OldFartNamesArt:

Is it Obama's job to stop the oil spill or to pass regulations to ensure companies work safely? How quicly everyone forgets that it was the Republicans under Bush who lowered the environmental standards that oil companies have to meet, all under the guise of decreasing dependency on foreign oil sources.

How quickly everyone forgets Sarah Palin saying "Drill baby, drill" during the presidential campaign. Since she is so much in favour of drilling, shouldn't she do something other than criticize Obama and point to oiil companies supporting his campaign? According to Hufftington Post, she blamed environmentalists for the oil disaster because they force tougher regulations?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/sarah-palin-blames-enviro_n_598977.html

Her logic is that deep sea drilling is being fuelled by oil companies being unable to drill in Alaska's National Wildlife Refuge. I suppose the fact that her husband is an oil company employee does not color her desire to drill in the wildlife refuge. She goes on to say that America shouldn't trust BP because it is a foreign oil company, even though her husband worked for BP for years.

In an interview in Fox News she talks of the media not doing enough to be on top of Obama's case for receiving campaign donations from BP. That is real grand from her considering her husband is a company employee!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh4ESaeUE2A

Here is some footage of Sarah Palin calling offshore drilling "environmentally friendly" during the presidential campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn2Tyh6b5dE&feature=fvw

The funny thing is that when the next presidential race comes around, Sarah Palin will score votes against Obama saying that he did nothing, even though she was the one who championed offshore drilling during the previous campaign.

It just goes to show that a good politician is a good hypocrite.

I think that the big problem with the Middle East is that western nations and the United Nations have double standards which greatly favour some countries, while acting to the detriment of others.

One good example is our view of democracy in the region. We tell Iran to become more democratic and to reform its electoral process, while we condone Saudi Arabia's autocratic regime. Most people don't know that women were not allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia in the first local election ever held (that's right, the first ever). Most likely they won't be allowed to vote in 2011 for the next election, just as they are not allowed to drive a car, or go out in public without a male relative or husband to accompany them. Yet our governments point the finger at Iran as the bad guy in the Middle East.

Another good example is nuclear proliferation. Our governments point fingers at Iran and North Korea, yet Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons as a "deterrent". Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and they refuse to allow anyone to inspect their nuclear facilities. That's right, nobody can go into Israel and say "Are you making plutonium?" Yet we want other countries to abandon nuclear programs. We tell them "don't make weapons of mass destruction" even though our countries have the biggest and most deadly arsenals of weapons of mass destruction in history. That's right, nobody has WMDs than the US.

Another interesting one is military aid. Currently Israel gets US $3 billion per year in military aid from the American government. All that money goes to a country that has fighter jets, tanks, battle ships, nuclear weapons, etc. Israel has the 4th largest military in the world. In contrast Palestinians get no military aid. They have sling shots and stones, and when militants make poorly designed rockets everybody calls them terrorists. Imagine having a sling shot and having to fight the 4th largest army in the world, an army that gets billions in military aid every year?

The truth is that the Middle East will be a mess as long as western superpowers see political, economic and military benefits there. We see oil in Saudi Arabia, and a strategic location for military dominance in Israel. So our governments turn a blind eye to all the worngdoings in those places. Our enemies are those governments that act for their own self-interest rather than the political and economic interests of western capitalism. If Iran was a lackey of western superpowers, they would be allowed to have nuclear weapons just like Israel, Pakistan and India are. Then Iran would be called a "democracy" and not a "threat".

Artful Dodger:

Don't you think the "immediate" environment is part of the planet too? When CO2 is released, where does it go? Outer space? Into a cave? We have removed 2/3 of the world's forests, that means 66% less CO2 consumption by plants. At the same time we have pumped tons and tons of CO2 that was trapped in fossil fuels. It took nature millions of years to transform that CO2 into hydrocarbons. We have changed the balance literally overnight.

We look at the problem from a purely consumerist point of view. We want to keep consuming fossil fuels, plastics, consumer products, etc. The pollution that comes in the process is going somewhere, and it is not outside this planet. What you call "immediate" environment is the planet itself. All it comes down to is the fact that the middle class wants to consume and not feel guilty about it. So we make excuses. Scientists are wrong (now, there is something really, really new in history) so let's keep the status quo. Let's drill some more, release a bit here and there. In 300 years, it will be somebody else's problem. We will be dead by then, so the resposibility is not ours anyway.

Artful Dodger:

> Man's overall impact on the planet and climate IS insignificant.

I guess the destruction of forests, the disappearance of thousands of species, the pollution of the oceans, all those garbage dumps, those clouds of emmissions visible from satellites in outer space, the high incidence of cancer and other diseases, etc. All that is "insignificant". The fact that deforestation and desertification have been out of control for decades is insignificant. Anything as long as we can justify continuing to burn fossil fuels. I am sure that "Climategate" has now made it OK to destroy our planet. Who cares anyway? It is the poor who live in deserts and die of hunger. As long as the middle class can keep consuming, "environmental concerns" are "insignificant". It is all lies spread by left-wing socialist scientists anyway. The planet is OK and our grandkids will live in an eternal oasis.

I am sure people really, really believed that our western capitalist systems could change; specially with somebody like a "liberal" president in the United States.

The fact that for the last 150 years the same two political streams (centre-right liberals and right wing conservatives) have ruled the world really points to how easily and how well western society can change.

In most countries middle class men would rather cut off their left nut rather than do anything that would change the status quo. I am sure the rich will give up their wealth and power and help the poor and the dispossed out of the goodness of their hearts. After all, Christian values and love for one's fellow man are the guiding principles of western society!

Bernice:

Is it that different from little "cadet" training for kids? What about parents who teach their kids to use guns, or who send them to "military school"? We have video games designed by the Pentagon. Those games have as their objective to desensitize youth and to advertise a career in the military for them. Most war video games are being produced with funding from the military. Many Hollywood movies have funding from the military too, and the military supplies vehicles, aircraft, ships, etc. when film companies want to make movies. For the military it is "free advertising".

We might feel that we are better, but our culture is a culture of violence too. The difference is that instead of fundamentalist islam, we sell freedom and democracy as an excuse for militarizing our youth. Then we are surprised about things such as the Columbine High School Massacre.

In Capitalism everything is a business and everything generates profit for somebody. People forget that terrorism is not an exception.Whether covertly or openly, there are those who have profitted from terorism. In western governments the corrupt have profitted from cimes such as drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, prostitution, racketeering, etc. Likewise, there are those in western society who have profitted from terrorism.

Then Bin Laden family is one of the rishest families in the world and Osama Bin Laden raised funds for his terrorist operations by bringing cheap weapons to war-torn African countries and exchanging them for blood diamonds. Then those diamonds were brought to Europe where they were sold at high prices. Osama Bin Laden made a fortune, and so did De Beers, the big diamond monopoly, and all those "commodities traders" who bought and sold diamonds for profit.

After the Sep. 11 attack, weapons manufacturers made superprofits by selling weapons to both domestic and foreign markets. Very often the same weapons that are used by Coalition forces also end up being sold to Al Qaida fighters through the black markets.

Security firms have made a bundle by selling security systems, scanning sytems, consulting services, security "guards" (mercenaries), etc. Mercenaries is the old name, now we call them "security contractors".

"Oil service" companies have made a fortune in "reconstruction". In the first year of the war Haliburton made US $38 billion in profit by selling mostly water and foods to the military, as well as putting out oil well fires, rebuilding pipelines, etc.

Of course, the media have made a fortune. News organization, TV and cable channels, even filmmakers have profitted from the war on terror.

In general, the higher the "level of terror" and the "security threat", the higher the profits from terrorism have been. The more paranoia is sown in the population, the bigger the profits. It is why western governments have shown every interest in feeding public paranoia. When those at the top are running the companies that make the most money, they have every interest in using terrorism for profit.

Artful Dodger:

White Supremacist Timothy McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma City Bombing aided by Terry Nichols. Should we profile single Caucasian males of Irish Catholic descent? What about potential white supremacists, say people who look Germanic or with blond hair and blue eyes? After all, we don't want another Oklahoma City bombing. When was the last time profiling along these lines occurred and a Caucasian person was given a hard time at an airport or office building?

I can understand the logic behind profiling. However, the problem is that racial profiling targets individuals based on a physical stereotype. Italians must be mafiosi. Latin Americans deal in drugs. Blacks are all gansgstas who are really good at basketball. Russians are either communists or gansters. Now we translate those stereotypes into "forensic profiles" and target individuals in those communities.

Here in Canada the a newspaper did a study and found that black motorists were three times more likely to be stopped by police officers, even though blacks make up less than 3% of the population. Anybody can see that there is something wrong because between profiling and racism there is a very fine line.

Artful Dodger:

> I wouldn't decide. I'm just an average Joe. But experts in this area know what to look for. Profiling can be, and is, beneficial.

I suppose profiling helps when the looks of a person dictate their behaviour.

A few years back I travelled to South Korea. I went through the airport in a connection travelling to Asian countries. I am Latin American and I have tattoos on both my forearms.

As I am walking through the airport this "security" moron starts hassling me. How much money I am carrying, what is my destination, give me your passport, etc. All based on my looks. I am a chemist by profession and taught college courses in chemistry. I suppose profiling is beneficial. It helps some half-wit moron decide who is and who is not a criminal based on looks alone. I wonder how many Japanese tourists he stopped that day!

Of course, every time I have travelled to Europe they "lose" my luggage. They simply flag it for searching for a few days and I always end up without my things for a few days. Single Latin American male with tattoos travelling alone. Must be a drug-dealing murderer of sorts. I should just tattoo "scarface" to my forehead.

Profiling is beneficial, specially when the person doing the profiling comes with their own racial prejudices, stereotypes or just plain old-fashioned paranoia.

In the meantime, my travelling experience is crap and that is why I refuse to visit the US as a tourist in spite of my family begging me to go.

Artful Dodger:

> The halls of congress would be empty

... or the country would be run by a bunch of rather nerdy 10-year-old kids

Tuesday:

> I could get more from a 6th grader than her.

I think that all politicians should go to that show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?" Those who fail should not be elegible to run for office.

Bernice:

> Elton John says Jesus was/is gay.....any thoughts on this?

Let's say that somebody found full evidence of Jesus being gay (or married, or something not in line with traditional Christian dogma). Would that make Jesus' message any less relevant? By his message I mean not the interpretations of one particular church or another, but the actual content of the Sermon on the Mount:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

I am not a Christian. I don't even believe in God. But I can appreciate what Jesus was trying to teach people. Stop being rotten to one another. That is a good message, whether it comes from a gay man or not.

I think that how any politician would do as president could easily be determined if we asked ourselves how that person would react in a given circumstance. What would Sarah Palin do if ...

1. Iran tested and detonated a nuclear bomb.

2. Russia decided to become aggressive and retake some of its former republics such as Georgia, Adzerbaijan, etc.

3. China decided that the US dollar has lost too much value and decided to dump all the debt they hold in treasury bonds.

4. Opec became tired of the low value and instability of the USD and decided to switch its oil trading currency to the Euro.

5. Venezuela decided to entirely expel all American oil and banking companies and nationalize those industries completely.

6. The current recession is not abated and there is a massive shortfall in tax revenue for the treasury, forcing the government to cut services. Which services would she cut, and how?

7. The rising costs of healthcare and elderly care force the government to cut pensions for the elderly. (A warning that Allan Greenspan gave to the goverment about 8 years ago.)

8. Latin American countries, disillusioned with the failure of American capitalism to improve the lives of the poor, decide to form their own economic block and independent banking system, thereby cutting off the US from its most lucrative business revenue since WW II.

9. The rising drug and violence in the drug trade causes the massive violence experienced in Mexico and Central America to spill into the US.

10. There is some natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina that leaves thousands of Americans in danger.

We could go on and on with real amd imaginary threats to the US. Those 10 I listed are a few of the ones that I can pick out of the top of my head. Many of them are completely unknown to the American public, such as economic threats in Latim America, China and Opec.

I think at this point there is no candidate out there capable of handling all that. Even Barrack Obama is having a hard time with this, and in the last election he was clearly the best choice Americans were presented with (even if many Republicans disagree, Obama was the better candidate). Could Sarah Palin be the person to tackle this kind of problems? I think she is very capable in many ways, and lacks experience in others. It would be foolish to underestimate her, and ever more foolish to overestimate her.

I suppose waterboarding had no bad consequences beyond the "few" cases it was used for. Now parents are considering waterboarding as punishment for their kids since it is not "torture":

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/02/09/waterboard_kids/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

I wonder what those who defended waterboarding have to say about this.

Czuch:

> 你好，誰是否這裡讀中文？

From Chinese to Kilngon to Vulcan to Ferengi to English ...

How illogical! How can a president get a Nobel prize when the only ones who can afford it are 5-year-old Romulan kids with a weekly allowance? Kaplah!

Czuch:

> as bad as you claim Bush was and how different you would be,
> you turned out worse, simply because you said you were better

You got to the point I was trying to make. When G. W. Bush was president a lot of us were on his case. He did many things that many people considered down right terrible and that is why both inside and outside of the US his image suffered.

Barack Obama comes in, preaching change. That might sound great at election time, but the political system in set up in such a way that it has become nearly impossible for any president to effect meaningful change.

Now the Republicans get their turn at taking pot shots at the president. Come election time the Republicans will also preach change. Will they be able to deliver? Probably not, because the legislative process in congress and the senate is set up so that the status quo will stay there. Politicians represent their own interests first, then the interests of those who paid for their election, and then, if there is a chance, the interests of those people who voted for them.

Sarah Palin will be nothing like Bush. That is true, but only to the extent that the limits of power on the president will allow. That means "big business and the current distribution of wealth must operate as usual".

As all previous presidents in history, the president will do some good things, a lot of bad things, and his/her popularity will start out great and drop as people become disillusioned with their inability to change anything.

Here in Canada it is not any better. I have not seen this country get much better in the last 20 years. We went through free trade agreements, a huge recession in 90/91, then a slow climb out of it in the 90s, then we had an oil boom from 2003 to 2007, only to be followed by the current recession and all the bailouts for banks, car makers, etc.

In all of this, we had both Liberals (Democrats in the US) and Conservatives (Republicans in the US) promising change and improvement. The system is such that nothing got better or changed in 25 years.

We might have techno gadgets (computers, cell phones, etc.) but when we look at the overall picture of the world, did anything change since the end of the Cold War? We replaced an enemy for another. Communists gave way to terrorists. Poor people are still poor. Rich people are still getting richer. Can a president (or any president, prime minister, etc.) effect meaninful change?

As a final thought I will say that I might joke about Sarah Palin, or the First Gentleman, etc. but it would be a mistake to underestimate her abilities, just as it is a mistake to underestimate President Obama.

If she were to win, Todd Palin would become the First Gentleman. I think that is the proper term. The question is, would he feel at home in pictures like this photo of a club made of 36 first ladies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Ladies_2008.jpg

There are a few countries with female heads of state. I imagine that he could form a First Gentlemen's club with guys like Joachim Sauer (First Gentleman of Germany), Pentti Arajarvi (First Gentleman of Finland), Martin MacAleese (First Gentleman of Ireland), and Jose Miguel Arroyo (First Gentleman of the Philippines).

If Dalia Grybauskaite (Madame President of Lithuania) gets married then there might be another bloke joining the club. Oleksandr Tymoshenko is kind of the First Gentleman of the Ukraine but he doesn't like appearing in public and he might refuse to join the club.

With five or six blokes in the club they might have poker nights. I can see them betting a few million here and there over a hand of Texas Hold'em.

More seriously, if Sarah Palin is elected and they decide to drill baby drill in Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge, will they rename it to Alaska's Arctic National Oilfield Refuge? I would rename it Arctic Arabia.

Now that the Democrats lost a senate seat in Virginia, we can see a trend for the upcoming senate and congress elections. The Republicans will sweep both houses and the Obama administration will be paralized. Then in 3 years Sarah Palin will become president.

Once the Republicans take over the government, the US will really, really experience massive changes for the better, just like it did under G.W. Bush. I foresee a golden age of change and renewal.

Czuch:

All I can say that the list is published by "International Living Magazine". It seems like a reputable publication. I guess the average peasant in the mountains of Uruguay has a better life than the average citizen of the UK!

Czuch:

> BTW, you must be against our recent health care bill?

I think that while the Obama administrations intentions are good, the health care bill will probably fail. If it fails, it will be because the Republican party cares more about protecting the business of private insurers than about the lack of adequate care for the poor. Well, the US is the only modern industrialized country without universally available health care. I think it bothers Democrats that the US is behind the trend in other industrialized countries.

The next 10 years will prove whether private insurers can keep up with rising healthcare costs. As the Baby Boomer generation ages, the pressure on private insurers will increase to the point that some of them will go bankrupt. It is at that point that state-run healthcare will probably come to the forefront, as a bailout for a failing private system. I expect a full bailout, as it happened with the banks last year.

I doubt Obama's healthcare bill will succeed, but his successor in 7 years will be forced to do something about it.

Czuch:

> My guess is thsat we got off cheap!

You go and tell it to the families and all those dead people. I am sure they will agree with you.

Czuch:

> I still believe that taking him out was worth the cost

What was the cost? 150,000 civilians killed by violent death; another 500,000 killed as a result of destroyed hospitals, water treatment facilities and other infrastructure; 4,568 non-American coalition forces soldiers; and 4,345 American soldiers.

Here are some nice quotes:

"According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017."

"As the total passed US$450 billion in 2007, the cost for the Iraq war reached approximately $1500 per person in the United States. If the Iraq war were to wind up costing 1.9 trillion dollars, the cost would be over 4.2 times higher ($6,300 per United States citizen.) This would put the expense at $25,000 for an average family of four, or $32,000 per family if Afghanistan is included."

Getting rid of Saddam was worth every dollar spent, and every human life lost. Now we can recover the cost in oil, and let Haliburton, Exxon and Chevron keep the profits.

I guess Americans can happily accept spending 32K per family of four, just to let oil companies reap the profits from the war. Now, where are the WMDs? Who is responsible and who pays for manufacturing false intelligence?

GTCharlie:

> You can have the strictest No Gun laws in the world or in history. That just creates an excellent black market.

I think that there should be no restrictions on buying guns of any kind. People should be free to go to their nearest convenience store and get whatever they want. AK47s. Uzis, M16s, any automatic, semiautomatic assault or non-assault rifle should be available. All weapons and ammunition should be available freely and legally to anyone who wants it. The only requirement would be registering the weapon under your name with a picture ID and a fingerprint. Registration would be free and it would happen over the counter at the time of purchase of the weapon.

Then, anyone who is convicted of murder or attempted murder should get a mandatory death sentence. Armed robbery and other violent crimes committed with weapons should be capital offences too. "You can buy any weapon you want, but if you train it on another human being, then you deserve the chair." Stealing a weapon should be a capital offence too, as would using any weapon not registered under your name.

At the same time, we should legalize all drugs. Ecstasy, marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, LSD, PCP, heroin, etc. People should be free to buy anything they want for themselves. However, if anyone sells or gives any drugs, tobacco or alcohol to anyone under the age of 21 then that person should receive a mandatory death sentence. "If you are over 21, you can zonk your brains out, but heaven help you if you give anything to anyone under 21. If you provide, you get a lethal injection."

There would be next to no black market, just as there is relatively little black market for alcohol or knives. The question is, how long before half the people of the world are dead?

To pay for the legal and health costs of freely available weapons and drugs, the government should impose a very high tax on them. If you want your goodies, you have to pay taxes through the nose, because overdoses and gunshot wounds cost money to fix, and executions don't come for free.

(V):

> If the Conservative element in the USA want to have the next president.. better they learn to tell the truth

People have a very short memory. If previous wrongdoings had any bearing, Ronald Regan would not have been elected on account of Richard's Nixon's Watergate scandal. Then George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would not have been elected on account of not only Nixon's mistakes but also the Iran-Contra Scandal. Bill Clinton would never have been re-elected on account of his womanizing. Arnold Schwarzenegger would never have been elected governor on account of having sexually harassed several women. Politics is a dirty business. The winners are not the best people, but rather those who lie the best with a straight face and those who can get the most money from the rich and powerful corporate elites.

Artful Dodger:

> His number keep going down, down, down.

As I recall, George W. Bush had the same problem, and so did Bill Clinton before him, and George H.W. Bush before Clinton. History repeats itself!

> It will take a few years but the Democratic reign in the US is dismantling fast.

It will take about as long as the Republican reign of the Bush administration took to dismantle. That is about 8 years!

Artful Dodger:
> But don't expect the government to do the job right. The government is incapable of such a task.

I think this is where the problem lies. When it came to pollution, western governments didn't even try to do a job in the first place. Smog in big cities and air pollution have been here since the start of the industrial revolution. 200 years later we are still trying to stop the problem and our governments have failed completely because they have put the profits of companies above clean air or environmental protection.

If the government is unable to tackle the problem, who should fix it then? Private industry? They are the ones who have no interest in reducing emmissions because doing so will cost them money.

I don't agree with universal carbon footprint taxation. I prefer a targetted taxation. Tax those industries that cause most of the pollution: Oil, natural gas, tar sands, utilities, car manufacturing, etc. Then give tax breaks to companies that adopt clean techonologies. Those that make no effort to change can keep paying more taxes until they realize that changing their production methods and their products will be more profitable in the long run. One thing is certain. There will be inflation because switching to new technologies will ultimately be paid for by consumers. Somewhere in this we have to find a balance because failing to act means that our grandchildren will deal with a dirty atmosphere and the environmental and human health problems that come with that.

Artful Dodger:

> And BTW, this is the exact kind of dishonesty I'd expect from someone who doesn't care for where the facts lead.

Isn't that what people say about those "climate studies" produced by oil companies trying to prove that carbon dioxide emmissions are benign? Much of the opposition to global warming reminds me of the opposition that tobacco companies had when tobacco was found to be a carcinogen.

Most scientists out there are well aware that statistical inference based on long-term climatological data is open to interpretation. After reviewing that data it has been proven that global warming does not exist. The question is: is pollution good or bad? If carbon dioxide does not produce global warming, is it OK to release billions of tons of it into the atmosphere? To me it is not a matter of whether the statsitistical data can be interpreted one way or another, but whether pollutions is bad or not.

If pollution is bad, how do you decrease it? Capitalism has proven one thing: the only language capitalists understand is the language of money. The only way pollution is going to decrease is to make it count where it matters, and that is in the pockets of those who produce the pollution. Those companies that oppose pollution taxes do it for only and only one reason: they are too cheap to do their fair share. It is cheaper to pay somebody to discredit science than it is to pay taxes. The tobacco lobby proved that decades ago, and today we see a similar thing with CO2 emmissions.

Even if global warming does not exist, is it wrong to decrease pollution? And if the only way polluters are going to stop is by taxing them, then what should we do? What do you propose then? How do you decrease pollution? Just say to people "stop" and hope that they will out of the goodness of their own hearts? In capitalism people do things only out of the goodness of their own pocketbooks.

We can keep polluting as if nothing is wrong. It is our grandchildren who will have to deal with the increase in desertification in the planet. Then let's use a reinterpretation of statistical data to ignore the problem and let's pretend nothing is worng. As always, it will be the poor of the world who will pay the price, and the future generations will deal with the consequences.

Artful Dodger:

You can rest assured that there are no ill effects next time you see some gas guzzler spewing smog into the atmosphere. I am sure all those car exhausts and industrial smoke stacks are good for humanity and for the planet. The fools who propose "flawed science" like global warming and holes in the ozone layer should give back the Nobel prizes they got, but then so should Barack Obama!

(V):

I wish these inquiries carried any real weight. Is there any real consequence for Tony Blair or George W. Bush? Or those who manufactured false intelligence? The truth that comes out of this will be a relative truth. There is no way of telling what influence oligarchic cliques like the Bilderberg Foundation or the Trilateral Commission had on the decision to attack Iraq. It also has no effect on private oil and pipeline companies that lobbyed and influenced both governments to attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Will anyone go to jail for war crimes out of this?

Socialism is a matter of perspective. If somebody from the 19th century had seen the modern United States (or Europe or other countries), he would probably have thought that the country had become socialist.

"The government now has programs to help unemployed people when they lose their jobs. It pays for the education of millions. Poor people get something called Medicare. There are laws that restrict how people can invest money, buy and sell stock, carry out banking operations and how the financial system operates. There are laws that restrict how businesses operate so that workers and consumers are protected. Unions are legal and protected by law. There are laws that protect the environment. There are government agencies that enforce laws in just about every aspect of life. What happened to your country? You modern Americans have most of the things that communists and socialists preached back in my 19th century!"

Modern governments might think of themselves as anything but socialist, but in practice half of what they do came out of socialist and communist thinking.

Tuesday:

> No God didn't design that...man did. Fix it. He gave you a brain. :)

Like Snoopy said, it was God who made small pox, and for that matter ebola, HIV, hepatitis, etc. We as human being have to live with that truth. God made disease and death.

However, the point I was getting at is that we insist on putting human limitations on an infinite God. Some people believe that the only truth about God is in the Bible and nowhere else. It seems to me that if God is infinite, then why would all of his teaching be limited to the one book? Why not an infinite number of books? Why should God talk in one limited language, when he can talk in infinite languages and forms?

Science is God's language too. If evolution exists, it is because God made it too. The Bible is not the end all and be all of creation. If it is, then God seems very small to me, in fact, a few thousand pages small. The Bible was written for the level of understanding of the ancient Israelites. They were not scientists; they were nomadic shepherds. The Bible does not talk in modern scientific terms because its first audience would not have been able to understand it. Can you imagine what it would have been like if God came to the ancient Israelites and said:

"It occurred to me that life could be made up of self-replicating, evolving macromolecular structures called DNA and proteins. As those structures mutated and evolved, new living organisms would come into being over millions of years."

"Father, what do you mean?"

Genesis is written at the basic level of understanding of nomadic shepherds. As humanity has matured some of its understanding is greater, and so now God speaks another language, the language of science. In the future science will keep going and discover more and more things, but those people who truly believe in God will see in science not the denial of God's existence, but rather its affirmation.

"Creationism refers to the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings, commonly a single deity. However the term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of certain biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth."

"Intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer"

I prefer Darwin's evolution.  It paints a much better picture of God.  Can you imagine God sitting there and thinking?

"Now, let's see.  A little bit of this and a little bit of that and voilá!  Here is Yesinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium!  Now, let's see what this baby can do.  Ooops, 100 million people just died!"

"Let's see next.  I got this idea for a protozoan, let's call it Plasmodium falciparum.  If I just make it slightly so, mosquitoes can transmit to animals, people, etc.  Let's see what this thing can do.  Ooops, I just realized it will cause malaria.  It will infect 250 million and kill 1 million people each year!"

I prefer evolution.  God didn't sit around making and designing deadly diseases.  The American government might have accused Saddam of using anthrax as a weapon, but ultimately was it God who "designed" it?

No offense to those who believe in creationism and intelligent design but evolution sounds much better to me.  Did God design this?

In fairness, I think it is important too that we look at the rotten things that the KGB did.  After all, the main point of some of my arguments is that fear and ideology can bring out the worst in humanity.  I have been looking for declassified KGB files.

I found this interesting archive of declassified KGB files in Harvard University.  I wish they would publish translations of the Russian documents. (my Russian is a bit too rusty).
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/index2.htm

A very interesting archive of documents declassified from Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.
http://www.kgbdocuments.eu/

The Mitrokhin archive is a series of documents copied by hand by A, Mitrokhin, a Soviet defector who smuggled them out of Russian in 1992.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.browse&sort=Collection&item=The%20Mitrokhin%20Archive

Artful Dodger:

I said that Capitalism also murdered millions of its dissidents.  You said that you wanted examples.  I posted them.

It is up to you if you want to believe what the CIA and other government agencies have declassified.  If the CIA was not involved in this, why keep lists and photographs of people captured, tortured and killed?  The answer is that those people who did the killing in other countries were answerable to their superiors and as such were required to report their activities.  If the American government was paying them to work, then they had to report on their progress, and that is why those documents exist.

When the CIA did these things, it was acting out of two motivating forces: ideology and fear.  During the Cold War capitalist countries feared that communism was advancing at an ever grate rate.  That fear, combined with a capitalist ideology, led the major western superpowers to do things that otherwise they would have considered undesirable.

You told me that "the CIA isn't capitalism".  The question is, does it represent its ideology?  If the CIA (and other western intelligence agencies) is not there to protect free enterprise, then why attack communism so forcefully?  Why topple democratically elected governments and set up fascist dictatorships in their place?  The answer is that the CIA is there to safeguard American political and economic interests.  What are American economic interests if not the interests of capitalism itself?

>  61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State, etc.

According tot his number, I guess the Soviet Union killed 1 of every 3 of its citizens.  Since they were a brutal, despotic, totalitarian state then it was OK for capitalism to kill all those communists. 

>  It's a far far different thing to get involved with another country to bring about political change,
>  it's another to systematically murder millions upon millions of one's own citizens.

That's exactly what communists used to say about capitalist countries.  "Capitalist countries kill many and exploit many, blah blah blah".  It smells of just an empty excuse.  Is your idea of political change is supporting fascist dictatorships?  Fascism and dictatorship in the name of democracy.  Isn't that a contradiction?

>  You've only shown how the US via the CIA (and likely the military at times) has involved itself
>  with one government faction over another. Both factions were killing their own people.

Yes, the capitalist faction and the communist faction killing each other.  The CIA just chose to ally itself with the capitalist faction.  At this point I can say: "Capitalism doesn't kill people.  People kill people."  "Communism doesn't kill people.  People kill people."  Ideology has one function.  It justifies human actions. 

>  Capitalism is an economic system that vastly differs from all others. It's not really a system
>  at all but a lack of a system.

Really?  I guess the Federal Reserve and the banking system are not part of capitalism.  Neither is the printing and control of supply of money.  Free trade agreements are not part of it.  Neither ar all the legal structures that regulate economic exchange, and the government agencies that draft and enforce that legislation.  I think that you have to make a distinction between theoretical ideas of free enterprise, and the practical nature of the economic system.  Capitalism IS a an economic system.  Any social studies textbook will tell you that.

>  In communism, people are forced to work for the State for the good of the State
>  (and in extension, the good of the people). In Capitalism, people are free from the
>  force of others. Capitalism itself doesn't force anything.

People are forced not by the state, but by poverty.  That is how capitalism operates.  Do you think all those people who work in factories in developing countries really want to earn a pittance to make cheap goods for western consumption?  Those people work in those low paying jobs because they are poor and they have no choice.  And when those people get fed up with it and decide that they want social change, what do the governments in those countries do?  They oppress them so that they will keep working for a pittance.  In the meantime who makes the profit?  Capitalist do, of course.  In Capitalism people are forced by their poverty to work for the benefit of the rich and powerful.  Do you doubt this?  How did the likes of Walmart get so rich?  I guess they don't produce any of their products in developing countries.

>  Communism OTOH, survives (when it does) at the end of a gun.

When the CIA was giving money and weapons to fascists, wasn't capitalism surviving at the end of a gun too?

>  a simplistic conclusion heavily based on your a priori judgment

I can say exactly the same thing about your conclusions.  Of course, I grew up in one of those countries with capitalist fascist dictatorships.  I was six years old when my fahter was murdered in front of me, and 14 when my uncle was kidnapped by the military and disappeared.  I guess my a priory jusdegement must be based on having see first hand the atrocities that were commited to keep capitalism alive.

Artful Dodger:

Of course, it is better to turn a blind eye to reality.  Can you prove the opposite, that I am wrong?  Or better, why would the CIA do what it did?  Perhaps I can make a better case by joining the actions of the CIA to the United Fruit Company (now called Chiquita), or INCO and their role in the rise of fascism in Central America.  I know very well that I am preaching to the deaf, but then, nobody is required to read what I post.  If Capitalism sent millions ot their death, it is justified in the name of freedom, just as Communists justified their killing in the name of the working class.

Artful Dodger:

>  Examples

The NSA and CIA have declassified many of their documents.  George Washington University has been sifting through the over 1 million declassified documents and slowly releasing salient examples of CIA and military involvement around the world.  In many of these we see gross examples of human rights violations, assasinations, torture, disappearenaces, etc.  You can find the documents here.  If you click on "documents" or do a search then you can find many examples of different kinds.  Many of the documents are "excised" meaning that many parts are blacked out because the American government wanted to protect individuals mentioned in the files (so much for accountability).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Some specific examples.

Guatemalan intelligence officers (in the CIA payroll) organized themselves to kidnap, torture, and interrogate suspected communists.  The document also describes the assasination of two individuals:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/06-01.htm

The Guatemalan military would abduct, torture and kill civilians (among them communists, disidents, anyone opposing the regime).  This is from an NSA document produced in 1994.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/42-01.htm

The following is a document (in Spanish unfortunately) compiled by a death squad.  It lists people "processed" (meaning disappeared) by the squad, as well as lists of communists, communist sympathizers, and anyone suspected of opposing capitalism.  An interesting portion is page 15, which lists newspapers and the journalists that lead them.  Pages 16 to 19 list homes that were targetted and the people captured in each home.  From pages 20 to 74 there are photographs and information of people captured, tortured interrogated and/or killed by the death squad.  The death squad reported to the CIA, and it is why the document exists.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15/dossier-color.pdf

Here is an entire section from Mexico on the killing and disappearance of both civilians and suspected militants.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB180/

I can keep looking for files all day long, but I will post a last one.  This one signed by John Negroponte, a former ambassador to Honduras, the UN and Iraq, as well as  Deputy Secretary of State, and Director of National Intelligence.  He discusses in how to best support the Honduran military.  In case anyone doubts direct involvement by the American government, it doesn't get clearer than this.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/part2/00000001.pdf

In fairness, it must be understood that it was not only the US that was involved, but many other countires.  The extermination of communism involved the participation of most western powers, and the governments they controlled politically and economically.  Very often we see the CIA helping governments to stop communism, and then the CIA would find itself unable to manage the situation and the rising levels of killing and violence.  By the time they were thorugh, Guatemala had 300,000 dead and 90,00 disappeared.  El Salvador had about 400,00 dead.  Honduras had about 300,000 dead.  Nicaragua, 300,000.  Etc. etc.  It went on all over Latin America.  Capitalism exterminated its millions of its dissidents, along with civilians, insurgents, moderates, radicals, etc.

Artful Dodger:

>  the US promotes self-rule and opposes oppressive governments (when it is able)

Nothing could be further away from the historical truth.  During the 19th century the United States was generally busy building its territory and expanding militarily.  After the Spanish-American War the United States turned its attention to Latin America and it set out to impose its political and economic system on Latinamerican nations.  For most of the 20th century, both before and during the Cold War, the American government supported oppresive fascist dictatorships in Latin America in order to gain an economic advantage.  After WW II the CIA pursued a very aggressive fascist agenda in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

The United States as a promoter of democracy is a myth born out of the Regan administration.  Ronald Regan had to contend with the ever inquisitive eye of the media and its effect on the American public.  Before CNN was created the American government would literally get away with murder (for example, the murder of Salvador Allende in Chile).  As the American public became exposed to an ever increasing and faster flow of news, it became more and more difficult to carry out covert operations in Latin America.  So the Regan Administration set out to create the myth that American foreign policy was promoting democracy around the world while at the same time they were giving money and weapons to some of the most brutal dictatorships in the western hemisphere.  Americans have willfully ignored the role that the CIA played in dictatorships in Latin American over the 20th century because it is more comfortable to believe that capitalists are the good guys rather than promoters of fascism.

>  And I do think it's bad policy for any country to impose its own ideals on others unless they ask for the help.
>  At least when the US does it, there is freedom in view.

The ultimate result of American foreign policy during the Cold War was to impose the American political and economic system.  Today many Latin American countries are opting for left-wing governments that are not in line with American political and economic interests.  Several Latin American countries have chosen democratically elected governments with very strong leanings to the left.  The American brand of right wing governments was imposed, as the popular will in Latin America has showed.  Now the CIA does not know what to do, and a return to fascism seems as the only solution left to them, as the recent coup d'etat in Honduras has shown.

>  Take East Berlin for an example ...   If a country were to impose its ideals on another, one is certainly
>  preferred over the other.

Both communists and Capitalits sent millions to their deaths in order to keep their systems alive.  Capitalism also murdered its disidents, by the millions.  Capitalists can raise the finger and point to Communists, but that is merely the hypocrysy of the system we live under.

>  That said, I say leave other countries alone unless they ask for help. 
>  And to that I'd include any $$ help as well.  I'd give the world exactly what they want. 
>  Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests.

I think that western governments keep being self-righteous and trying to tell others how to govern, how to run the economy, what to consume, what weapons to build, etc.  Our governments do it because it is profitable to do so.  Staying out of other countries would be excellent policy, even if the capitalist economy were to shrink by 80%.

Artful Dodger:

>  In a Democracy, if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority.
>  In a Republic, all voices can be heard.  Even a minority can pass rulings over the objections
>  of the majority.  It's the reason a Republican form of government is better than a Democratic form.
>  They differ in that one aspect.

Not all democracies are republics, and not all republics are democracies.

The UK is a democracy, but not a republic.  The Soviet Union was made of republics, but they were not democracies.  I think that you are referring to James Madison's definition of a republic as a representative democracy, in contrast to a direct democracy.

Well, we can edify ourselves if we have some patience to read:

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

One thing I will say, make sure you don't confuse republicanism with the Republican Party, and democracy with the Democratic Party.  The names of those parties have little to do with the actual definition of republic or democracy.

(V):

I was trying to get to the fact that those who right now are telling us that the majority is stupid will be the first to complain about "big" government and the government "telling us what to do".

I grew up in Guatemala under a real distatorship.  The kind that sent tanks into the streets, made people disappear and massacred 300,000 people just to keep the capitalist elite in power.  Anybody who thinks that the majority is stupid is just arrogant.  Just because the majority of the people hold a view opposite to mine it does not mean that they are stupid.  It is like saying "I am smart and the rest of the world is stupid".  It is just arrogance.

The masses might not be well informed.  They might hold backward views.  They might be easily manipulated by demagogues and the media they control.  They might choose undesirable people to lead them.  However, if the masses are stupid, then why promote democracy or freedom?  Why send 1.5 million Iraqis to their deaths?  1.4 million Afghans?  6 million Vietnamese? 3 million North Koreans?  If the masses are stupid, then it is impossible to justify those wars fought to "protect freedom and democracy".

Artful Dodger:

In other words, since the masses are stupid, it is better to let the oligarchic elite make all the decisions while the masses are merely convinced that they have political power when in reality they don't.

I imagine then that Obama passing legislation for health care reform through Congress can be justified.  The majority of the American public opposed the legislation, but then the majority is rather stupid so Obama is justified in forcing through unpopular legislation.  Then the complaints we hear from the public are nothing more than a reflection of their ignorance and stupidity.

If this is the case, imposing an unpopular policy over the population is acceptable when the masses are ignorant and fail to understand the policy.  Subverting democracy is justified for the greater good.

Pedro Martínez:

>  it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots

If that is the case, can democracy be justified?  If the majority are idiots, isn't dictatorship better then?

Czuch:
KMFDM
Keine Mitgleid für die Mehrheit
No pity for the majority

(V):
> Not true. Some do, some don't. there has been quite a debate within the
Anglican church over being gay and the roles as such within the church.

> Judaism does not condemn gay orientation, and depending on the
persons views does not condemn homosexual acts. Lesbian acts are not
condemned by the Torah at all.

All I will say is that acceptance of homosexuals by the church (or religious organizations, to be more general) is a very new concept.  If we go back 25 years most churches rejected homosexuals and it would have been inconceivable for a homosexual to become a member of the clergy.  The same was true of women in many religions.  Equal rights for women and homosexuals is a relatively new concept.

The Old Testament (what we call the Pentateuch, or more correctly, the Torah) has examples of condemnation of homosexuality.  The most clear example is in Leviticus (called Vayikra in Hebrew).  It is from these 5 books of the Bible that the Judeo-Christian taboo of male homosexuality arose.  The Old Testament makes little mention of female homosexuality, but in the New Testament the Book of Romans condemns lesbianism.

The Judeo-Christian religions are changing.  Modern interpretations do not take a literal view of the Bible any more, and the rights of women and homosexuals are being recognized, not by all churches, but at least by the more progressive ones.

Artful Dodger:

>  When is the cutoff?  You date a girl named Jane for a week and then move in with her.  You live together for a month ... etc.  

Depending on where you live, the law defines common law marriages, domestic relationships, etc.  In many places the law is clear.  For example, in Canada the definition is clear:

a) the couple have been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;

b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption; or

c) one of the couple has custody and control of the child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

Some provinces also include a further definition such as both partners owning together property or financial assets.

In the United States 11 states and the District of Columbia recognize common law marriages.  26 states recognized common law marriages in the past but no longer recognize them.  13 states never recognized common law marriages.  The definition varies from state to state, and often under different conditions for different states.

So it is more than a matter of just "shacking up together".  Legally speaking a couple can find themselves receiving all benefits of married couples in one state while in other states they would not.  Earlier I said that in some cases common law couple can find themselves discriminated by the law.  By this I mean that not all couples are treated equally.

Czuch:
> Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the
state.... single parent families are
> traditionally not as stable, and
therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of
society...
> The state isnt discriminating against gay families
etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives
> for
what they think will benefit the state more!

This argument is weak.  In North America and Europe approximately 25% of all couple experience problems conceiving children, and as many as 10% of all couples will not have children in spite of all the reproductive technologies available today.  A combination of environmental and social factors has left many couples childless.  Should their "marriages" be called "civil unions" because they cannot conceive a child and should they lose all rights that married couples have?

As for single parent families, that is an entirely different problem.  Marriages fail, and some individuals never assume responsibility for their children.  My mother was a single mother (my father died when I was 6).  All three of her children went to university.  I am a scientist, my brother is a business executive and my sister is a professional artist.  Are we less productive tax payers?  Some single parent families have serious problems, and other succeed.  This argument was weak also.

The bottom line is:  heterosexuals don't want the concept of "marriage" to be "tarnished" by allowing homosexuals to be able to use the term "marriage" when referring to their committed relationships.  The govenment does not want to allow it for two reasons: to make those I just mentioned happy, and to avoid the extra expense of giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.  As always, it boils down to money and politics.

Czuch:
>  Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!
 and


Artful Dodger:

>  You already do have equal rights tho.

First, if marriage is just a label, then it should not matter what the union is called: marriage, civil union, common-law marriage, shacking up together, etc.  The problem is not just using marriage as a word, but rather how the law is structured.

Unfortunately, in most countries there are many laws that relate specifically to marriage (in the US there are 1138 statutes).  In some countries marriages require registration and documentation, while other countries accept "common law" marriages which are defined as people cohabiting in the same residence or owning property together.

In the United States not all states recognize common-law (or similar) marriages.  For that reason not all states give equal rights to unmarried couples living together.

Of course, as we all know, there is opposition to allowing a change in the legal definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry.  The opposition comes from a confusion between the legal definition of marriage and how individuals define marriage outside of the legal context.

Since people cannot separate their own concept of marriage from the definition in the law, they insist in keeping the legal definition as a union between a man and a woman.  The perception is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, then somehow heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning.

There was a time when it was impossible for people to marry outside of the church.  If people were not married by some member of the clergy, then their marriages were not legal.  Civil marriages (those outside the church) took a long time to be recognized and became acceptable as the separation of the church and the state became the norm in many countries around the world.  As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together. Those remnants of prejudice and iscrimination will take a long time to overcome because as individuals we impose our own morality on the law, and western Judeo-Christian morality still sees homosexuality as an abnormal, unnatural taboo.  The process of accepting homosexual marriage will be as long as accepting marriage outside the church.

Czuch:

>  again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment,
>  and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...
>  But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does
>  with having the right to pass property etc

I think there is a danger of falling prey to semantics.  Is a "civil union" that different from a "marriage"?  Those who want "marriage" strictly will tell you that calling it a "civil union" is discriminatory.  I think the issue would be resolved if all those 1138 statutes related to "marriage" were ammended to "marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it".  Then regarless of what terminology we use, homosexual couples would have the same rights.  Asking to ammend 1138 statutes is a stretch when lawmakers can't even bring theselves to ammend 1 without being at each other's throats.

At some point we have to balance everyone's needs.  I think it is impossible to make everyone happy on the issue.  There will be people who vehemently oppose "homosexual marriage" and there are those who will never accept anything short of fully equal rights and semantics for homosexuals.  The government could completely remove itself from the issue.  Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so.  That would make  lot of people unhappy too.  I think it is one of those issues we might never be able to resolve.

Czuch:

>  But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Two other western taboos are polygamy and incest.

Incest was acceptable in ancient Egypt and the pharaohs were often married to their brothers/sisters in order to preserve the purity of their divine blood.  It led to serious genetic defects being passed on to their children.  For example, Tuttankhammon suffered from spina bifida.  The Bible rejects incest very early on.  After escaping from Soddom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters were cursed because they had an incestuous relationship.  Our modern objection to incest comes from the possibility of passing genetic mutations or diseases to children.  As such incest remains undesirable and to me it is unacceptable in any form.

Poligamy is different because it is a form of marriage that survives into our modern era both in western culture and outside of western culture.  I know of two cases in southeast Asia.  I know of a "monk" in Singapore who had two wives.  I met one of his daughters who kept referring to her "auntie" and how cute her little brother was when he was playing with his mom who was also her "auntie".  Obviously that "autie" was her father's second wife.  I know of another case in Laos.  This wealthy man had 13 children with 3 women.  The common denominator here was wealth.  Polygamy is a priviledge of the wealthy.

Among Tibetans it was not uncommon for a woman to have several husbands.  Marriages involved the transfer of property among families and for many families it was economically unfeasible to "purchase" a wife for every male in the family.  For this reason several brothers would often marry the same woman.  It was acceptable socially because Tibetans believe that a man inherits his father's bones, therefore all brothers had the same bones from their father and if any of them had children with the woman, the children inherited the same bones.  Polyandry still survives in some places in Tibet and Nepal.  Poligyny (having several wives) was also common in Tibet where wealthy men could acquire several wives.

In India the Mahabharata describes a case one one woman marrying five brothers, so both polygyny and polyandry were acceptable.  Of course, the ancient Israelites had polygamy as attested in the stories of Abraham, Solomon, David, etc.  Judaism abandoned polygamy in the 11th century and today polygamy is illegal in Israel.

Polygamy became unacceptable during Roman times.  The Greeks had monogamous relationships, and the Roman's inherited monogamy from the Greeks.  In the 4th century St. Augustine formally accepted monogamy as the acceptable form of marriage among Christians.  Ever since western culture became monogamous.  Those values have gone around the world and many countries today have monogamous laws.

The question is: Is polygamy acceptable?  Here in Canada the government has had a lot of problems with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  Some of its sects engage in polygamy.  It has become a serious issue because in some cases girls as young as 13 have been married, with and without their consent.  On the one hand there are issues of the rights of women and young girls, on the other there are issues of religious freedom.  Polygamy remains illegal here and it will remain so in spite of the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom.  The government does not want to open that can of worms.

The Mormon church in Utah officially excommunicated those who practice polygamy, so the practice remains only among a few sects.  I would believe that the Mormon sects following polygamy had a legal case on constitutional grounds, but many marriages are with women under the legal age for marriage, and that women are denied full rights to education.

I don't know if polygamy is acceptable.  In a case where the people involved are of legal marriage age, fully aware of their actions, without coercion or subterfuge, and in full view of society and the law, would it be acceptable?  In some countires it is, in other it isn't.  It might sound desirable to some men, but isn't having one wife trouble enough?  What about division of property and divorce?  Cultures where polygyny is acceptable often have vague laws or laws that disfavour women.  It is one of reasons why polygamy remains unacceptable in most places.

Czuch:

>  it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument

What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say.  We are very different from other living organisms in this planet.  Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.  For example, it is not natural for a person to sit in front of a television for a few hours.  It is not natural for people to build skyscrapers, or rockets that go to the moon.  Human sexual behaviour is very different to that of other animals.  We are the only species that mates face to face.  I think that mating face to face has sometimes been observed among bonobos (a species of chimpazee).  The old trusty Missionary, the most common sexual position among humans, is uniquely human.

Is homosexuality unnatural? People would be surtprised to know how common homosexual behavious is in nature:

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

Bonobos (our closest genetic relative) exhibit homosexuality in several forms, although homosexuslaity among females is more common.

To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.  Western culture has been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Homosexuality was taboo among the ancient Israelites as exemplified by some of the laws in the Torah.  That same taboo was passed on into the New Testament.

Other cultures outside the Judeo-Christian cultures had different views of homosexuality.  The ancient Greeks engaged in open homosexuality and among Greek aristocrats pederasty was the desirable form of education for young Greeks destined for political and economic power.  Homosexuality was common among the ancient Chinese up to the late Qin dinasty (end of the 19th century).  It was not uncoomon for male concubines to form part of the Chinese emperor's harem.  Homosexuality was acceptable among Sufi moslems in the 18th century, as attested in the poetry of the Persian Sufi poets.

Clearly our western dislike for homosexuality is culturally driven, and western culture is Judeo-Cristian in its origin.  The current definition of marriage is the Biblical definition of marriage, and that definition holds homosexuality as taboo.  If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable, then a lot of people fear that it would diminish the meaning of marriage, and therefore the values expounded by Judeo-Christian culture.

1.  An African man is fired from his job because he is black.  Is it discrimination?
2.  A Jew is fired from his job because he is a jew.  is it discrimination?
3.  A homosexual is fired from his job because he is a homosexual.  Is it discrimination?
4.  An African couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are black.  Is it discrimination?
5.  A Jewish couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are jews.  Is it discrimination?
6.  A homosexual couple are denied the legal rights of a married couple because they are homosexual.  Is it discrimination?

Nobody will argue that cases 1 to 5 are discrimination.  What about case 6?  If it is not discrimination, why?