carepov

Rue, what do you think of Guantanamo Bay and the whole rendition program?

Thank you I appreciate that. There have also been and are many religious movements that are doing great things for humanity. Religious people are as diverse as secular people. I'm quite sure that I do not represent the "typical religious person" but I do know for a fact that there are brilliant, tolerant and compassionate people in various faiths - they are the ones that inspire me to write these posts. There are too few humanists in the world to be further divided into religious and secular.

Forst of all, there is the right to not be tortured. Here is a summary: Among the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention regarding humane treatment of prisoners of war, which the U.S. is refusing to apply, are: - Article 13: Humane treatment required; No reprisals allowed - Article 14: Respect for persons and honour; No gender discrimination - Article 16: No discrimination based on race, nationality, religious belief or political opinions - Article 17: No physical or mental torture; No coercion to obtain information; Prisoners who decline to provide information may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment - Article 18: Clothing, articles of personal use, to remain with prisoners - Article 20: Evacuation or transfer to be under same conditions as afforded Detaining Power - Article 21: Internment in camp allowed; Close confinement prohibited - Article 22: Internment in penitentiaries prohibited; Every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness required - Article 25: Condition of quarters must be as favorable for POWs as for the forces of the Detaining Power; Accommodations for habits and customs of POWs required; Protection from dampness, adequate heat and lighting required - Article 26: Food must be in sufficient quantity, quality and variety to maintain good health and weight - Article 27: Adequate clothing, underwear and footwear required - Article 28: Canteens must be installed; Fairly priced food, soap, tobacco and ordinary items must be stocked - Articles 29 - 32: Proper hygiene and medical attention, including monthly health inspections, required - Articles 34 - 37: Prisoners must be afforded complete latitude in the exercise of religion, including attendance at services, on condition they comply with disciplinary routine - Article 38: Provisions for physical, intellectual and recreational activities - Article 70: Prisoners must be allowed to write to family, others http://baltimorechronicle.com/geneva_feb02.shtml

You made good points in your post, but the one I quoted above is the bottom line, IMO. So many of those who think the U.S. should agree to follow international law claim that just because something is a law doesn't mean it's good and/or should be followed. The U.S. is refusing to agree to abide by laws that it very well could question, and for good reason, as you state. I, too, see that as a good thing. Bonam and AW, what international law(s) do you think that the US is justified in not following? For example, is it OK to torture POWs and deny them rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention?

Your "cure" is worse than the disease - you are playing into the hands of the enemy. For every one we kill we loose one ally, gain two more enemies, and spiral further into debt to boot.

The whole point is that bypassing due process is not significantly eliminating our enemies and one of the "unintended consequences" is that it is helping the enemy to create more enemies!

Here are the 2011 source countries for our immigration (cut off at 1%). IYO, what are the "problem countries" and in what countries should we increase quotas? 2011 immigration statistics Number of immigrants granted permanent residence in Canada in 2011 by source country[17] Rank Country Number of immigrants admitted Proportion of total Notes 1 Philippines 34,991 14.1% 2 China 28,696 11.5% Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan included separately. 3 India 24,965 10% 4 United States 8,829 3.5% 5 Iran 6,840 2.7% 6 United Kingdom 6,550 2.6% 7 Haiti 6,208 2.5% 8 Pakistan 6,073 2.4% 9 France 5,867 2.4% 10 United Arab Emirates 5,223 2.1% 11 Iraq 4,698 1.9% 12 South Korea 4,573 1.8% 13 Colombia 4,317 1.7% 14 Morocco 4,155 1.7% 15 Algeria 3,800 1.5% 16 Mexico 3,642 1.5% 17 Egypt 3,403 1.4% 18 Sri Lanka 3,104 1.2% 19 Nigeria 2,768 1.1% 20 Ukraine 2,455 1% 21 Bangladesh 2,449 1% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

I love it when folks respond to a post with an irrelevant deflection.

How many of these mistakes are we repeating in the War on Terror? Robert McNamara's 11 lessons from Vietnam From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam".[8] We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values. Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War How's that for shooting ourselves in the foot?

Do you have any comments on what I actually wrote? In order to defeat your enemies don't you think that it is important to understand them, their motivations, their strategies, etc...?

Wrong. Of course, our enemies are radical Islamic terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda -and those that support them. You are being narrow-minded in thinking that this war is a military battle. It is or course partially a military battle but is it also very much an ideological battle. A huge advantage that we in the West have (for the most part) is respect for human rights including due process. When we violate human rights we undermine our ideological advantage and therefore we are shooting ourselves in the foot. I am not neutral and I have no sympathy for the enemy. Empathy towards the enemy is key to defeating them, as per Lesson #1 of "The Fog of War"

This approach (eg: Guantanamo Bay) has backfired in the War on Terror and made us less secure: 1. It has divided the West - when we should all be on the same side 2. It has likely created more enemies of the West 3. I see no benefit to foregoing due process for sworn enemies

Thank you for supporting my claim. I agree with eyeball too when he suggests that many people would claim to be biblical literalists but don't even know what is in the bible. Also, I would expect there to be a smaller percentage of biblical literalists in Canada or any other western country. IMO, you "draw the line" when beliefs are harmful/benign: Examples of harmful beliefs: -women do not deserve equal treatment -homosexuality is a sin -condoms/birth control is bad -death to infidels -vaccines cause autism Examples of benign beliefs (can be harmful if taken too far) -Virgin birth -Resurrection -Other miracles -Spread the word -Pork is bad -The existence of God/gods/spirits -Reincarnation -Karma -Superstitions -Astrology -Santa/tooth fairy/groundhog day -homeopathy and other "medical" quackery And of course there are plenty of positive beliefs. Yes, why not? I think that many people do indeed take the idea of Jesus as the son of god allegorically as well - it sounds like this is exactly what bleeding heart's father does.

I agree about this asumption but I question almost every other one you claim, eg: worshiping the bible Spoken like a true zealot! Nice one. I said IMO, which implies that I could be wrong.

I am no Bible expert but am pretty sure that most Christian's opinion is that the Bible is neither the "word of God" nor "simply hearsay". Perhaps it is a great collection of metaphorical stories with a few historical facts thrown in? This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe. arggh: A tiny minority of religious people "worship the Bible"! Again I strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence of this claim, or are you taking a leap of faith? A common pattern I see is that people raised in religious families reject their religion in their teens then some return to it or their spouse's religion when they have kids. There are probably as many reasons for doing this as there are people doing it. Some may be inspired by a true belief. Some just want to raise their kids in the same way they were. Some want kids to spend more time with grand parents some want kids to learn about Jesus, some maybe afraid their kids will go to hell, some see the value of praying and developing an inner voice... I don't think anyone really knows "what most religious folks believe". IMO most practicing religious people do this. They make their decisions based on their beliefs but also based on many other factors: the proximity of the place of worship, values of the people in the group, business networking possibilities, social activities, the work/sacrifice involved in being a member, ....

IMO most Christians do not believe all the things that you think they beliive, such as "the Bible is the word of God". There is a whole range of different beliefs, some "Christians" would actually have atheist beliefs, some believe "God exists and Jesus was a cool dude", some believe in all the miracles, and some do believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. About half of Christians acknowledge the Pope as a leader, IMO very few would believe that he is "divine". The crazy fundamentalist beliefs of a vocal minority should not be used to pre-judge the beliefs and values of the silent majority. This is true of Christianity, Islam, or in fact any diverse group of people. Yes, I have a problem with anyone not critically examining their beliefs - religious or not. What makes you think that religious folk "fail to really critically examine their beliefs"? Seems to me that most people of faith do this regularly - and IMO more importantly they seem to critically examine their actions more than the average non-religious person.

Bonam and kimmy, With these responses it seems like you are painting all religious believers with the same brush. I think that it is important to distinguish between the fundamentalist believers (vocal minority) and the typical Canadian believer that is more like bleeding heart's dad.

Thanks again, it looks like we are on the same page.

If I was a Quebec separatist I would find your arguments pretty weak. a) status quo? It does not matter to me! b.) Quebeckers are too different from other Canadians to negotiate in good faith, duh, that's why we need to separate c) there are more cultural differences between Quebec and the rest of Canada compared to the USA and English Canada

Food for thought: Most of us have passionate and valid arguments that Canada should not merge with the USA. Can we pretty much apply the same arguments about why Quebec shoud not remain merged with the rest of Canada? If not, why not?

Thanks for the thoughtful post. If I understand you correctly some "articles of faith" are more plausible than others. For example, saying "God exists" is not the same as saying "the Cosmic Gummy Bear exists", right?

Yes, moving on, obviously there is a distiction between the claims: "God does not exist" and "I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so." There are some people, such as Asimov, that do calim "God does not exist" - and do so admitedly based on emotion. Are we to criticize Asimov for "not living in an evidence-based reality"? Here again are his words, what do you think? "I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it... as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part... I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being..." "Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." http://www.adherents...aac_Asimov.html

I don't know about evidence, but I can say that taking a leap of faith and saying "God exists" is not at all like saying "the CGB exists" - as per Asimov it is on par with the leap of faith into the claim that "God does not exist".

Here is an interesting study on weed: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3142/20130724/marijuana-use-adolescents-lead-long-term-cognative-imparment.htm IMO all this talk about legalization/decriminalization is giving teens the impression that weed is perfectly safe, even beneficial. It's time to stop talking about legalization and just do it. This way we can divert resources towards preventing children from taking drugs and damaging their brains.

If I understand your post correctly, I pretty much agree with all your points. I certainly agree that there are plenty of wonderfully virtuous non-believers and there are plenty of believers whose actions and ideas I will not defend. a.) Marginalizing harmful religious ideas is good and should be a the goal of secular and non-secular society b.) Marginalizing all religious people/ideas is counter-productive towards achieving goal a)