i believe it is the "fractal" nature of the swastika that makes it so pleasing. once you develop the geometric "rule" of extending then turning right (or left) you can continue with that rule to develop more and more complex "nested" figures. very pretty (and often reflective of patterns found in nature).

farnaz, i enjoyed you post ending with, "Do you think the nazis would consider them?" because i assumed you were going to say, "would buddhists consider another symbol." i love having presumptions turned on their heads.

btw, praying hands are SO MUCH less visually satisfying than the swastika - damn those nazis!

WalterIFC:

"list that would include the DAILY killings provided by islam alone."

Shall we outlaw Islam?

farnaz, you said,
'Note the dearth of atheists and agnostics rampaging hither and yon."

i'vee made this point often about how we NEVER hear of atheists going on a killing rampage.

having said that, i'm sure i'll hear of a list of atheist killers. before you submit that list, consider how small it is compared to the religious list that would include the DAILY killings provided by islam alone.

Farnaz:

"But misinterpret how? As symptomatic of a psychotic break by a deranged agnostic?"

My guess is that it will be more of a rant against fundamental religion, particularly Islam.

Schaum,

"Note the dearth of atheists and agnostics rampaging hither and yon."

True,...but any minute Daniel12 will be along with one of his unreadable multipart misinterpretations of the entire event.
-----------------
But misinterpret how? As symptomatic of a psychotic break by a deranged agnostic?

Hi WalterIFC:

"i love the swastika, as a geometric pattern. i often lament that that symbol has been appropriated by nazism. i believe that geometry was also used by an ancient south american civilization."

What do you think of the proposed alternatives of Schaum and yours truly? Do you think the nazis would consider them?

Farnaz:

"Note the dearth of atheists and agnostics rampaging hither and yon."

True,...but any minute Daniel12 will be along with one of his unreadable multipart misinterpretations of the entire event.

WalterIFC:

"i love the swastika, as a geometric pattern. "

It appears in many cultures, including Egyptian. The 'geometry' has double meanings. The Hindu/Buddhist (and most other) representations of the swastika show it in clockwise motion, giving it religious significance. The Nazis gave it a counter-clockwise motion, because of their obsession with the occult. They also rotated it 45 degrees or so.

But I agree...the swastika is a visually satisfying object.

farnaz, schaum,
i love the swastika, as a geometric pattern. i often lament that that symbol has been appropriated by nazism. i believe that geometry was also used by an ancient south american civilization.

"Garden variety religious fanatic nutcase."

Note the dearth of atheists and agnostics rampaging hither and yon.

Farnaz, if you can link to it, then it hasn't been "removed." The essays in Guest Voices typically don't stay in the homepage display for more than a couple of days. They are rapidly replaced by others.
------------------
Pamsm: ONe can link to essays indefinitely, unless, they have been removed from the web.

This essay was placed inconspicuously and quickly removed. I've been blogging here for years, so I know about Guest Voices essays. Some remain for days and days, others not.

This, though, is beside the point, which is the importance of Weinstein's work, its relevance to Hasan, etc.

Pamsm!!!

"Garden variety religious fanatic nutcase."

We are in agreement! Should we re-evaluate our positions???

"Here is the link to Mikey Weinstein's gentle essay on Hasan. (I'm still reeling from its having been removed from this blog.)"

Farnaz, if you can link to it, then it hasn't been "removed." The essays in Guest Voices typically don't stay in the homepage display for more than a couple of days. They are rapidly replaced by others.

I'm having a little trouble with the idea of Hasan being persecuted by other soldiers. The man was a major for Pete's sake. Who's going to diss him - higher ranking officers??

Having his car keyed because of the bumper sticker I can believe - that's an anonymous vehicle and an anonymous act of vandalism - but beyond that, c'mon.

And now we have the information that Hasan never asked to be discharged, nor for conscientious objector status - so what was his beef?

Garden variety religious fanatic nutcase.

مرحبا شباب

Schaum:

Recommended icon/symbol for nazis:

Monet, "Gardner at Giverny"

http://giverny-impression.com/category/monets-flower-garden/

SUSAN JACOBY:

Correction to my previous post to you. The quotations should have been presented in reverse order, as follows:

Here is what you wrote:

"Finally, a wag of the finger, as Stephen Colbert would say, to my esteemed editors at On Faith for listing Wiccans, along with Christians and Muslims, in the list of religious groups whose behavior might need attention within the military.

This is what the "esteemed editors" wrote:

"The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on."

Schaum:

"Perhaps, nazis could use a different symbol?"

Praying hands, perhaps?
-----------------
LOL! But isn't that symbol already in use?

Susan,

Here is what you wrote:

"The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on."

This is what the "esteemed editors" wrote:

"Finally, a wag of the finger, as Stephen Colbert would say, to my esteemed editors at On Faith for listing Wiccans, along with Christians and Muslims, in the list of religious groups whose behavior might need attention within the military."
----------------------
Ever heard of Mikey Weinstein? His book, web site, struggle?

He's one of the "and so on" who have been dealing with persecution in the military for decades, for long before there was a sizable Muslim population in the US, let alone in the military.

I have to sound like a "greedy Jew" who has to be into everything, but the "esteemed editors" who just removed Weinstein's essay from this blog should probably reflect a bit.

Here, again, is the link to his essay, removed moments ago from this blog by OnFaith.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/hasan_and_the_proselytization_factor.html

"Perhaps, nazis could use a different symbol?"

Praying hands, perhaps?

One of the ancient and revered symbols of Buddhism is the swastika.

Wonder what the chances are that a US soldier, of Buddhist persuasion, could get a tombstone with a swastika on it?
-----------------
Hi Schaum,

Swastikas are not ordinarily put on Hindu "tombstones." NOt to worry.

The symbol, what it means for HIndus, what it meant and means for Nazis, is surely problematic.

Perhaps, nazis could use a different symbol?

Here is the link to Mikey Weinstein's gentle essay on Hasan. (I'm still reeling from its having been removed from this blog.)

"Hasan and the Proselyzation Factor"

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/11/hasan_and_the_proselytization_factor.html

This is unbelievable. In the wake of what we are dealing with WaPo just removed Michael Weinstein's essay.

I guess a sane approach to racism in the military does not generate as much hate as other topics. Moreover, dealing with the issue could ameliorate the problem.

Not good for blogs such as OnFaith, which seeks not honest debate, but flaming.

Unfortunately, some of us have perished in the flames, most recently thirteen servicemen.

One of the ancient and revered symbols of Buddhism is the swastika.

Wonder what the chances are that a US soldier, of Buddhist persuasion, could get a tombstone with a swastika on it?

I strongly urge bloggers to click onto Michael
Weinstein's link on this blog.

Weinstein looks at the Hasan case from the perspective of a former stellar officer, a life-long Republican, a member of the Reagan White HOuse, who has spent years combatting racism in the military.

As a lifelong Democrat, I applaud his enormous courage and honesty.

Antisemitism at the hands of Fundamentalist Christians throughout the military has in recent decades become so disastrous as to put our troops at risk. It was this problem that Weinstein began with. This racism affected anyone who had a last name that could be construed as "Jewish" and often enough the person in question was not.

Weinstein has taken on the problem of this Christian Fundamentalist harassment of ALL MINORITY GROUPS, including, of course Muslim and writes eloquently of the current situation.

Please click on his web site which he provides in his essay, and please read his books and articles.

HIs message, struggle, is all the more important now.
===============
Needless to say, regardless of what investigations bring to light, we cannot excuse Hasan's rampage. Many, many Jews, many, many Muslims, many, many gays have undergone similar harassment, and they did not open fire on their colleagues. However, bullying and racism may well have played a part in this, and, at all events, do not speak well of the military.

Further, violent speech, violent acts, beget violence. In my neighborhood, a synagogue was desecrated, and we are all reeling from the after effects. Two young Jewish men discovered who had done this--three men--and beat them so badly they had to be hospitalized.

One of the two men's mothers asked him what had gotten into him, why he hadn't simply gone to the police with what he discovered. He told her he was sick of having to deal with antisemitism at school, in the newspapers, and now, looking at the synagogue as he walked down the block.

This is new for me, for everyone in the neighborhood. We have never had to deal with this kind of rage from Jews before. There is going to be an interfaith meeting early next week to discuss it.

In the meantime, it is incumbent for us to understand that right or wrong, violent speech, hateful acts, psychological and physical violence does beget violence.

PLease click on Michael WEinstein's essay.

And, I don't post here, understandably considering I'm an Irish Catholic, a 2nd generation immigrant but to the UK and London, not the US.

I studied migration at the postgraduate level and it is distressing to see the US, which should really know about the problems of the children of immigrants, refusing to admit that these children have problems of identity and confusion about to whom their loyalty is due.

Sorry Susan:

How many second-generation children are not fluent in English? Which ones have earned college degrees? Why have members of the second generation chosen certain types of occupations and not others?

These questions are not only interesting to researchers but also relevant for policymakers. In order to study the US-born children of immigrants, commonly called the second generation researchers need both demographic information and qualitative information that can only be learned through surveys and interviews.

(Emphasis mine.)

Studying Second-Generation Immigrants: Methodological Challenges and Innovative Solutions

By Douglas D. Heckathorn
Cornell University

Related Articles:

•The New Immigrant Survey in the US: The Experience over Time

•Data Sources on the Foreign Born and International Migration at the US Census Bureau

•Becoming American/Becoming New Yorkers: The Second Generation in a Majority Minority City

•The Second Generation in Early Adulthood: New Findings from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study

•Spotlight on the Second Generation in the United States

Read up on it. The native-born children of immigrants, whilst citizens, are also beset with problems of identity, far moreso than their parents, who know who they are and what they want to become. The Jesuits said give me a child for the first 7 years and he's mine for life to quote a profane Catholic source. 2nd generation immigrants live with their foreign born parents for the first, well, five years at least, some don't even speak English at home, and only afterwards are they exposed to the culture and language of the host country. Understandably, it's very hard for some.

I'm breaking my usual silence during comments to correct Mary Cunningham's statement about the children of first-generation immigrants being called "second generation immigrants." This is not common usage, except in certain academic publications, and it is extremely misleading. There is no such thing as a "second generation immigrant." You are either born in the United States or you are not. If you are born in the United States, you are a native-born American citizen. Major Hasan is the American-born son of first-generation immigrants. He is not a second-generation immigrant. He is not an immigrant at all.

Merry Meet, All!

We almost had a Wiccan chaplain:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003586870_wiccan24.html

"The pentacle quest took 10 years. May the chaplain issue resolve itself more quickly."

So Mote It Be!

Not to quibble, but in the interests of accuracy concerning migration facts, the children of immigrants are normally called second generation immigrants.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Usfocus/display.cfm?ID=441

In the febrile atmosphere that is On Faith I used the correct term and was called a name.

Thank you for this, Ms. Jacoby. When I read the question this week, it was a stark reminder that although we have made some great strides, including having the Pentacle placed on the gravestones of the fallen, we've got a long way to go still towards acceptance. Small steps, first, I guess.

It's been awhile since I read the statistics but I think there were at least as many Pagans/Wiccans as Muslims in the military, if not more, but no chaplains for Pagans in the armed forces.

The pentacle quest took 10 years. May the chaplain issue resolve itself more quickly.

I also wonder, is there someone in the military who can fulfill the role of chaplaincy or counselor to those who have no religious beliefs? I know the military has psychiatrists on staff, but what would someone do who was an atheist who might, say, want to get married? Who gets that job?

Thank you Susan, for what must be one of your best essays. This Christian can find nothing in it to disagree with. I particularly applaud your defense of Wiccans - my experience with Wiccans here in On Faith has been nothing but good. A finer bunch of people you can't find anywhere.

Thanks for the propers, Ms. Jacoby. You are right, Wiccans suffer more from Christian prejudice in the military than the other way around. This is a good article with links about these prejudices and their rebuttals:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr6.htm

Very well stated, Susan. It can be so hard to acknowledge the very real problems with a belief system without falling into the trap of condemning the entire system of beliefs and everyone who subscribes to them. In this essay, you have walked the line beautifully. How, exactly, without amending the Constitution, can you ban adherents of a religion from military service? Do people even think about the end-game of their position?

I'm sure I'm seen by some on this blog as a defender of Islam. I really am no such thing. I, like you, can see the problems it's followers often seem to suffer from. I just see many of the same problems, manifested a bit differently, in radical conservative Christianity. I got a big kick, for example, out of Pat Robertson condemning Islam as seeking world domination. Pot, kettle, black, anyone?

I, personally, believe in trying to see people as individuals, and granting the maximum freedom to individuals to control their own lives, and offering those individuals help when it is needed. Neither conservative Islam or Christianity (or for that matter, many other faiths) seem to take this position, but that seems to be at least as much about the "conservative" aspect as the faith. That desire for control of other people, based on nothing more than your perception of what you think God wants frankly gives me hives.

Also, like you, I am rather shocked to see Wiccans regarded as possible troublemakers. I'm just learning about this faith, but what I have read, both here and in Starhawk's and others published writings, and the correspondences I have had with Wiccans seem to show open-minded, open-hearted, generous and tolerant people. In fact, in discussing what I had discovered about this faith with an old acquaintance, I discovered he and his wife are Wiccan. He is a self-employed program designer who I done contract work for, and she is a technical writer employed by a major software firm. They both are rational, reasonable, and nice people. Talk about not not proselytizing. I found the attitude that he felt no need to push his faith into every aspect of life very refreshing.

"You'd think the former Democratic senator [...] would be too busy trying to torpedo a public health care option to have time for terrorism right now...."

Let's keep in mind that Hon. Sen. Lieberman does chair the Homeland Security Committee (and thus likely thinks himself knowledgeable on the subject); I know his complete lack of activity in this capacity makes the fact easy to forget, but he probably feels the need to opine on this topic for this reason alone.