It is the hypocrisy of the "church" that drives people away from that institution. Do as we say not as we do. … Hypocrisy is not a redeemable quality to admire and it harms the very pertinent message some are trying to convey.

You are absolutely correct, and that is the major stumbling block of religious belief in general. It is one thing to preach (as others denigratingly say) and quite another to live the principles. This issue is raised quite often in the New Testament. People who are hearers only, rather than doers, are just in need of correction as anyone else. Christ’s central message was that people needed to internalize and live the principles of religion, rather than having a rote set of rules to beat each other up with.

lets change "church" to "community" and instead of relying on religious dogma and doctrine lets instead rely on "personal responsibility".

But don't separate them. Church is an integral part of ‘community’ (or should be). Your message here is pretty much, “whatever source works”. I don’t disagree with that. I’m not saying church should be the only source of morality, but it is certainly a very important one. The problem is that in Western society, there is an active effort from many sources to completely uncouple religious faith from the public discourse. How can we establish a moral people when we have a sector of “the community” which seeks to muffle one of the best sources of moral guidance that exists?

I would put it forward that this tendency to belittle, ignore, or segregate religious faith from the public “community” is one of the main reasons WHY we have so many bullies and other ‘bad people’ in the community to begin with. Popular entertainment almost exclusively portrays people of faith in a negative light. Government seeks to shut out faith completely from public sight. You can’t talk about it in schools. Internet forums are crawling with those hostile to religious faith. It is a poisonous atmosphere that undermines one of the most important sources in the community for moral guidance.

i believe it all starts with parenting.

I agree. In fact, if a religion does not actively seek to support and advance a strong family unit then it is not a very good religion.

I would say look at your magic book for guidance


Nr 5. "You shall not kill!" "You shall not murder!"


but it seems you guys figured it all out for yourselves..

wikipedia:
"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Damn theres always a loophole...

[redacted]

There is little point in attempting further debate because:

1) You do not even understand what the word debate means.

2) You are not taking the opposing view in the debate, but a third view which you are trying to insert in the middle.

>> ^Mcboinkens:
A debate is a discussion involving more than one viewpoint, so yes, this is in fact a debate.
I already stated my thoughts on morality, it's in one of the other posts I have from earlier. But to amuse you, I'll go ahead and discuss the issue at hand once again.
I suppose my viewpoint is a bit of both of the ideas you presented. The New Testament does indeed lay down a general guidance to behavior based on the life of Jesus. I don't recall too many actual laws that it lays down but I'm not a Biblical scholar. You are, however, confusing morality with choice. A person can choose what they do, but that by no means makes it moral. It's entirely possible that God gave man morals, and sin corrupted it. It's also entirely possible that morality comes from man, since there is no evidence for either side. That's why it's called faith. If there was any complete evidence for or against religion, it'd lead to a pretty big upheaval of one side. That's what makes it so interesting!

[redacted]

@Porksandwich

Definitely. Whatever happend to apprenticeship? Me, as a programmer, I would have loved the chance to get involved in a real company as a part of my education and have some guidance from someone working inside the industry. Give the company a bit of money for the effort, in exchange the students get real-world experience and can build a net of contacts and the companies can pick out talents. Mix the work with studies in theory, maybe the companies would even pick up new processes and advancements from the academic world through the students.

>> ^Porksandwich:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/chtierna" title="member since September 25th, 2008" class="profilelink">chtierna
I understand the stresses of it, but a lot of it is brought about by the attitude that you need 99% graduation and 99% job placement. and 99% this and that.
And I know university classes are about learning to think instead of learning subject matter or how to. But if this is the case then cheating is not helping. And allowing cheating is not helping. But their goals are now primarily "making money" instead of education. So that said, I wish they would venture a little and do the 4 year program but allow students who complete the 4 year do 6-12 months of "trade school" type projects where they learn to put their education into practical applications. Even allow businesses to give the school some hardware/money/whatever to let the students finish these projects in this period of time. And allow for people to apply themselves directly to work projects while being able to have access to the school faculty, that way they can find deficiencies in their teaching and fix them plus allow students to find their weaknesses and address them through a little research of their own and application.
It always frustrates me to see how much people embellish on their resumes and their job descriptions when you see what they actually do. But this comes from there being no baseline for comparison, some people get paid less and do much more difficult work but it's presented less........."colorfully" on their resume than the higher paid stuff.

I know they have professors help military bases with teaching programs and such and even consult with businesses. I don't see a problem with businesses working more closely with universities to get some cheap/free work out of it, find some potential hires and make both the school and the business more attractive to current and potential employees.
At least then it could potentially lead to another revenue source for the university that doesn't harm the students by allowing cheaters to ruin the program. Might even convince more undergrads to go into graduate programs if they do the work and find they really like portions of it and want to specialize.

Downvoting because that is some awful reporting. Here is a New York Times article:

Health Rules Are Waived More Often
By REED ABELSON
Published: November 9, 2010

As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.

Concerned about the potential disruption that would be created by enforcing the new rules, the administration has granted dozens of additional waivers and also made clear that it would modify other rules affecting these policies. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services issued more guidance, saying it would use a different method of calculating spending for these plans so they would be able to meet new regulations dictating how insurers should use the premium dollars they collect.

While critics say these moves could water down the new law, the administration says it is responding to concerns from employers and others that many workers have no other alternative. The new rules also require that the policies clearly say how much coverage they provide and that they do not satisfy the law’s new standards.

“This new guidance helps improve transparency so that consumers know the value and quality of the plan they have,” said Steve Larsen, the director of oversight in the agency’s office of consumer information and insurance oversight. “In 2014, higher-quality coverage will be offered at an affordable price in the new exchanges. Until then, the annual waiver process preserves limited benefit plans offered by employers, preventing significant premium increase or loss of access.”

But a spokesman for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat who favored strict rules on insurance company spending, said he planned to hold a hearing on the issue.

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Darden said the waiver would allow it to offer employees access to affordable coverage as the health care law is started.

In addition to granting waivers, the administration also said it would establish a different way of calculating the spending for these plans for the first year that “takes into account the special circumstances of minimed plans.”

Whether the change is voluntary or not doesn't affect the argument of whether religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives, so I fail to see the relevance.
Nor did I draw that conclusion from that argument. My point was that religion has been on a constant retreat in the battle against science and reason over truth claims about the world. Every battle has been fought with the intention of winning ground, and every battle has been lost by religion. "God" has been relegated back to more and more diffuse gaps in our knowledge. Later in my post I argue that the same is true for the moral wisdom contained in religion, it ought to be subject to the same beating as religions claims about the natural world has been, because I cant see religion excel in any area of moral wisdom.

Next, dismissing entire religions because of the actions of a few individuals is just illogical

Oh not this shit again. Nowhere in my post did I say so, and you know it. If you are referring to the comment about the Catholic child-rape, you fail to see my point completely. YOU claimed, and keep claiming, that religion is, or can be, a useful guide to leading a moral life, finding happiness and so on. Well, if what you say is true, institutions like the Catholic church ought to be beacons of light for the rest of us. Countries ruled by the likes of Taliban and the top clerics in Iran ought to be countries with the best possible human rights records, because after all, the laws they govern by are taken directly from the sources of wisdom themselves, our cherished holy books. Show me a society that has positively benefitted from adopting a more, not less, religious stance, and your claim might have some merit.

My point about bringing up the disgusting actions of the current leadership of the catholic church, is that obviously, religion hasn't helped at all. Perhaps it didn't make things worse either in this case, but we have to remember that its not ME who claims the catholic church is to be seen as a source of profound wisdom and morality, nor do I think adhering to catholic doctrine will help you make better moral decisions. it is the church itself who make these claims, and you, by saying things like "religion can be a useful tool in helping us find happiness in our lives"

Finally, you dismiss religious work because they were written by our ancestors.

Wrong again. I didn't dismiss it because it was written by our ancestors, I dismissed it because it quite obviously doesn't live up to the reputation you are trying to give it. But if it was truly, say, inspired by an eternal , real god, it really ought to live up to at least some degree. So when it doesn't... Why? Because it was manmade. made by people with flaws like you and me, and even worse, it was made thousands of years ago, by people who knew so little about the world they lived in. In a time where the world map was probably the size of maybe Israel and Egypt combined. And considering the circumstances they lived in, I dont blame them for being less then perfect, and much of what they wrote is certainly interesting, and stories like Genesis are fascinating insights into their minds and how they thought about the world. But as far as shedding light on the actual origin of our universe, it is as useless as Deuteronomy is in moral guidance.

And no, you shouldn't dismiss the constitution because it was written in the past, you should judge it like anything else on its actual contents and its track record.

Halt! Ich bin ein Offizier des Gesetzes! Alle von euch, Papiere bitte.

The Godwin is so easy, but its exactly why we have a constitution that allows for citizens the right to be free.

This law does exactly what I feared. Stop and Identify, no you are not free to go. You must first Identify.

The problem with this law, is that it will enable racial profiling, to be legal, when at the federal level it is not legal.

So just because I look Slavic, Irish, or Russian means that I have to identify? Perhaps if the majority where a darker pigmentation then the whites would have to stop and identify? Its so uncomplicated from a place of relative comfort. I weep for the state of Arizona's civil rights, where it is not so civil to be right.

See the link below for the Federal Stance on Racial Profiling, section 1 I. GUIDANCE FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS ENGAGED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/guidance_on_race.php

>> ^joedirt:

she is an idiot.
You can find even worse examples in the Torah or Bible. So this is retarded. Yes, life WAS different hundreds of years ago.


Did you even watch the video? Whether or not life was different is irrelevant. Muslims look to the life of Muhammed as an example of how to live.

I admire Caesar and Genghis Khan as strategists and leaders, but at the same time I can recognise that both were guilty of what would be considered hideous atrocities in modern times. As such, I don't look to them for moral guidance. Unfortunately, Muhammed is not viewed with the same filter.

I really disliked this film. Terrible storytelling, weak characters, and an over reliance on CGI. It's the George Lucas Phantom Menace syndrome: Give a director a $200,000,000 budget, and they spend all their time figuring out how to spend all that money, rather than focussing on creating a worthwhile piece of art.

Johnny Depp's Mad hatter, whom gets almost as much screen time as the bland lead, consists of drag queen make up and an effeminate voice, which occasionally shifts to a Braveheart brogue. It comes across more as self indulgent mugging from an actor who has received no directorial guidance than any kind of actual insanity.

In Burton's earlier years, when his budgets were a fraction of what they are now, he told truly imaginative stories, with great characters and heartfelt performances. Movies like Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and The Nightmare Before Christmas were cinematic masterpieces in my opinion.

The scene above is the precise moment when my disappointment turned to contempt. Issy and I actually turned to each other in the theater to verify that it was not a hallucination. (/disappointed fan-boy rant)

If you are reading this Tim Burton, here's your assignment, should you decide to take it:

Make a film for under 10 million dollars. You are not allowed to use your wife or Johnny Depp as cast members. The script must be original and not an adaptation of some previously existing work. Use models, stop motion, or whatever other effects you like, but keep the CGI to a bare minimum.

>> ^Stormsinger:
@<A rel="nofollow" href="http://farhad.videosift.com" title="member since August 10th, 2006" class="profilelink"><STRONG style="color:#DCDCDC">Farhad2000
Then the people who caused this crisis would probably not be getting multi-million dollar bonuses this year (while millions have no job at all), would they? From my personal point of view, it's damned hard to see how things could have turned out worse...I've lost everything I worked for over the last 35 years, and we're just a few months from finding ourselves living on the street. This, in spite of the fact that I had not one thing to do with this crisis. I, and millions like me, are paying the price, instead of those who actually caused it.
Honestly, you really think that taking advice from the very people who caused the problem is the best course? If they are so knowledgeable and bright, how did we get here? Why didn't they see it coming beforehand?
I believe the answers are pretty plain. They're -not- bright and knowledgeable...they're short-sighted and greedy, and don't give a damn who gets hurt as long as they continue to pull in huge amounts of unearned wealth. They should be doing hard time, rather than being asked for guidance.
Sadly, it's quite plain that nothing meaningful is going to be done to ensure that it won't happen again. So, to judge by history, we'll see another such crisis in a decade or so.


Just want you to know...I'm in the same boat.

I am a few hundred dollars away from losing everything.

@Farhad2000
Then the people who caused this crisis would probably not be getting multi-million dollar bonuses this year (while millions have no job at all), would they? From my personal point of view, it's damned hard to see how things could have turned out worse...I've lost everything I worked for over the last 35 years, and we're just a few months from finding ourselves living on the street. This, in spite of the fact that I had not one thing to do with this crisis. I, and millions like me, are paying the price, instead of those who actually caused it.

Honestly, you really think that taking advice from the very people who caused the problem is the best course? If they are so knowledgeable and bright, how did we get here? Why didn't they see it coming beforehand?

I believe the answers are pretty plain. They're -not- bright and knowledgeable...they're short-sighted and greedy, and don't give a damn who gets hurt as long as they continue to pull in huge amounts of unearned wealth. They should be doing hard time, rather than being asked for guidance.

Sadly, it's quite plain that nothing meaningful is going to be done to ensure that it won't happen again. So, to judge by history, we'll see another such crisis in a decade or so.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^cindercone:
The point I was making is this: I propose that since our current society is Theologically based, the conversion to rational reasoning would be disastrous. Society would fail. If I proposed this, you might argue my proposal. You would argue that the new ascendant rationale could not be determined in advance, or you would argue that rational reasoning would ascend. So either an unknown reasoning would emerge, or we would be dependent upon a historically flawed human assumption of rational reasoning for anything short of total anarchy. THAT is the proof.

First of all, "society" has frequently changed the structure on which it is based throughout history, and though it has gone through some tough times as a result, it doesn't simply "fail". Furthermore, the fear of the outcome of such a change has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of religion in the first place.
Because of the nature of theological indoctrination, even in ideal circumstances it would take generations to remove religion from society. During that time, people will develop other moral codes, whether it is "enlightened self-interest" or something else. Those ethics will be hotly debated, but at least they won't be founded on irrational fairy tales, and therefor will not be available for use as justification for war.
>> ^cindercone:
Obviously, HE doesn’t spend the emotional energy arguing nuclear proliferation and abortion. For him to imply that gay marriage and abortion are issues that are only emotionally contested because of the presence of theology is ridiculous.
How can you say that? It is patently obvious that abortion and gay marriage are only contested on theological grounds. Even if you could find examples of non-religious people who are anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (which I doubt), those would be so few in number as to be laughable.
The point is that these issues are stupid fights that are distracting people from the real threats to society. In order to move attention from a distraction to a real issue, you have to attack the distraction.


The fallacy here is that the smallness of the number of anti-abortion or anti-gay Atheists would be ridiculous while the smallness of the number of Atheists themselves wouldn't.
What is the percentage of Atheists that hold conservative such as anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion? I don't know. You don't either. In this context any counter proof for your feeling that there ain't no such people can't be simply dismissed on the grounds of being numerically insignificant.

All that said I'm an anti gay marriage Atheist. And in fact, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality from the 1930's up to it's dissolution. The law was only repealed in 1993. None of the 5 current communist states accept gay marriage either. Since communism is a generally Atheist ideology, there you have your share of anti gay marriage Atheists, historically and currently.

Just please let's not get on logical implication nonsense here. I know Atheism doesn't imply Communism. I'm not a Communist myself. But it's the other way around: Communism largely implies Atheism. Plus Communism provides you with the one instance of an Atheist society, so it's quite relevant to determine what kind of morals can exist in the absence of religious guidance.

>> ^maximillian:
So what? People of like faith asking God for guidance? It's not like their forcing prayer on someone else. The participants are all Christians. If it was any other religion other than Christianity then this would not be news. But today it's so hip to bash on Christianity and protect every other signal religion. I used to like some of Rachel Maddow's commentaries but this is such a none-issue that it seems like she has nothing better to do.


downvote