The Terrible Sweal

Can't you do a little better than pure reductionism? If religion confined itself to providing a little mental lift for people it would pose little problem. But religion causes much more trouble than just that.

How do know that that "version" of reality, is not infact the reality? You are focusing on the wrong aspect: the assertions may be right they may be wrong, but they are not CERTAIN of being right, so it is the claim of certainty which is false. (The claim of certainty is also EVIDENCE of being wrong. You don't have to resort to arguments by authority unless you have no valid arguments.) Why? Think about it. Progress. I don't see how any Church that was formed after the reformation can be blamed for the Catholic churchs fault(s). Even if they continue them and expand upon them?!?! What have you observed to prove faith false? What have you experienced to prove faith false? What have you reflected on that has proven faith false? The claims of 'faith', and the nature of the world as it presents itself to the senses and the mind are incompatible. Carbon dating puts paid to the Biblical timeline. Conflicts among believers undermine the claims that any of them represent a divine will. Inherent contradictions within the Bible require that at least one or another part of it must be wrong.

The we in context was: society, then the media, then men, then women Then I reject it. Unless you use a definition of 'imposing' which is so broad it renders the concept essentially meaningless, neither society, nor the media, and especially not 'men' are imposing standards on women. Obviously there are, within society, prevailing (but not universal) notions of what is attractive and not. Obviously the media is an important promulgator of these notions. But I don't see how this can be called an imposition. Women can attempt to conform to these notions or not, just as anyone can choose to be friendly or unfriendly. There's an old joke ... the Lone Ranger and Tonto find themselves surrounded by an angry Apache war-party. The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says: "Well, friend, how are we going to get out of this one?" And Tonto says ... "Who do you mean, we, Kemosabe?"

How so? They assert a version of 'reality' which they also assert is authoritative and unquestionable. But is the indivdual forced to follow the religion by the lord? I disagree, a religous person has the freedom of leaving his or her religon.......is that not freedom into itself? These are not compatible. Does modern Christanity issue fatwas? Yes, though they are called by different names. Anyway, we are talking about 'religion' not 'modern Christiantity' (whatever that may mean). What century did the crusades etc take place? what century is it today? You didn't answer my question about why time is relevant. Whats your estimate based on? Observation, experience, cogitation.

I'm not confused with my faith, nor to I feel that I've been lied to. Religions are premised on confusing faith with reality. Just because you don't know about a lie, does not mean there is not a lie. Are you speaking of Christanity? We are on the general topic of religion are we not? How's that? Religions insist on the authority of God. Yes, freedom is found OUTSIDE of religion. Which one does that today? How is time relevant to your comment? Perhaps in Islam......... Consider the history of the Papal Bull, or Calvin's government in Switzerland there. See: history of the crusades, and Thirty Years War How do you know it to be false? I estimate it to be false.

What is opportunistic about it? The extra you added adds nothing except one man's frustration and failure to find a way to do the job. Even to have phoned radio stations; or go to the beach and tell people to leave. I disagree. Your quote suggests that the concern for tourism influenced the decision whether or not to warn people after the quake occured. The other information says that tourism influenced the decision making prior to the earthquake.

I put up a big jar in my little office labeled "Thailand". I got enough cash contributions to spend a month+ holidaying there, but I think I prefer Hawaii. So that's where I'll go. Frankly, I think you are morally obligated to go to Thailand. But you might want to book for next year.

I hope Canada doesn't let in too many people with your Anti-Canadian attitude! I wish people who say that kind of thing would once in a while offer some concrete support for it.

Good point, Hugo. Both the right and the left subscribe to agenda items which are blatantly at odds with principles of freedom they ostensibly support.

have your say

Makes them feel guilty ... Confuses them and lies to them ... Encourages their husbands to beat them ... Subjects them to absolutism ... Burns them at the stake ... Proclaims fatwas against them ... Promotes wars between them ... But it does have one sort of redeeming feature: Gives them false hope ...

This neatly captures the point of view which will lead us to a collapse of society. You don't trust in institutions to provide for 'the good', and so you don't want to support them ... and thus they become incapable of providing for 'the good'. Unfortunately, history demonstrates and economics proves that cooperative action is instrumental to our survival comfort and growth of wealth. To defy this fact will undermine human progress.

What is your definition of a 'wealth creator'? It seems to me that you may be equating the concept of 'wealth creation' with 'wealth possession'. If so, you may end up advocating socially irresponsible incentivisation.

Who do you mean 'we', kemosabe? I think that this 'debate' is often discussed from an odd perspective. Is there really any more to the question than simply 'What motivates women'?

The dead are not citizens.

Thelonius, A religious society is not free and could do such a thing. That's why you see the same people who support forced-childbirth insisting that our society is 'based on' God, or some such nonsense -- tyranny is elementary to their agenda. Conceptually (if in practice imperfectly) the 'western-style' democracies are all 'liberal democracies' in the sense of positing individual 'freedom' as an essential characteristic. From within this viewpoint, systems which purport to be otherwise are considered ideological tyrranies rather than democracies. In my view this is because implementing democracy successfully actually requires that the constituent citizens be free to exercise their best judgement. It is self-evident that the best judgment is based on reason, rather than prejudice or superstition. I don't doubt for a second that if the majority of citizens in Canada wanted to elect a government to overturn our civil rights they could do so. The courts have no armies. However, the majority of citizens place such value on the institution of civil rights that they will not do so, despite how some of those rights may conflict with their prejudices.

That's not proven at all. It's a neo-con article of faith.

There's probably money to be made in the slave trade. Think we should get involved? In Libya it wouldn't be us who are doing the wrong things. We'd merely be conducting commercial enterprises, not rounding up political prisoners. If the people of Libya want a different government, let them change it. I don't see what that has to do with us trading with them or not.

Ruined their lives. Should adopt 'em out now and get on with being girls.

I thought spelt was an ancient grain ...

The right of women to choose to have an abortion does not revolve around any purported rights held by the fetus. It revolves around the relationship between the citizen and the state, and what the state can purport or not purport to enforce on a citizen. A free society cannot enforce childbirth upon a citizen any more than it can enforce organ donation.

I don't see how that follows. A child is a human being who will not require a woman to give birth in some number of months in the future. A fetus (a not-yet human being) will.

There are indeed a range of ways Canada could take a 'harder line' against any state or regime. Engagement or disengagement is a careful game, not free of self-interested motivations. If there's money to be made in Libya, why shouldn't it be us who make it?

No, I don't think so. I think that in a free society the state cannot purport to force a woman to give birth, irrespective of any value you place on the fetus.

It's well established that Christianity as we know it today is an amalgam of traditions. Substantial parts of the Old Testament appear to be derived from earlier Mesapotamian sources, and dying-and-rising gods, virgin births, beasts arising from the seas are all well represented in other myths.