Iamon_lyme:

> I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity.

I think that the biggest challenge that the USA will face in the future is not terrorism or a financial meltdown, but the slow degradation of American life through inaction. If Americans (or any country) want their life to be better, they have to accept that change is necessary in the political and economic system. I am not talking about catastrophic change or revolution, but changes that ensure that every citizen gets an equal chance at a good life. As things are, the power structure is skewed in favour of big monopolies and wealthy businessmen. That means that big numbers of the population are having their lives slowly eroded away. For this to change, Americans will have to accept that pursuing capitalism at all costs will not solve the problem, but merely aggravate it.

Americans don't like anything that feels like socialism (the current healthcare debate is a good sign of that). However, only through "socialist" measures can the lives of the average working class citizens improve. The 20th century is a sign of that. All that we have to do is look at the European community after WW II. The socialist measures taken there greatly improved the lives of many of Europe's citizens. Americans will have to accept that these socialist measures are not a sign of big government, but of a humane government. The USA (and other countries) needs not intrusive socialism but efficient socialism. That means a balance between the social safety net and the freedom of companies and businesses to operate. Unfortunately Ameican polticis has become polarized in bipartisanship, and that means that measures that could help the working class (like healthcare reform) are torn apart to the point that they become a failure. Big companies and lobbyists feed on that bipartisan system and exploit it for political and economic gain.

The USA also needs to do some soul searching in respect to its foreign policy. The USA has suceeded in building big army, navy and air forces. The Cold War and terrorism have skewed American foreign policy to one of preemptive action. What Americans politicians see as promoting democracy thorugh force is perceived differently outside of the USA. The increasing costs of keeping such a large military force are staggering and they are eroding away at the life of the American working class. If the USA could reduce its military budget in half, then it could provide free university education and free healthcare for everybody. Instead the money is being spent in enterprises which drain the American economy under the guise of keeping Americans safe. Somewhere in all this the USA has to find a balance between peaceful coexistence, self-defense, and the economics of war. It is difficult in our world, but the hawks that say that military might is the way to go are doing a disservice to taxpayers who front the money to pay for the wars. They are not the ones paying for the wars, and it is not their families that get killed in the bombings and the fighting.

Donald Trump, politics newest Bozo, must have nothing better to do than distract the president with useless crap. The "birther" issue was laid to rest today when the White House released the president's long form birth certificate. Since Bozo Trump has nothing better to do, he is now questioning Obama's education. I suppose graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard is not enough for the Bozo. He figures that Obama somehow cheated his way into Columbia and Harvard. I think the Republicans should distance themselves from the Bozo. If he keeps this up he will do more damage than good to the Republicans. In a way, the Democrats must be loving this. Bozo Trump is handing them Obama's reelection on a platter. I supose Mike Huckabee must be happy too. Huckabee's lack of charisma looks much improved when compared to Bozo Trump.

Iamon_lyme:

> The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to.

Is that bad? If it is bad, why? There will never be a world governing body because everybody is too selfish to relinquish their power to some form of centralized government. The American and European public would never stand for that either. In any case, a centralized governing body might mean that there might be uniformity in how laws are applied. If some Fascist decides to bomb another country, he would be made to pay. If some businessman cheats workers of their wages in another countries, he would be made to pay. A centralized government for the world could have decided advantages. No more of this: in my ocuntry only these kind of people are allowed, and if you are not like them, I will kill you. A centralized government could ensure greater equality and justice if the laws are fair and well-enforced.

> U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world.

This is what a lot of people don't get. The USA is becoming the world's central government. The USA is not resisting the creation of a central government, but as the dominant empire the USA is becoming the central government. There is not a corner of the world where the USA is not controlling the financial system, commodities production, weapons production, etc. The few countries that are not under American control are those that are too big and too hostile, and even then those countries depend on American capital and consumption to survive (China and Iran are two good examples). The USA has the largest military force and uses it to promote its political and economic interests and to enforce its version of international law (for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, etc.) The USA has also used dictators to advantage in order to gain political and economic control of other countries (e.g.: Latin America, Africa). When countries refuse to comply with American demands, they get crushed (Vietnam, Grenada). The USA also uses military might to impose its version of democracy on other countries (like Lybia, Iraq). That means that slowly world governments are being shaped into the American model.

It must be noted that the USA is not the only empire to do this. The British Empire did it, as did the French, the Spanish, the Romans, etc. The difference is that now the scale of control is much greater because the armies and weapons used are formidable. The USA is becoming the world government, and rather than American influence decreasing, it is increasing more and more every day. Americans shouldn't be afraid of a world government, because the USA itself is becoming that world government.

> So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them).

This always makes me laugh. Americans complain of selling debt to China, but how is this happening? The answer is thorugh consumption of goods manufactured in China. As long as the American public wants cheap goods, companies like Walmart will manufacture them in China. Then we will see a flow of capital from consumers to producers. In other words, from American consumers to wealthy Chinese manufacturers. Americans are not selling their debt, they are consuming their way into debt. I found this little snippet:

"In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports. The deficit on petroleum products was $386.3 billion. The trade deficit with China was $266.3 billion, a new record and up from $304 million in 1983. The United States had a $144.1 billion surplus on trade in services, and $821.2 billion deficit on trade in goods in 2008.["

In 2008 the trade deficit was $695,9 billion. With China it was $266.3 billion. That means that in 2008 38% of the American trade deficit is with China alone!

Who should be blamed? China? Voracious consumers? American companies that took all the manufacturing overseas? The government (both Republican and Democrat) that allowed it all to happen?

> Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore..

People forget that the bigger the company, the less taxes they pay. Most people would be surprised to know that General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. That's right, not even one cent in taxes, and they are one of the largest companies in the world. Walmart pays very little to, as do Exxon, Intel, etc. The reason is that the entire taxation system exists for the benefit of big monopolies. Big companies can afford to hire good accountants and lawyers. Genereal Electric has a full time team of accountats and lawyers and their job is to make sure that the companies deducts everything from their taxes. Small companies can't afford to do that. Who should be blamed? The big monopolies? Their crooked accountats? The corrupt government that passed tax breaks and loopholes in taxation law?

> Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices.

That is how American companies became the biggest and most successful in the world. It is also the source of American political, economic and military power. It is not something that American are going to give up. The American public would not stand for giving up the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

> But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what?

This is the one things that governments don't want to do. To encourage small business sounds nice during election campaings, but the government is heavily influenced by big monopolies, and those monopolies want as little competition as possible. If the government cared about small businesses, they would tax the big monopolies and use that money to make sure that more businesses succeed. Instead we have a situation in which over 80% of small businesses go bankrupt.

Iamon_lyme:

> Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say
> about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up
> steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide
> U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck
> with him until the next election.

Isn't this true of every president? (or prime minister, if you are in a different country) Every president has been an egocentric, self-serving tool. They start promising in some way, then as time passes the public's enchantment dies off and people can't wait to put the next tool into power. Every president starts deeply loved, and ends up in a hole. Look at the Bush administration. At its height it had over 80% approval ratings, only to finish so despised that even Republicans themselves abandoned the president like rats leaving a sinking ship.

> U.S. will continue losing influence in the world

Empires rise and fall. The USA is not the exception.

> the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised

But we already have a global economy. The gasoline in my car comes from crude oil from Alberta. The cotton in my clothes was grown in the USA, but the clothes themselves were made in Bangladesh. Half of the components in this computer were made in China. My car is Korean. Etc.

The economy of our planet has been global at least since the late Middle Ages. I recommend a book called "Manias, Panics and Crashes", by Charles P. Kindleberger. It covers the subject of economic cycles and how they spread around the world. The only difference is that today the information is passed on instantly. Before electronics were invented economic information moved slowly, but it moved nevertheless.

(V):

> America turned Christianity from a religion into a business.

I don't think we can blame America for that. The papacy was making a ton of cash well before America was discovered. Christianity has been big business from the time when Crhistianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire to the present. A good 1,600 years of fattening the coffers.

But then, all religions do the same. All those nice, big mosques cost money, as do synagogues, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, etc.

Organized religion needs money to grow and cement its power. The only difference in our present era is that religious goods are manufactured in China and sold in Walmart.

Iamon_lyme:

> More important to pagan idealists who feel compelled to exchange gifts because it's expected of you?

We have to remember tht in capitalism holidays are in essence retail experiences. Christmas is about buying gifts and giving them. St. Valentine's day (chocolate, flowers, jewelry, etc.), St. Patrick's day (green clothing, beer) , Easter (chocolate and candy), Thanksgiving (food), Christmas (every imaginable consumer good).

Of course, the true believers say to themselves that the gift-giving is not really the reason why they celebrate. However, if for some reason nobody was able to buy gifts, somehow Christmas would not be the same. Advertising has been so pervasive, that people can't tell where consumption ends and religion begins. The funniest thing of all, atheists I know celebrate Chrismas, not to remember Jesus, but so they can exchange gifts and gorge themselves with food. Some people go to Chrismas eve mass so they don't have to feel so guilty about worldy shopping and consumption.

In capitalism everything is for sale, even religion.

(V):

> I thought the birth Of Christ was more important...

Not for Christians. While Christmas celebrates the arrival of the Saviour, the true miracle, the one miracle that defines Jesus as the Saviour, is resurrection. Easter is supposed to be a solemn celebration of that. Easter eggs are a German late medieval invention, possibly dating from earlier pagan traditions.

Artful Dodger:

> You need to look at the immediate history of the US and what exactly the early leaders of this country did PUBLICALLY with respect to faith. Seperation (as a concept - remember it's NOT in the constitution - ) doesn't mean silence. To say that it does mean silence is to put meaning into the constitution that never was there (again, history shows us the way).

We also have to remember that when the Constitution was written the USA was a small group of colonies. The early presidents and leaders did not have to contend with the world as it is today. The influx of immigrants as well as 19th century philosphy means that today 25% of the American population are not Christians. The 75% who are Christian are divided into 50% who are Protestant (in a wide variety of denominations) and 25% who are Catholic.

The early legislators did not have to conted with the influx of Irish, Italian, Mexican and other immigrants who brought Catholicism with them. They did not have to deal with MIddle Eastern and African immigrants who brought Islam with them. There are also Hindus and Buddhists.

When the First Ammendment was written the intention was to avoid one Christian denomination having more influence or power than another. The state had no business in favoring one denomination over another. This was the main point of the "wall of seaparation of church and state" that Jefferson alluded to in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

At that time the Danbury Baptists were concerned with the political and economic dominance of the much larger Congregationalist church in Connecticut. They wrote to Jefferson asking why their state constitution had no articles that protected a religious minority from a more powerful religious majority. It was out of that concern that Jefferson wrote his letter in reply to them. Jefferson saw the state as having no business promoting a religion over another.

To insist that the American government promote or favour Christianity over other religions is akin to the situation in those days. The Christian majority over the non-Christian minorities is akin to the Congregationalist majority over the Baptist minority. It is for this reason that the American governments will never make Christianity the state religion, but it is implied that Christianity is very influential due to the fact that the large majority of the polulation is Christian.

Another interesting fact is the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams. The treaty was signed in late 1796 and ratified by the Senate in 1797. The treaty was written as part of a larger effort to stop piracy in the Mediterranean. Article 11 (a subject of controversy) states that:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Although issues of translation and wording in the Arabic original have been raised many times, it seems that the early senators saw the separation of religion and politics as important in avoiding wars of religious motivation. It was written at a time when Al Qaeda and their extremism did not exist, but our present leaders could learn from the wording of the treaty.

Clearly the founding fathers wisely realized that religious harmony and tolerance were important in peaceful relations between peoples both at home and abroad. By promoting a religion over others, the state could potentially tilt power in favour of a religion at the expense of minorities. Today the minorities are non-Christian and whether the state favours Christianity is important in continuing the early spirit of the law. People forget that "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1952 when the Cold War was starting and fear of Communism made people fear the loss of their religious beliefs. Under the current environment there are those who wish the president would come out and say "one nation under a Christian, anti-Moslem God". It would make Christian radicals happy, and it would also destroy the integrity of the First Ammendment.

Further to my previous post, from Article 6 of the Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The law is clear. There is no requirement for the president (or any public servant) to be a Christian. Out of tradition presidents swear upon a Bible during their inauguration, but technically speaking, a president could refuse the Bible and merely affirm the oath. That would be his constitutional right.

Artful Dodger:

> By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays

From a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

In Jefferson's view, freedom of worship is a right of every citizen, and the state has no business in interfering or promoting a particular religion (hence his term: establishment). The United States is a society that claims to be based on the separation of church and state. This is a claim that most wertern countries do. If that is the case, the White House should release NO statement on ANY religious holiday. The president and all members of the cabinet and the house should issue no religious statements at all.

Insiting on having the president be a Christian goes against the separation of church and state. Otherwise, it is little different from Iran expecting its president to be a moslem, or Israel expecting its president to be a Jew. We should leave the integration of church and state to those countries that insist on thinking that religious scripture and the law are the same thing. Western culture abandoned that idea during the Enlightenment.

> I don't think church going every once in awhile qualifies one as a Christian. Especially when church attendance is done for purely political reasons.

Is it different from politicians that boast of being religious in order to court the vote of the religious right? There are politicians that boast of being really good christians just to gain votes (c.f. the Tea Party and other religious conservatives). Are they not using religion for political gain?

Iamon_lyme:

> he (quantum) micro is supposed to be the functional building block of the bigger (relativity) macro, we might find a connection if we start looking in the right places

I think the problem is not whether they are connected. Theoretical physicists work on the assumption that there is a connection. However, mathematically (and theoretical physics is in essence mathematics) relativistic quantum mechanics has no exact solutions, and the current theories (such as Hyperstrings) are mere conjectures. There are experiments under way to try to prove that hyperstrings exist, rahter than being mathematical constructs. If that isproven, then physicists can make the claim that relativity and quantum mechanics can be joined in some universal set of physical laws. Well, as with much of theoretical physics, we try to describe the universe, but absolute proofs of certain things (like the Big Bang) elude us because there is no way we can travel back in time to that first moment when the singularity exploded.

We can only wish that we could find exact solutions like Newtonian mechanics offers. Quantum mechanics deals to a great extent with probabilities, rather than certainties. Even something as commonplace like a helium atom cannot be described with an exact (analytic) solution. So physicists resort to approximation methods (like perturbation theory, LCAO, etc.) based on the hydrogen atom, the only atom with an exact solution. Atoms and molecules are "relativistic", meaning that electrons move at a speed high enough that approaches the speed of light and relativity has to be taken into account in the computations. All that physicists and chemists have are approximate solutions.

Some day a mathematical genius like Gauss, Fermat or Descartes will be born, and he/she will find the mathematics that will revolutionize physics. Until then quantum mechanics and relativity remain distant, yet close enough that phsyicists can almost sense the solutions to the problems.

Artful Dodger:

> He's still young so who knows where his studies will lead him. He has an IQ over 170. He's no small mind when it comes to understanding things in the universe.

He is obviously a gifted child, and provided his Asperger Syndrome is treated carefully, he will succeed through his adolescence and later in life. I suppose that as long as those around him give him a well structured education with good time management, he will adapt without being traumatized by the turmoil of adolescence. From what I read, it is adolescence that is the most difficult time for people diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome It seems also that there is a tendency (65%) to develop anxiety disorder and/or major depressive disorder. As long as he has good medical care he will do well, and he will be able to fully use his gifts.

An IQ of 170 seems impressive, but in reality it is meaningless. My grandfather was a psychologist. When I was a kid he measure the IQs of all his grandkids. I scored at 176, so he assumed I was a genius. Sadly, he was wrong! Don't get me wrong. I am exceptionally good at math, chemistry and physics. I was valedictorian in my highschool. I also discovered that in the real world nobody gives a damn. You won't get a job being a genius. You get a job being practical. So after all the chemistry and math and presumptious bourgeois crap, I discovered that unemployment is a hard pill to swallow, and I got useful skills. Power tools, machinery, you name it. Then I became a bus driver instead. Now I drive a bus, and when I see a pothole I calculate how much weight it would take to crush it a bit more, and make it bigger. Then I figure, is my bus heavy enough?

So a high IQ sounds nice, but then capitalism does not need people with a high IQ. What capitalism needs the most is cheap labour, so that those high IQ capitalists who own the factories and businesses can make a profit at the expense of the low IQ working classes. High IQ in capitalism is valuable, only if it makes the rich richer. Otherwise nobody cares about it.

Iamon_lyme:

> I did try to visualize what a space time curviature might look like.

Just remember, when they talk of curvature, they are not talking of the one-dimensional curvature of a two-dimensional curve (for example, the curvature of a circle is the reciprocal of its radius). We can visualize the "curvature" of a line or a sphere. To us curvature is what we see in Euclidean space.

The curvature they talk about is higher dimensional. In three dimensions curvature cannot be visualized so simply. It is expressed as the product of a matrix with orthonormal columns and a three dimenisonal vector. In higher dimensions curvature is expressed as the products of tensors in Riemann manifolds. It is too complex to be visualized in terms our brain can understand. It is understood only in mathematical terms, and therefore, it is an abstract concept. To make it short, Einstein used tensor calculus for his theory of relativity. If you are familiar with the math and the theorems of course it makes sense. If you are like most of us, it is all another language entirely.

> Try envisioning a vacuum within a vacuum

We forget sometimes that "vacuum" is a human concept to indicate the absense of matter in some enclosed space. In reality most of space is made of "vacuum" (for example, atoms have a tiny nucleus and even tinier electrons in orbit around it). However, elementary particles (like electrons, protons, etc.) have a dual character of a particle and a wave. That is the product of the quantum mechanical description of matter.

The real problem that physicists have is that quantum mechanics and relativity theory don't "mix", meaning that there is no exact solution when trying to solve relativistic quantum mechanics (like the Schroedinger equation) into higher dimensions. The attempts at these solutions is what things like superstring theory tries to do. Relativity is good at describing the universe in the huge scale of stars, galaxies, etc. While quantum mecahnics is good at describing the universe in the tiny scale of atoms and molecules. However, there is no unified theory thaht describes the two of them with the same math.

However, some day we will have a prodigy (maybe this gifted child) who will be able to do so. He has the potential and he will do well as long as he is allowed to be a child, and unrealistic expectations are not put upon him.

Artful Dodger:

"Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn’t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn’t gonna happen."

Only one minor correction for this kid. The earth is made mostly of hydrogen and oxygen, in the form of water. Then its core is made of molten iron, and the crust is made silicon dioxide. Carbon and nitrogen are also important, but carbon is not what the earth is mostly made of.

“Because of that,” he continued, “that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We’d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.”

I think he is confused. Carbon fused together? He assumes that matter fuses to create life? Or does he mean elementary particles fusing together into carbon atoms? I think he is confusing one thing with another. Well, he is 12 years old. I would advise him to look at the chemistry starting from the core to the surface of a star, and then look at what most elements are made of. Then I would say, what about the carbon in comets and meteorites? I think he is a brilliant kid, with a lot of learning to do. However, I would remind him that mathematical equations are not nature, they are merely a linguistic representation that tries to match what we see in nature. The Big Bang as a theory makes some big assumptions such as the Cosmologial Principle and the universality of physical laws. To prove the Big Bang wrong one would have to disprove those two underlying assumptions. The Big Bang also requires space of uniform curvature (elliptic, hyperbolic or Euclidean space). If one could prove that space near a singularity is not uniform, then the Big Bang theory would fall apart. Well, I am no specialist in the subject. One of these days I might look at the math for it, and convince myself that it is not all bullocks or wishful thinking!

Barrack Obama - America's Communist President

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/barack_obama.htm

"The United States now has a Communist president as of January 2009. Some prefer to call President Obama a “Globalist” instead of a Communist, but there's not a dime's difference. Communism is a vehicle created long ago by the International Banking Cartel, intended to bring to fruition a Global Godless Totalitarian Communist Police State. Nazism and Communism are simply two separate legs walking in the same direction—toward world domination, aka, a New World Order. Karl Ritter is considered by most the father of Nazism, just as Karl Marx is considered by most as the father of modern Communism. Both evils are the work of God-hating humanists, Evolutionists and eugenicists. DEVILUTION!"

Whatever you do, don't become friends with a guy named Karl!

"For those who have studied, then you know that Communism was created by the Banksters (i.e., the New World Order gang), as a vehicle by which to achieve world government."

After reading this I will take my money out of the bankster's hands. I am going to start putting my money ujnder my mattress!

Feminism is evil!

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/feminism_is_evil.htm

Beware of the feminazis! These guys are real comedians!

From the website posted by Servant:

The Great Whore of Revelation Chapter 17
―The Roman Catholic Religion

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/the_great_whore.htm

Just when I thought nothing could make me laugh!

Artful Dodger:
Oh, don't get me wrong. An atheist has faith that God does not exist. That is all an atheist can do, because nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God scientifically.

There are certain things that did happen spontaneously in nature. The formation of the stable chemical elements is one. Carbon, nitrogen, oxygen adn hydrogen are abundant in the universe. They arise as stars spew out their matter and energy. It all happens in random systems, like the surface of the sun.

It has been proven scientifically that the basic building blocks of life (aminoacids, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) can be spontaneously synthesized in systems that mimic the early conditions of Earth. Abiogenesis ideas such as the "primordial soup" theory have been tested in the lab. The most famous experiment is the Miller-Urey experiment. Its more modern variants have synthesized all of the nucleotide bases in DNA as well as all 22 aminoacids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

If the base pairs of DNA can arise spontaneously, attaching them in long chains was not impossible, and the spontaneous rise of a viable DNA sequence was not impossible either.

Well, ultimately it is faith that determines what people believe. To me, there is more than enough evidence to show that life arose spontaneously without somebody being there to design it. Eventually scientists will acquire the technology and skills necessary to create life in the laboratory. That will put an end to creationism, and the only intelligent design will be what scientists do in genetics laboratories.

(V):

> It seems life maybe present on moons of other planets in this Solar system.

"Maybe" and "is" are two very different things. "Maybe" implies possibility. "Is" implies certainty. When scientists come out and say "Life is present in other moons ... " then we have certain proof. In the mean time it is all conjecture.

Artful Dodger:

> You can't "prove" God but you can offer evidence for the existence of an intelligent force at work in the universe. Isn't that what SETI is all about? Proving the existence of an intelligence "out there" possibily on some other planet? And what is it that SETI looks to find? Signs (or evidence) of intelligence.

At the present, there is no evidence of "intelligence" or "life" outside of our planet. The closest we have come to finding life is organic chemicals in meteorites. Beyond that there is no evidence of life anywhere else, but it is quite likely that in the future life could be found in other planets and even in smaller celestial bodies.

As for intelligence, the most intelligent non-human creatures that we have found so far are primates like cimpanzees and gorillas, as well as non-primates like dolphins and even invertebrates like cuttle fish. However, none of them approaches our ability for language and abstract reasoning. We have found no intelligent aliens so far.

Is there an "intelligence at work in the universe"? There is no scientific proof of that. At best there is conjecture, and it is all along the lines of trying to prove that God (the intelligent designer) exists. This is the "intelligent design" argument, a branch of science that so far receives little support in the mainstream scientific community. Intelligent design is creationism repackaged in pseudoscience.

Doris:

Unfortunately there is no religion board. There is one in the Debate Club fellowship, but the discussions there are not as freely readable as they are here.

(V):

> I do admit when it comes to physics and the nature of the universe,

We are approaching a level of technology that will make us rethink the origins of life and our relationship to the traditional view of God. There are several research groups who are trying to create an artificial cell. The idea is that if a cell is genetically engineered from the ground up, it could synthesize proteins and chemical substances with medical applications. These research groups are recoding the DNA of those cells and rebuilding the mitochondria, intracellular DNA, etc. It is not a matter of whether they will succeed but rather when. One of these days (probably in the next 10-20 years) we will see the first examples of artificial life. Humanity as the creator of life will make us reexamine how we see God as the only creator of life. This research will pose even greater challenges to traditional religion than things like cloning and stem cells have done. We also have the search for life outside our planet. Scientists have already discovered organic molecules and aminoacids in meteorites. One of these days we will find a bacterion or some primitive unicellular organism. I think religion can cope better with that. God made life outside Earth, why would god limit himself to one planet? We can cope with that, but humanity making artifical life is a different problem entirely. It will be interesting to see how our cultures cope with that.

> But you do have recorded in the Bible something of interest. How did Moses manage to see events that were caused by a volcano before theey arrived? Psychic senses?.. a throw back to animal senses?? God??? A mix?

I think the problem is the same as with most of the Bible. There is no proof of the historical existence of Moses. The historicity of Moses cannot be proved by archaelogical or cross-cultural analysis. The closest I have seen historians come is the excavations of the Hebrew quarters near the delta of the Nile. From what I saw in a documentary, the Hebrew quarters were not very different from the rest of the living accomodations among working-class Egyptians. However, there is no direct link to Moses. His existence (like that of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Saul, David, Solomon, Jesus, etc.) is a matter of faith.

>> "In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism"

> Yes, but we have now thanks to the internet and such old fashioned things as libraries...

When people think of the Dark ages they assume that western culture somehow stopped. That is far from the truth. What obscurantism did is throw away aspects of Graeco-Roman culture that were not in line with the Christian dogma of the times. It does not mean that there was no cultural or philosophical development. It just meant a shift in what was acceptable in late Roman culture. Of course, Graeco-Roman philosophy survived in the libraries and translations of the Arabs. Moslems had a very open view in those days, and they preserved many Greek and Roman texts. Wester culture "rediscovered" (or rather reintegrated) that Graeco-Roman culture during the Renaissance. Today of course we have studied, analysed and superseded Graeco-Roman philosophy.

(V):

Well, Christian philosphy is in essence stoic philosophy. Origen is proof of that. Stoicism was founded by Zeno, and he saw the universe itself as God. That is in perfect line with the Abrahamic religions and it is why stoicism became so influential on early Christian thought. The unmoved mover that Aristotle presented was also in line with Abrahamic thought. It is for these reasons that Christians adopted Aristotelian, Platonic and stoic philosophies. Once stoicism had taken hold in Christianity, the pagan origins of the philosophy had to be discarded and that was done by Justinian I in 529 BC when he closed all Graeco-Roman philosophy schools. In doing so the complete absorption of stoicism into Christianity took place, and the denial of its Greek and Roman origins plunged western culture into obscurantism. It took about 800 years for western culture to mature to a point where it could accept Graeco-Roman philosophy without seeing it as some pagan threat to Christianity.

Of course, believing in the unmoved mover, or a similar theistic view of the universe, is an act of faith. Nobody can prove scientifically that there was an "unmoved mover" or a god when the universe was created. As with everything to do with God, faith is the determining factor. Without faith Graeco-Roman (and later Christian) idealism fall apart.

(V):

That makes for very interesting reading. Ramban's (Maimonides) view of the yetzer tov (good impulse) and yetzer ra (evil impulse) makes more sense than simply personifying evil in the Devil and then blaming the Devil for tempting humanity.

Buddhism sees all human actions as arising from the ego. Everything that is constructive and destructive in humanity arises from the need to satisfy our ego and to control the inherent impermanence of the universe. That is more like the yetzer ra explanation in that link. The big difference is that Buddhism sees everything as impermanent and ever changing. The idea of an eternal, unchanging God goes against that Buddhist idea. It is why Buddhism is a religion without Gods. (That does not mean that Mahayana Buddhists do not rever Buddha as if he were a God, but in the Hinayana tradition Buddhism has no Gods.)

For me the problem is not so much in the interpretation fo the Bible, but in how organized religion uses fear of punishment to control people. Organized religion also limits God. "God believes only in those who believe what our religion bleives. The rest are doomed to eternal punishment. Everything that we can know about God is in the Bible. Outside of the Bible all that we have are interpretations, but God gave us only this one book."

To think that the Bible is the only thing we can know about God is very limiting. If God is infinite, then explaining everything about God would require an infinite number of books. One book is at best a starting point. Anybody who claims that they know God from reading the one book is like claiming to know the ocean when all that you have seen in your life is a drop of water. We have read one book, and based on that we tell ourselves that we know God's nature and God's purpose. Then in our limited way we assign to God petty human limitations.

"God accepts my religion but not others." "Our team is the winning footbal team and other teams don't even know how to play the game." It sounds like a very petty view of God to me. If God plays favorites, why make the rest of humanity? Then we contradict ourselves and we say that God works in myseterious ways. With one sentence we say we know God from the one book, and with another we say that we don't understand God. It is nothing but a reflection of our limitations, not God's.

Artful Dodger:

> Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!

Any woman who handles firearms like this deserves to be president:

http://orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sarah-palin-with-gun.jpg

If you are a terrorist, she will do to you what she did to this caribou:

http://www-hollywoodlife-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/120610_palin_gallery_21239_3773.jpg

More seriously, at this point, it is difficult to say who the Republicans will choose. I would have said that Donald Trump has a chance, but his insistence on the "birther" issue will probably do him more harm than good. The Tea Party people will try to promote Sarah Palin. At the present she is their most widely supported candidate 14% of the Tea Party vote) although 34% of the Tea Party membership is still undecided.

"In a Rasmussen poll taken January 11–14, 2011, Huckabee was even with Obama: 43% - 43%." It seems that Mike Huckabee is the current Republican front runner. I suspect that if the Republicans could have a ticket such as Mike Huckabee for president and Sarah Palin for vice-president, then they would have a very strong position in the next election. It would all depend on whether such a ticket would be acceptable to Tea Party supporters and the genereal Republican membership.</a>

Artful Dodger:

> Desecrate A Quran, Go To Jail; Desecrate A Bible, Get Subsidized & Have It Displayed As 'Art'

(V):

> ".....By the book is a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

Sometimes what passes for art is dubious. I see the point of what the artist was trying to point out to. Man is made in God's image. It seems reasonable to feel excluded from the Bible since the Bible presents a relatively narrow view of right and wrong, and it excludes a large number of people in the world (basicly anybody who does not believe in the Abrahamic God).

At the same time, people write comments that express anger and resentment, without being constructive. If the artist had been smarter, he would have put several sacred texts. Put a Koran next to a Bible, a Bhaghavad Gita, a Book of Mormon, the Digha Nikaya, etc. Then present a juxtaposition: Made in what God's image? If you feel left out by any God in particular, write yourself back in.

Well, religion arises a lot of passion in people. The reason why I never had faith in any God is because while God may have made man in its (his, hers?) own image, man tries to portray God in his own image. In giving to God human qualities, we limit God to our own human foibles (God is jealous, vengeful, wrathful, etc.) We assign to God human limitations and emotions, and thus reduce God to our level. We view God as a petty minded, jealous, selfish individual, rather than as an all-encompassing limitless being who sees beyond the distinctions of organized religion, which is in essence a limiting human construct.

Organized religion reduces God a favoritist being who favours one group of human beings at the exclusion of all others. Those in my religion will go to Heaven. Those outside of it will go to Hell. God will make sure of that, because God, limited as we human beings are, plays favorites in the universe.

In that sense Buddhism is the superior belief system. The ego is the limiting factor, not God. It is the petty atttachments of the ego that limit humanity and make it selfish, jealous, vengeful, wrathful, etc. Our view of God within those limitations is merely a projection of our ego, and not a protrayal of God himself.

Well, it is hypocritical to single out the Bible that way, as it is hypocritical to burn the Koran, or to single out any organized religion. But the artist is trying to provoke a response. Unfortunately, western society is obsessed with religion and the validity of Christianity.

Artful Dodger:

"The CBC is anti-American ... Thank God for Fox news ..."

(V):

Reading a little bit more on the subject, it seems that Glenn Beck has made some mistakes in his broadcasts. It seems that the controversial comments that he made went beyond calling Obama or Sotomayor racist.

In June of 2010 Beck was acused of being an anti-semite, although I am not entirely sure whether the accusation was founded. In one of his radio shows he praised McCarthyism and recommended a book called "The Red network". It was written in 1936 and it is a book about communism and those communists who had "infiltrated" American society. I have not read the book myself, but apparently the book is full of anti-semitism, racism and religious bigotry. Apparently in some passages it even tries to justify what the Nazis were doing at the time. It is an old book, inconsequential in historical terms, but it added to Beck's controversies. I suspect it is a case of Mr. Beck perhaps not reading the book thoroughly and then showing poor judgement.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006070053

In one of his TV shows Glenn Beck insinuated that the Jews had killed Jesus. This prompted a response from the Anti-Defamamtion League:

http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20100805-Fox+News+Channel.htm

Later in 2010 Mr. Beck produced two segments in his show in which he attacks and demonizes George Soros. He called George Soros a Nazi colaborator and the "puppet master" of a conspiracy to create a world government. As a result of the attacks on George Soros the Anti-Defamation League strongly critized Glenn Beck.

The original Beck broadcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkESPAgrJ8w

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5906_52.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/11/adl-beck-soros_n_782420.html

There have been other instances such as Glenn Beck comparing Reform Judaism to Radical Islam. Glenn Beck has also used comparisons of the Holocaust to other events in the media. For example, he compared the campaign to raise awareness about global warming to the Holocaust. The ADL and a group of over 400 Rabbis raised concerns about the easy way in which he uses the Holocaust to make his political points.

I don't think Glenn Beck is an anti-semite, but he has shown poor judgment and little things have slowly added up to the point where he became a liability to his employers. Glenn beck thrived in controversial topics, and that was bound to offend some people.

(V):

> I just thought.. is this change of subject just leaving this question unanswered??

The answer is that in that particular radio broadcast Glenn Beck was at his worst. There is no way anyone could justify his actions there. It is why the topic was brushed aside. What could anyone say to justify Glenn Beck? Glenn Beck did apologize later. It was the least he could do.

Artful Dodger:

All I can say is if I generalize about Christians fundamentalists, you do so with Moslems. There are good Chistians (the vast majority) and there are a few destructive Christian zealots (like David Koresh).

Likewise there are good Moslems (the vast majority) and there are the zealots who engage in terrorism. If every Moslem were a terrorist, the USA would have no hope of winnig because there would be over 1 billion terrorists against the USA. Islamis terrorists are a small minority of what otherwise is a mostly peaceful religion.

Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists use the literal Interpretation of the Koran as justification for their actions. Likewise, some extremist fundamentalist Christians use the Bible as justification for their actions too.

Christians are not perfect. If they were, Chistians would never commit crimes or sins. They would never contradict themselves. Anybody who even remotely understands the Sermon on the Mount could never justify killing anybody under any circumstances. Yet many Christians have read it and they still justify wars and politically motivated killing (like the killing of communists during the Cold War or the killing of terrorists during the War on Terror). Christians are not immune to brushing aside their most cherished beliefs when politics and economics come into play.

If you as a Christian take a self-righteous stance and point the finger at others (like Moslems), you should not be surprised when others turn around and point the finger at Christians.

Artful Dodger:

> That's because those like you on the LEFT are so dishonest you'll stretch anything to make your lame points.

And the religious right in the USA does not stretch the truth? How quickly you forget how the USA sees itself as a Christian nation, and how religious leaders in the USA advocated the war. George W. Bush made the war a Christian crusade against "Islamic terrorism", and the religious right bought it. Then, when it was shown that the WMD claims were false and manufactured, the religious right went on to hide their heads in the sand and make lame excuses. Oh, it was OK to take out Saddam and the religious overtones of the Bush admnistration had nothing to do with it. Christianity had nothing to do with it anyway. We just go back to our churches and forget the whole thing, because it was somebody else who did the killing on our behalf. What matters is what Jesus taught, not the fact that before going on the battlefield, our soldiers lowered their head to pray to Jesus.

Here is your assignment. Prove to me that christians are NOT violent and cruel when it suits their political and economic interests. Prove to me that christians don't brush aside their scriptures when it is convenient. One thing is the New Testament, and another is what Christians actually do. Let's conveniently separate the two, then Christianity remains unscathed.

Artful Dodger:

Perhaps I did not make my point clearly. All I said is that fundamentalists interpret scripture literally, and use scripture to justify their actions.

The New Testament has no references to rape or murder being acceptable. There are some references to slavery and slaves submitting to their masters, particularly is some of the writings by Paul.

Christians are different. When a Christian commits a crime, it is seen as external to the religion. He is a sinner, without reflecting on the scriptures themselves.

I will say this. Christian fundamentalists do use the Old Testament as a source of justification for their actions. For example, David Koresh used the Old testament extensively in justifying the sexual abuse of young girls.

A lot of Christians also believe in "biblical inerrancy", the belief that everything in the Bible is accurate, right and true. Many of these people interpreted the Bible to justify things such as the Iraq War and the atrocities that went on there and elsewhere. Christians are not immune to contradictions between scriptures and their actions.

Artful Dodger:

> Give some current examples of Christians blowing up planes, gunning down children, shooting rockets at unarmend civilians, blowing themselves up at market, stoning or lashing offenders.

What about a Christian president and his Christian cabinet ordering war planes to another country, then sending 400,000 civilians to their death? Did not George W. Bush said that the US was engaged in a crusade?

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

I suppose there is no contradiction between claiming to be a Christian and then openly advocating a war that kills hundreds of thousands.

People sometimes forget that the Old Testament is full of examples of killing, rape and abduction of women. For example:

Judges 21:8-14

8 Then they asked, “Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah?” They discovered that no one from Jabesh Gilead had come to the camp for the assembly. 9 For when they counted the people, they found that none of the people of Jabesh Gilead were there.
10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.
13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

Thus the Israelites murdered all those men and their wives, then took their virgin daughters who were forcibly married to the Bejaminites. Murder, abduction and in many cases, rape. I doubt those women wilfully consented considering that their families had been murdered.

Numbers 31: 7-20

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

Midianite virgins were abducted after the killing of their families. Then the sin was purified by merely "purifying themselves" on the 3rd and 7th days. Now a pattern of murder, abduction and rape is emerging. Obviouly it was culturally acceptable in that era.

Deuteronomy 20:

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.

Pillage, plunder, murder, rape, slavery and genocide. These are the laws of war from Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 22

These are some of my favorites. If a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin and she is found guilty, she is to be stoned to death:

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Consensual sex between a man and a married woman or a virgin demands the death sentence:

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

My favorite is this:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

A man can rape a virgin, pay her father and marry her. Thus a woman is forced to marry her rapist and live with him for the rest of her life.

We notice that in essence, fundamentalists are applying laws from the Old Testament literally. This is true among Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists alike. Those who interpret scripture literally are bound to read these passages and use them as an excuse for cruelty and brutality.

Artful Dodger:

> Forget the huffingtonpost link for now, we'll come back to that.

Yes, we should forget it because that is the one where Glenn Beck says that Obama hates black people, but then, he was just ridiculing Obama's daughter. I guess it doesn't count in your eyes.

> Here's a clue for you and others who are still not getting it: Beck NEVER said Obama hates black people (in the same way you never said it).

I am sure he never said it, except it is his voice in the radio show. Let's for a moment suppose that I am an idiot and I am failing to get the point. If he did not say it in the post about the BP oil spill, what about the one where he mock's Obama's daughter? You can make excuses for the BP spill post, but how do you excuse the Malia Obama post?

I know you admire Glenn Beck. I think he is a smart man. I disagree with his political views, but it does not mean that he lacks knowledge or merit. I think he just lacks good judgement. In his desire to provoke he puts his foot in his mouth more often than not. Still, he has made enough racially insensitive comments to make me wonder just how far his prejudice extends.

Artful Dodger:

Sure, I am wrong, then how do you explain what he did in the radio show when he was mocking Malia Obama's voice?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/28/glenn-beck-attacks-presid_n_593587.html

"Daddy? Why do you hate black people so much?"

Who is missing the point? Me and my "ultra liberal" mind? Like I said before, Glen Beck can sound honest and smart through all of his sarcasm. But when stops thinking about what he says, he shows a side of his thinking that points to his deep seated prejudices. In reality it is not only him. Rush Limbaugh has said some things that make Glenn Beck look tame.

Artful Dodger:

I understand that Mr. Beck is getting at how both Bush presidents were hammered on accounts of the Exxon-Valdez and Hurricaine Katrina, while Barrack IObama was left relatively unscathed by the BP oil spill. However, Mr. Beck does clearly say that the president hates black people, and further repeats it in that joke at Malia Obama's expense. It is all I am getting at. Beck has called the president a racist both against black and white people. He called justice Sotomayor a racist too. There is a pattern there.

Artful Dodger:

> btw, you got that wrong. YOu really should know what you're talking about first before you post about it.
> This was NOT the main thrust of the full context. So try again.

Here is the original from Glenn Beck's website. Note that in his website Glenn Beck edited a sentence out "Is it the white part of Barrack Obama?". Obviously Mr. Beck did not want to appear racist once he had time to think about what he said live in his radio show.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41203/

It is clear, Beck said that Obama hates black people. Well, you can justify this on accounts of the Gulf Oil spill, but what about the tasteless jokes at Malia Obama's expense? "Daddy why do you hate black people?" Clearly Mr. Beck thinks Obama is a racist who hates both black and white people.

Well, the point I was tyring to make is that Mr. Beck has been attacking the president for a long time now, grasping at anything he could to discredit the president. In accusing the president of being a racist, Mr. Beck projects his own racial prejudice.

Glenn Beck talking about Obama's response to the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico:

"Now wait a minute. Hang on just a second. That’s James Carville talking about Louisiana. Why does Barack Obama hate black people? Is it the white part of Barack Obama? Once again, Louisiana, let me tell you something. If this was happening in the very white state of…"

In May, 2010, Beck's radio show aired a very insulting series of jokes in which Beck mocks Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia. In it Beck insinuates that Obama hates black people.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005280025

The most recent, and the one that cost Beck his job:

“This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

“I’m not saying that he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. He has a - this guy is, I believe, a racist.”

The following day, Beck stood by the remarks: “I think the president is a racist.”

So President Obama hates both Black and White people.

I am no Sigmund Freud, but it seems to me that in attacking the president Glenn Beck is projecting his own hatred. Beck's vitriolic attacks are an effort to mask his own insecurities and racial prejudice.

(V):

It is not the first time Glenn Beck does this. In 2009 Sonia Sotomayor was nominated as the first female Hispanic justice of the Supreme Court. After her nomination Glenn Beck called her a racist after she insinuated that in some cases a Hispanic woman who had the life experience of a Latina might be better equipped to deal with interpretation of the law than a white male who did not have the life experience of a Latina. Glenn Beck went onto call her a racist repeatedly just based on a single comment taken out of context.

Beck has a history of racially motivated remarks. His comments on migrant Mexican workers borders on xenophobia. So does his fear of Moslems, and his hatred of President Obama. Beck has gone so far as to say that Barrack Obama chose his name because it is a deliberately unamerican name that represents the values of his "radical" father. Calling Obama a racist who hates white people is stupid. How quickly Mr. Beck forgets that Mr. Obama's mother is Caucasian. To Mr. Beck anything not remotely resembling his narrow view of "white culture" is unamerican and a threat.

While there are times when Glenn Beck might sound coherent and smart, this time around he put himself forward as somebody prejudiced and ignorant. He has no clue of what he means when he says "white culture". Does he mean German culture? Italian, French, Russian, Romanian, etc.? To him white people and white culture are the American Anglo-saxon right-wing middle class. Anything else is unamerican, and therefore a threat to that narrow view of white culture. In making this comment, as well as several other racially insensitive actions and remarks, he has portrayed himself as a xenophobe. It comes as no surprise that advertisers in and out of the USA have withdrawn their support for his show.

Coalition friendly fire kills 13 rebels in Libya.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9124801/coalition-friendly-fire-kills-13-libyan-rebels/

"A NATO-led air strike killed 13 Libyan rebels, a rebel spokesman said on Saturday, but their leaders called for continued raids on Muammar Gaddafi's forces despite the "regrettable incident.""

As was reported earlier, Al Qaeda has infiltrated the rebel ranks. Is it a coincidence that NATO is bombing the rebels too? The Obama administration has admitted that CIA special forces are on the ground in Libya. If that is the case, they might be passing intelligence about the location of high ranking members of Al Qaeda's AQIM army. It should come as no surprise if we see more of these "friendly fire" incidents.

Bwild:

> I'm beginning to think Donald Trump has the answer.

It is OK as long as Mr. Trump doesn't run the government like he did with his casinos!

An empty crude tanker arrived in Lybia today near one of the rebel strongholds. The tanker can carry up to 1 million barrels of crude oil. The shipping company that owns the tanker is refusing to give details about the shipment. The buyer of the crude is unknown, but it is believed to be UK oil refiners Vitol:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110405/tot-uk-libya-oil-loading-1c89468.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Libyan-rebels-to-resume-oil-exports-through-tanker-1322911.php

The tanker is registered in Liberia, a country notorious for its illegal black market in diamonds and other minerals.

"The rebel-led government said it had concluded a deal with Qatar to market crude oil and had discussed plans with a U.N. envoy to exempt its oil exports from sanctions that have been imposed on Gaddafi entities."

"Jakob Larsen, maritime security officer with BIMCO, the world's largest private shipowners' association, said a tanker had been diverted last month by coalition naval units."

So the heroic NATO allies are already making a profit from oil trading, and helping the rebels make money to buy weapons.

" "The current wording of the U.N. Security Council resolution leaves considerable room for interpretation as to which cargoes are regarded as contraband and can therefore not be discharged legally in Libya," Larsen said."

So the UN resolution is nothing more than a favoritist excuse for attaking Gaddafi, while trading weapons and oil with the rebels.

That might be OK if the rebels had an interest in true democracy in Lybia, but as I mentioned a few posts ago, the rebels have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda's AIQM forces.

In essence NATO is helping the rebels trade oil for weapons, and those weapons will end up in the hands of Al Qaeda's army in North Africa.

Way to go empire, you just shot yourself in the foot!

According to recent news reports, the rebels that are trying to topple Gaddafi have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda. Apparently, Al Qaeda unveiled its full Lybia wing in 2007 and for the last few years has been trying to topple Gaddafi.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110315/ts_dailybeast/12919_alqaedaslibyaplans

Here is an interesting article of how complex the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Lybian people is, and how Gaddafi has tried to exterminate Al Qaeda in Lybia.

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=307

There are claims now that the USA and its NATO allies provided weapons to the rebels trying to topple Gaddafi. Since Al Qaeda infiltrated their ranks, Al Qaeda has syphoned off weapons to its own AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). This is the North African army organized by Al Qaeda to topple North African governments, specifically Algeria, Lybia and Egypt. Among the weapons stolen is a cache of surface-to-air missiles.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=76232

If these claims are true, this could seriously jeopardize efforts to support regime change in Lybia because the end result might be not the democratic government that our western governments desire, but rather an extremist Islamic government controlled by Al Qaeda.

Artful Dodger:

> the Koran burning upset our Muslim allies in Afghanistan

The truth is that this points to the sorry state that Afghanistan is in.

This is all the product of our western desire to get rid of communism in Afghanistan. When Afghanistan had its socialist revolution, they tried to do away with this kind of ignorance. The climate of fear of the Cold War caused our western governments to provide money, weapons and training to the Moujahaideen. Arab states in the Middle East openly called for a Jihad against the godless communists and over 100,000 volunteer insurgents swelled the ranks of the Moujahaideen. They were provided by weapons, training and military intelligence by several western governments, most notably the USA. Pakistan provided a base of operations from where these insurgents could be trained, armed and sent to fight over the mountains in Afghanistan. The Moujahaideen succeded in driving out the Soviet Union after sending 1 million Afghans to their deaths.

Today the same men who 20-30 years ago were fighting against the Soviet Union are now running the Taliban and Al Qaida. They wanted to create for themselves an extremist, fundamentalist Islamic state and they succeeded. After the 9-11 attacks the USA saw itself forced to take action against these people and now there is no end in sight to that conflict. I consider the current conflict in Afghanistan to be the aftermath of the Cold War. So are the confilcts in Rwanda and the People's Republic of Congo.

The killing of the UN workers was the product of insurgents infiltrating the ranks of what started as a peaceful protest. There have been a lot of protests in other places, not just Afghanistan. These insurgents are using the burning of the Koran as an excuse to terrorize foreign aid workers, and to cement the culture of fear that Afghanistan is grappling with.

Artful Dodger:

> That Jesus the man existed is a well established historical fact. You make the same mistake many make in regarding the Bible as something other than a historical text, which it clearly is. It passes the same historical tests other ancient document must pass.

This is an issue of faith, and it is complex. Outside of the New Testament there is no mention of Jesus during his own lifetime. The New Testament itself has a colorful history and the Gospels describe some historical events described by other sources outside the Bible, albeit with contradictions, ommissions and no sense of dates other than vague references to some of the events. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek and not Aramaic. This has caused scholars some concern because Jesus and the Apostles spoke aramaic rathern than Greek. Scholars believe that the gospels proceed from one and possibly two earlier sources which could have been documents but most likely were an oral tradition. The oldest extand copies of the New Testament proceed from nearly 200 years after the death of Jesus. Then there were many versions of the Gospels and the church did not fix their form until the 4th century AD, nearly 400 years after the death of Jesus.

Outside of the New testament there are basicly 3 extremely small descriptions of somebody who could be interpreted as being Jesus. Pliny the Younger wrote in 112 AD that Christians were worshipping Jesus rather than the Roman emperor. Tacitus wrote in 116 AD that Nero prosecuted Christians in 64 AD and blamed them for starting the great fire that burned Rome. Suetonius wrote at around 120 AD that Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome at around 50 AD because they were causing disturbances by a man who called himself Chrestus. These three Roman sources speak of events that had happened 50-70 years earlier, and the events were recorded over 110 years after the death of Jesus.

Josephus wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 93 AD, and he mentions Jesus there. However, most scholars believe that the passage was rewritten by a later scribe and dismiss the passage as either partially corrupt or entirely false.

Other mentions of Jesus such as the Talmud, Thallus, Lucian and Celsus are vague and even later, dating to near 200 AD.

Most of the documents outside the Bible were translated from Greek into Latin during the Middle Ages, so they in essence represent translations of vague references and second-hand evidence. Most scholars struggle with this, in particular those who are not skeptics but who are looking for corroboration outside the Bible.

Whether the Bible is a historical text is a matter of faith because the life of Jesus cannot be corroborated unambiguosly from other sources. The evidence outside the New Testament is very weak. Those who have faith see the Bible as a fully historical document. Those without faith see it as best a weakly historical document. Archaelogical evidence can show the life of Jews at the time of Jesus, but it cannot prove whether Jesus lived or not.

Evidence for the Old Testament is even weaker. To date scholars cannot prove at all that the main figures of the Old Testament existed. There is no proof at all of the existence of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Saul. As for David there is a stone tablet that could be interpreted as having his name. Nothing else beyond that. Scholars have been looking for archaelogical evidence from solomn's reign but have found nothing conclusive yet. Some day perhaps.

> To what code do you appeal in your protest against hypocrisy?

To the simple code that people claim to follow a higher moral principle, and then contradict themselves with their actions. Then when confronted with the contradiction, they go on to make excuses. I see it as simple: "I am a good Cristian, but it is OK to send our soldiers to kill somebody in another country". "I believe in democracy, but it is OK to prop up a fascist dictator if it is politically and economically convenient." "I believe in human equality, but it is OK for a rich to use others to make himself richer." When confronted with a simple, straight forward contradiction our most cherished principles fall apart, so we proceed to make excuses. "We are sending soldiers because they are evil and we are not. So what if we kill 4000,000 of them? I am still a good Christian." "So what if some dictator in Latin America killed 200,000 people? They were probably communists and our companies are still making a big profit." "So what if a lot of people end up poor? Businesses are still making a profit and we are still all equal, right?"

> It always surprises me when an atheist talks about personal failings. What they really mean by this is what we all mean when we talk this way: We have failed to live up to some sort of accepted standard. For the Christian, that standard comes from God. But what's the source for an atheist?

Is it possible for a sense of right and wrong to come from something other than religion? Is God the only source of good? No offense, but Christians are not the great arbiters of good and evil. There is extensive literature about good and evil OUTSIDE of the Bible. Philosophers have grappled with the questions for thousands of years. In the end everybody has a sense of right and wrong, even Atheists. We all have set rules for our behaviour (except maybe for psycopaths). Otherwise society would not function. Approximately 15% of the population of the world is atheist. Does that mean they are all evil? Without a sense of right and wrong, or remorse? If religion is the source of good, then why do religious people do wrong? Religion gives people some set of ethical standards. It does not mean people will follow them. Likewise atheists have ethical standards too. It might not come from religious faith, but it does not meant it is less valid.

Artful Dodger:

I know that my last post sounds harsh, but I am trying to get a point across. Book burning of any kind is wrong. A person could burn a Bible, a Koran, etc. It is nothing more than ignorance and fear.

>> " But then I think Jesus did not exist, and if he existed, he was a false prophet too ..."

> Utterly false. Jesus DID exist. It's an historical fact.

My point is, calling Mohammad a false prophet might be OK is you don't believe in his teachings, but to somebody who does it is rather insulting. It is like saying that Jesus was a false prophet and did not exist. My sentence questions Christian faith at its core. For most Christians the existence of Jesus is a given and central to their faith. It is immaterial that there is no historical proof of the existence of Jesus outside the Bible (as an aside, there is no historicity to the existence of Jesus and there are no confirmed literary descriptions of Jesus outside the Bible). It is faith that makes Jesus real in the eyes of a Christian believer. Likewise, it is faith that makes Mohammad a prophet in the eyes of Moslems.

> Bibles are burned everyday somewhere. Flag burning bothers me more but I don't take to the street for it.

The answer is that burning the Koran was a symbolic act, just like burning a flag is. In reality burning the Koran makes no damage to Islam, just a burning the flag makes no damage to the country it represents. It is symbolic act of disapproval, anger, defiance, and in some cases even hatred.

> Even atheists are hypocrites.

Hypocrysy is EVERYWHERE. A catholic priest will go and preach on a Sunday to his congregation, then he will go and abuse a child. An evangelical pastor will preach to his congregation, then he will ask them for money and use that wealth to maintain his mistresses. An imam will preach of moslem piety, then send young men and women to die in a suicide attack. A politician will talk of freedom and democracy, then send troops to kill thousands in another country. A communist will talk of equality and the rights of the working class, then arrest his opponents and send them to prison. Humanity is eternally caught in its contradictions and its hypocrysy. That hypocrysy will go from petty, every day acts, to the biggest and most horrendous crimes.

> The actions of ONE man do not reflect on an entire group.

That is the reason why any religion survives. If we were to judge Christianity for the actions of those who do wrong, then Cristianity would fail to pass the test. Chirstianity has been mired in inquisitions, witch hunts, religious wars, hatred, intolerance, etc. People like Terry Jones are passing judgement on Islam based on the actions of what in essence is a very small minority of fanatical terrorists. It would be like passing judgement on Christianity based on the actions of the Borgias or the Holy Inquisition. It would be like passing judgement on all Marxists based on the actions of Joseph Stalin. Or like saying that the criminal jailers in Abu Graib represent ALL the American people. Those generalizations are destructive, and obscure the good things that people have done irrespective of religion or ideology. We insist on passing absolute judgements of good and evil, and we are unbale to acknowledge that there is good in Christianity, as there is good in Islam, Judaism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc.

> If that is your standard, then you have to accept the fact that you too are a hypocrite.

Nobody is immune from hypocrysy, and I am the first to admit my own failings. I know that in some ways I am good, and in others I am wrong. I am not one to quote the Bible much, but "let he who is free from sin cast the first stone."

In the eyes of the fanatic, his/her actions are ALWAYS right. The hypocrite sees himself as always in the right, and when he doesn't, he doesn't care about the consequences of his actions. When caught doing something bad, the hypocryte will blame somebody else, or blame the circumstances around him. When there is nobody to blame but himself, he will fall down on his knees and beg for forgiveness. He will even try to be sincere in his repentance, but deep inside he will callously ignore that what he did was wrong. He will make excuses and find religious or ideological justifications for his actions, and when that fails, he will call to higher moral principles and impose his views in a rigid, fanatical way. He will exploit fear to promote hatred, and then use that hatred and fear to further his own ambitions and greed. When asked to justify himself, his rethoric will fall on self-righteous ideology and the higher principles that everyone aspires to or admires. Those who believe in him will follow him blindly, because following blindly is easier than accepting that they must use critical thinking and avoid being duped by a fanatical demagogue.

Artful Dodger:

> They burn our flag. If American't retaliated and killed a bunch of Muslims, I doubt you'd post something blaming the Muslims.

I think that terrorists are the second biggest idiots in the world. The only ones more stupid than them are satanists. If somebody burns the American flag, what is the point? It changes and achieves nothing.

> The pastor, idiot that he is, has every right to burn the Koran.

Then anyone has the right to burn anything. If somebody wants to burn the American flag, then they have a right to do so according to that logic. But then, burning books is the recourse of the ignorant and the fearful, just like flag burning is.

> He could be ignored. But the radical idiot Muslims think less of innocent lives than they do some made up book by some false prophet. They are nuttier than that pastor every was or will be.

I know a lot of good Christians who thinks it is OK to send war planes and send 400,000 Iraqis to their deaths. But then I think Jesus did not exist, and if he existed, he was a false prophet too, because the actions of Christians show that the Bible is wrong and made up of a bunch of self-righteous lies.

In fact, maybe I should just host my own Bible burning trial. I will put the Bible on trial, and hold it guilty of having caused a hell of a lot of religious wars, not just between Christians and Moslems, but also between Catholics and protestants. Then having found it guilty of war crimes, i will incinerate the Bible with kerosene. Then when Christians get mad and protest I will say: Why are you angry? The book was written by a false prophet, or even worse, false god.

If I went downtown here and burned a Bible in our central square, I am convinced I would be dead within minutes, because when it comes down to it, there are Christians who are fanatics too and who act out of fear and ignorance, and who will justify killing in the name of higher principles.

As an atheist, all I see are religious hypocrites. People who claim higher moral principles, but who conveniently put them away for the sake of money and power. That pastor burned the Koran, not to prove that he is a good christian, but for the notoriety he would gain. He did not care if people got angry or died because of his actions. He got his 15 minutes of fame, and 12 people are dead because of it.

Czuch:

> What is it with liberals who just wont hold anyone accountable for their own personal actions?

The point is this. He had been asked not to burn the Koran because he would put other people at risk if he did so.

This reminds me of the Wikileaks man. He is accused of putting secret services people at risk for releasing those documents. Now he is crucified in the media and faces trials and prosecution of all sorts. So far nobody has died because of Wikileaks.

But this pastor was specifically told that if he burned the Koran it would undermine all the efforts in the Middle East. He was personally requested not to do it by Robert Gates. He went ahead and did it knowing fully well what would happen.

Maybe we can call him a provocateur. But his provocation did have lethal consequences. That is what I am trying to get at. It is like instigating somebody to violence. Of course the insurgents who infiltrated the protest are to blame for the killings, but the pastor should at least accept that he is responsible for trigerring that violence when there was really no need to do so.

Religious zealot Terry Jones wanted to burn the Koran to commemorate the 9-11 attack. After much criticism and even Robert Gates talking ot the man, he backed down.

But then this true Christian decided to burn the Koran after all. He and his zealot church buddies decided to put the Koran on trial and burn it.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/03/terry_jones_finally_got_that_k.html

Here is an excerpt of the article:

"Sunday's event was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found "guilty" and "executed."

The jury deliberated for about eight minutes. The book, which had been soaking for an hour in kerosene, was put in a metal tray in the center of the church, and Sapp started the fire with a barbecue lighter."

Now, there is a really fair trial, with the accused soaking in kerosene for one hour before the jury passed its veredict.

"Notably, nobody really cared this time. Only 30 people were in attendance, and the media didn't even notice until today."

The reporter who wrote that was unaware that people in other countries do pay attention. As a result of this pointless book burning, a protest erupted in Afghanistan. The protest started peaceful and turned violent when the protesters approached a UN compound and armed guards tried to stop them. The protesters quickly took the weapons from the guards and killed 8 UN workers inside.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110401/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_4

Way to go Pastor Terry Jones. You are a real Christian hero. I suppose "We told you so" will mean nothing to him and he will sleep soundly knowing that his actions caused the deaths of 8 people.