Isn’t this the sort of thing the Taliban kills people over? We sure want to be like them, don’t we?
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Oh, Paddy.
Also for those who have said that the Abrahamic religions have led to killing only by those who ‘misunderstand’:
2 Kings 2:23-25 (King James Version)
23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
Thanks to Robert A. Heinlein (Stranger in a Strange Land for the reference)
J/P=?
Cursor, if people were robots you would be right, but they aren’t so you are wrong. the seven sins of man can be seen in many species all over the world. They aren’t perceived, they are instinct. They are entwined in our DNA. they will only become recessed as we evolve and education and practice helps us lose the need for them to be present. Close the book and venture out into the real world, you WILL be amazed!
#13, you are right! And racism will be with us as long as there is mankind. Everyone could look the same, but someone will find something that is different about you and hate you for it. It’s inescapable.
#62 Atheism is considered a religion and people kill for a reason whether it’s the mob mentality of a religious campaign or part of their own malformed mentality. The only reason any religion is successful is because people are prepared to follow it. Sheeple as bobbo so eloquently puts it. That comes from laziness, it’s much easier to follow than it is to lead.
LOL – #63 Mr. Paradox, I’d bet that not one Christian in a hundred has heard that story. Pastors preaching sermons showing their own god’s true demonic nature don’t really fill the pews on a Sunday morning, and truth should never be allowed to get in the way of a good commercial enterprise.
The prophet and sorcerer Elisha had all the flair of the great Voldemort, but much less humanity and charm. He and his god were in a particularly foul mood that day, and those children picked the wrong prophet to taunt.
Can you say “mauled by bears,” boys and girls?
Good story, John. I’ll come back for more when I stop having night terrors over this one 😉
Sensorship is here! Try to see this clip on YouTube and this is what you get:
“This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community. To view this video or group, please verify you are 18 or older by signing in or signing up.”
BTW Norway was inches away from passing the blasphemy law a couple of weeks back, when it dawned upon media what was going on. A public outcry and the marginal political group trying to sneak the law in had to give it up. But is was a close call!
I am not a christian, nor jew, nor muslim. But wow people I wish you all would stop saying that christians, jews and muslims act like animals because of their religion.
Anyone with half a brain that read their books could tell you that these animals that terrorise others are NOT adherents to their proclaimed faiths. They are wolves in sheep clothing.
Now Guy (#64). There are NO seven deadly sins. That’s catholic nonsense. In scriptural there are hundreds of sins and ALL are deadly. Sin = Death.
It is NOT in the dna of a human to be a monster nor to be a saint. Nurture turns people into monsters not nature. No one is born a thief or a murderer or a rapist. Just as no one is born a sharing, caring loving person.
We must LEARN those things.
Emotions are constructs of the mind based on our reactions and the reactions of others in our social groups from external factors. If you raised a child in a family where the construct of love meant control and abuse, then that child will grow up to be that way as well without some form of intervention from another social group.
I know this to be true. He was my father. He was the product of 3 previous generations of abusive and anti-social upbringing. His father molested every one of his 15 children, male or female. He did this not for sex, but control. To instill control, as his father had and the father before.
I lived the consequences of nurture from a bad group. It was not dna that made my father the way he was. It was the bond of a parent being broken due to sociopathic behaviour.
I have been in the world thank you kindly. I had many years of abnormal psych on the job training. Humans do not possess instinct nor racial memory. Humans must learn everything and it is because of that they can more quickly adapt than any other creature on the planet.
Also Guy, maybe you didn’t get the memo. There is only one race of humans on this planet. And we are all in it. Racism is a lie. Another muddled construct of a human mind trying to convince itself that if people are different I don’t HAVE to feel guilty when I kill them. It is another learned sociopathic ideal.
Cursor_
#67–cursor==every year that goes by shows more and more complex behavior in man and nature to have more genetics involved than initially thought. Are we so “neutral” and “everything is learned?” I don’t think so.
“No one is born a thief or a murderer or a rapist. Just as no one is born a sharing, caring loving person.” /// I think just the opposite. Maybe not everyone==but some or even most? If you could raise a human being all alone and at age 18 put that person in a room with a baby, would that person eat it, or raise/nurture it? Why does this hypothetical sound impossible–we know that people need people, thats not learned either.
Probably much of the reason you overcame your family circumstances is because of your genetics. Same if your siblings succumbed.
Everything we do is NOT learned. There is luck, chance, circumstances in all that we are. Most of us have to overcome some part of our early learning to ever becoming who we “truly are.” Lucky when we do, always helpful to have someone around to help us learn how to do it.
#54 – Jezcoe,
I heard that from a lecturer at the New York Academy of Sciences. I’ll keep searching for a better reference. However, this suggests that what I state is likely. It just doesn’t make as strong an assertion. I’ll search more tomorrow.
http://tinyurl.com/aaeedv
I thought the resolution at issue was a voluntary one in that whoever passed it at the UN asked for member nations to voluntarily commit themselves to it? That sounds like the highest form of democracy and freedom possible.
On a related issue, I wonder just what the “membership” requirements to be part of the UN are? What are the benefits? The consequences of not joining? Is providing a forum for any nation to address other countries a valuable thing in itself or should we begin dividing the world up into us/them? How could the UN advance any moral issue at all if USA, Russia, China, Korea, Sudan etc are all members. I think the UN could do valuable things without the Sudan in it, but not without the big 8?
Voluntary cooperation. Interesting concept.
When I play the Lou Dobbs video, there is a red rectangular insert covering the CNN logo which now contains defamatory language. Someone has hacked the video. Just a heads up to avoid problems!
The UN is a joke at this point.
#71 Best hack I’ve seen in a long time.
Stormcoder: I do not disagree with your premise but, to be accurate, Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion. That said, it has become contaminated (especially by Hindu influences in SE Asia) and is often TREATED as a religion. Monks are not priests they are teachers/academics. Or more often, freeloaders – but that’s for a different thread.
# 74 Nimby said, “I do not disagree with your premise but, to be accurate, Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion.”
Actually, it is a religious philosophy. It deals with the spiritual nature of man.
/random pre-coffee thoughts..
business as usual
-i gather this is just a small taste of the
what the new New World Order/Globalists will bring to your table..
(same as the old world order, tbh)
sounds like the Powers That Be want to make sure humanity remains supremely divided at all costs.
-nothing has the ability to divide people faster than religion.
i think now more than ever, there lies the potential for much of the globe at large to unite under one cause. (due in no small
part, -to the internet)
this is obviously a very dangerous thing to those who gaze from the top of the pyramid.
i can think of no better way to permanently divide humanity than to make such a law “global”
those that wish to govern the globe are moving at light speed on many fronts
some pretty dark irony that this comes from a body called the “United” Nations..
but then the UN was backed in part, by the
Rockefellers, so i guess this is all “part of the plan”
this is some pretty dangerous stuff.
add to that, this dangerous internet bill in the House masquerading as another “save the children bill”
HR 1076:
http://govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1076
-its quite obvious the internet is in the bullseye of the NWO…an informed public is
a government’s worst enemy..
-s
Secular Humanism is still a religion in the U.S. of A. See Torcaso vs. Watkins. This has never been contradicted by any subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
The Humanists pretend this aint so, so they can use their phony “separation of religion from state” ruling. Every time the Humanist domination of the government schools is challenged, they use a Humanist judge to decide for “political correctness.”
#77 Justice Black declaring secular humanism to be a religion in one dicta does not make it so – this is an “appeal to authority” argument that is pretty weak at best. In the US people like yourself try to argue that atheism is a religion – hence your confusion over religious freedom.
I’m all for religious freedom and expression of faith. It’s necessary in a free society. When people with our point of view try to narrow the concept of religious freedom then it threatens a free society.
#78, It was on the basis of Secular Humanism being a religion and the freedom of religion that there was the right to conscientious objection exemption from being drafted into the Viet Nam war. So it was foundational to the decision.
Oops, meant “your point of view” in last paragraph. I’m not the Buddha or the Pope. 😉
The Church of Human Secularists huh? I thought it was a characterization of the many people who think that you can be moral without being in a cult? As well as those not quite ready to come out of the closet as a full blown atheist?
Philosophy/Religion/Concept===who cares when you have a political point to make?
#79 Again appeal to authority – you missed the point. Religious freedom also implies freedom from religion. When you deny people that basic freedom by claiming everyone is in a religion, whether they like it or not, then freedom is diminished.
You also have a pretty narrow of the status of conscientious objection – religious principles, which is respect, are only one of many grounds.
Darn, forgot to mention for the third time now the bigger danger: Defamation of the Government. I think the UK has some of that floating around too?
Yep, as a big anti-theist, I’d much rather keep my mouth shut about religion than having to keep it shut about my government/society/leaders.
Its the same camel, just a bigger hump.
#82, Unfortunately, Secular Humanism wants religious freedom without any separation of “church” and state. So out of one side of their mouths they are a religion; out of the other side they are atheist and therefore not a religion. Buddhism is also atheist and still a religion.
Conscientious objection originally was a religious exemption for secular Humanists. They have a highest object of devotion and a moral code based upon that highest object of devotion. But they had to be conscientious about it.
I was taught in school (like you were) that since there are SO many religions the schools have to go by the world view of Secular Humanism — because it is not a religion. Thus the religion of Secular Humanism became the controlling religion of the schools!
Secular Humanism and Atheism is not tracked/listed/recognized as a religion by those who are the most interested in such things:
http://valpo.edu/geomet/geo/courses/geo200/religion.html
#79 Timuchin wrote, “It was on the basis of Secular Humanism being a religion and the freedom of religion that there was the right to conscientious objection exemption from being drafted into the Viet Nam war. So it was foundational to the decision.”
No! However the footnoted obiter dictum remark by Justice Black concerning Secular Humanism may have been used subsequent to the “Torcaso v. Watkins” decision, it absolutely was NOT foundational to the legal reasoning for that decision. As a matter of fact, Roy Torcaso was a professed atheist and was not even claiming Secular Humanism as his religion. He was simply claiming that Maryland’s requirement to declare faith in God in order to hold office was unconstitutional.
The following quote shows the crux of the legal reasoning for the Supreme Court’s decision, and it applies equally to non-believers as well as those who have religions which do not profess a belief in god:
#85, It is to the government school’s highest interest to NOT consider Secular Humanism to be a religion! Try an impartial source.
#86, Justice Black had to find a way out of the draft for atheists. Freedom of religion alone couldn’t do it, obviously. So he claimed Roy Torcaso to be a Secular Humanism as his religion, to get him under the freedom of religion clause. Roy Torcaso was trying the straight path of trying to overthrow the whole “freedom of religion” concept — which absolutely wouldn’t work. Not the first time a Humanist has lied for one of his own…
#88 Timuchin, it would seem that you’re the liar, not Justice Black. There is only one place in Black’s opinion where Secular Humanism is even mentioned, and it’s in footnote 11, and no claim whatsoever is made in the decision that Torcaso was a secular humanist. Where did you hear that lie, and why did you repeat it without verifying it?
You must be getting your legal information from your pastor. Either that, or you’ve been breathing too much of that religious “incense.” Roy Torcaso was appointed by the governor of Maryland as a notary public, but refused to lie in order to satisfy Maryland’s constitutional requirement that any office holder affirm a belief in God. It appears he may have been just a little too honest, which is more than I can say for you.
click here to read about “Torcaso v. Watkins”
I did my own research on the matter. I admit it was over six years ago. Yes, Torcaso was an atheist. Yes, the case was not about the draft. The resulting decision was used as precedent for conscientious objector exemption from the draft. So the concept that atheism is a religion was further established in precedent.
Justice Black came up with the definition of a religion that Torcaso could fit and then redefined the constitution to say “religion” instead of “belief in God.” No one overthrew it. Devious of him, wasn’t it?
You’re still missing the point of the decision, Timuchin. Black did NOT redefine (your word) the Maryland constitution to say “religion” instead of “belief in God.” He struck down the requirement as unconstitutional, which is quite a different thing entirely.
In other words, Black didn’t claim that Torcaso met the requirement by being a secular humanist as you seem to imply in your second paragraph (and prior comments), but instead Black said that no such requirement can be legally made of an office holder without violating the U.S. Constitution.
Why is it so hard for you to understand this?
Temuchin. It sounds like you have strong religious beliefs and I’m glad you live in a country where you can practice them openly and without fear of persecution. However, your arguments rate about a 9 out of 10 on the BS meter. For example, in the US conscientious objector laws go back to the Civil War. Justice Black’s opinion was in a footnote which reflects his personal opinion.
But mainly, to use the word “secular” and “religion” together is an oxymoron.