Roman Empire fell asleep when it got spoiled.
British Empire fell asleep when it got spoiled.
American Empire fell asleep in front of American Gladiators.

His view of morality as relative to a strong society makes perfect sense -- though I don't agree with his take on it, I understand the justifications he's using. He doesn't disagree with the tendency for people to engage in homosexual relationships, as he likens it to prostitution, "The reason you don't glorify it John [sic] anymore than you glorify whores," and then follows with "Now we all know people go to whores, and we all know that people are [sic] just do that, we all have weaknesses and so forth." Just amazing to hear him speak his mind so candidly. I just wanna know where he's getting his facts about homosexuality destroying the Roman empire. Oh, and popes sleeping with nuns? rofl much?

Only right-wing USA still has this old fashioned, Roman Empire attitude:
That you are either invading someone or your weak enough to be invaded.

Stop acting like a fully armed and ready military is the only think keeping the barbarians from the gate! ITS NOT TRUE ANYMORE.

The Roman Empire was full of itself and thought it was unsinkable, all powerful, and would last for an eternity. Their own hubris led to their empires demise. They were their own worst enemy. Very much similar to what goes on today in today's global empires. Ultimately they will collapse in on themselves. Nothing lasts forever.

Neither side should be supported; they are both despicable.

I do, from time to time, wonder who has 'rightful ownership' of that land.

If you accept the British Mandate as legit, then the Palestinians fired the first shot. It might be understandable that the Palestinians didn't like the influx of Jews at that time, but it was as legit as the British Mandate. The original Jewish settlers acquired their land by purchasing it, so they were settlers, not invaders. The Palestinians initiated the violence.

If you don't accept the British Mandate, then I don't know what to go on. In ancient times, Gaza was held by Egypt. It was conquered by the Philistines, then the Israelites, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks and Judeans. It was later incorporated into the Roman Empire, then later conquered by the Rashidun Empire. All of this before 640CE. Do we draw a line in time at which point conquest is no longer a valid form of obtaining land and grant rights to the occupants at that time? If not, then isn't what's happening now just conquest by the Jews?

In the end, I guess it doesn't matter. No matter what anyone thinks, these two sides will probably battle until one ceases to exist. The best we can probably hope for is that in a few more generations, the hate will have died down.

The US should not be supporting Israel in this fight. We shouldn't be supporting anyone. It's not our fight.

I think the world just needs to carve a territory out of somewhere in the middle east and call it Palestine. Just like they did for Israel. Arbitrarily give them some chunk of land at least 2 miles away from Israel. The 2 mile buffer must be an uninhabited demilitarized zone. Put the Palestinians in this new country and never the twain shall meet again. Not realistic I know, but that's what needs to happen. There will never be a solution to this mess if the two people are allowed to remain in proximity to each other. They just need to 'moat' off Isreal from its terrorist neighbors and then any violence becomes a matter of internal Isreali security.

Who should give up the Territory? Two options depending on how you view it...

1. The United States should create a 51st state "Palestine" from its own territory. This is because the US was (primarily) the one that took away all the Palestinian land after WW2 and displaced its people. All the Palestinans get relocated to this New Palestine and it is ceded to them forever. Maybe we should give them Rhode Island...

2. Italy should create a new country "Isreal" from its own territory. This is because Isreal was destroyed by the Roman Empire which took away all the Isreali land, scattered its people, and turned it into Palestine. All Isrealis are are relocated to this New Isreal and it is ceded to them forever. Maybe they should give them Sicily...

Yeah, the rocket attacks were bad.

So were the multiple tank sorties by the Israelis over the last 20 years. So was the original creation of the state of Israel where Jewish imigrants pushed out the Syrians who owned the area. Then we can go back to the Saracen empire, the Romans empire, Moses fucking over the heathens etc etc etc.

Imo the heathens got a raw deal and the whole area should go back to them...

Let's get over who through the first fucking stone. Pre-emptively invading a country is wrong, starving people is wrong, rocket attacks are wrong.

Backing either side is wrong, condemning both and encouraging them to work their shit out is pretty much the only course of action if you're going to get involved either way. Enabling either side (with monetary/military aid) merely increases the conflict and precipitates another humanitarian disaster (like we need more of those atm).

Withdraw all support. When both sides have run out of food and guns and are willing to play nice, organise peace talks.

Surely America has the stomach for that, it would cost a hell of a lot less than the Iraqi expedition for oil (in money and lives). Might even ease the suffering of thousands of people who live in constant fear...

I see what you mean.

I am shocked that people of faith are offended by equality, as this is the fundamental teaching of Jesus the man. Even in the UK constitution, the Magna Carta dating to 1215AD, it is written that Equality is mandatory before and after law. The highest law in the UK and the commonwealth is the Queen's bible, for the sole reason of equality.

Equality is about love and compassion. This was the message that Jesus delivered - that we are ALL the sons of God and no man can be higher than any other man. These words of truth are so powerful that they brought the entire mighty and brutal Roman Empire to its knees within 400 years.

Equality is a hard swallow. Why should a murderer or a rapist have equal human rights of an honourable and peaceful man? Well, this mindset of equality of the Christian movement kicked in the doors of power and brutality in Rome. It is extremely powerful, we have forgotten how powerful, and we have changed the message and the scriptures and blurred the edges to make it difficult to grasp.

But given further thought you start to realise that man is not capable of drawing a line in the sand and has no right to take away another man's God given natural rights. This is an ancient and fundamental truth which is the message of religious scriptures including the bible. Extend love, compassion and understanding and not judgement.

Mankind has grappled with this for 2,000 years. I grappled with it for about 20.

I wish you the very best of luck on your journey. Peace be with you.
S.




In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
The message is honourable, ethical and both assumes and promotes equality between all human beings.

The 1st two 'stanzas' are neutral but the 3rd stanza is insulting to people of faith. And Gregoire really does look like the Grinch!

Ironically, despite internecine bickering, it's religions that state all human life is equal in the eyes of God.

If you feel it is obnoxious, then you are saying that human rights and equality are offensive and highly objectionable.

Are you offended by human rights and equality QM?

I am offended by what has been done in the name of both terms.

Freedom and equality are eternal and natural enemies; too much of either causes serious trouble.

Right now "equality" is too strong and thus freedom is weak.

Political equality can be insulting and deconstructive, depending on who wields that particular scepter. Communistic equality of outcomes, equality of pay for unequal workloads and pretending that inferior methods of doing things are equal in value to a superior method are all harmful to society.

The definition of "human rights" has expanded its sphere to include the ludicrous.

I was an atheist roughly half my life and know the enormous pleasure of thinking oneself superior to people who needed a "delusional force" to survive. While I could claim possibly being happier than someone guilt-racked by fundamentalism, I could never claim I was happier than most religious people.

Neither side of the religion/atheist argument is one-dimensional. There are rational people of faith, including geniuses a-plenty, and fools for a myriad of reasons besides their being atheists.

>> ^jmzero:
I find it odd that they wonder at the origin of the taboo on criticizing religion. To me, it's clear where this came from: thousands of years of wars started by religions being unable to co-exist.

A couple points. First, there wouldn't be wars started by religion unless it was already taboo to criticize religion.

Second, it's not really true that there have been thousands of years of religious wars. The phenomenon of the holy war is really only found in monotheistic faiths. The Romans certainly didn't start wars with people because of religion (though they certainly found all sorts of other reasons). The Greeks didn't. Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains have peacefully coexisted for thousands of years. Buddhism spread peacefully into China, Japan, and Korea.

Monotheistic faiths haven't really had the political power to engage in religious wars until about 1500 years ago, when Christians really locked up rule of the dying Roman Empire--and they really started ratcheting up as the Catholic Church took political control of Europe and Islam unified the Middle East.

>> ^legacy0100:

etc etc...
Also interesting to note that in their books, famous historians like Gibbon and Machiavelli argued that succession of power by blood was the the mark of Roman empire's downfall ( COUGH BUSH COUGH )


By that "logic" the US has been in a downfall since the 6th president (COUGH ADAMS COUGH)

You know... towards the second golden years of Roman Empire (not the republic age), most Emperors of Rome (particularly the 5 good emperors) were of non-native descent, meaning born and raised outside of Italia.


Trajanus - Born Southern Spain

Hadrianus - Born Southern Spain

Antonius Pius - Born Southern France

Marcus Aurelius - son of Praetor, Spanish descent

Pertinax - Son of Freed slave, Gaellic descent.

Septimius Severus - Born in Lybia

Caracalla - Born in France

etc etc...
Also interesting to note that in their books, famous historians like Gibbon and Machiavelli argued that succession of power by blood was the the mark of Roman empire's downfall (*COUGH BUSH COUGH*)

It sounds to me, gwiz665, as if your beef is not really with religion, but with malignant ideological authoritarianism. But this isn't a problem merely in religion. Communist China and the Russia are/were both atheist, and are both committed to the veracity of science, and yet their subjection to ideological authoritarianism has seriously set back scientific progress in both countries. Russia failed to study statistics after WWII, for instance, because it was perceived to be out of line with party ideology.

It has only been in areas of ideological tolerance--for both religious and scientific thought--that any major scientific advances have occurred in the last two hundred years. I believe your animus toward religion is misplaced. While religion has frequently been a transmitter of malignant authoritarianism, I would submit that this is not because of irrational elements within religion, but because of the widespread acceptance of religious thought. It was easier for authoritarian attitudes and ideas to spread through this medium as a result. If some other ideology becomes widespread, then it acts as the vector by which authoritarianism is spread. Communism acted as such a vector, as I noted, (Communism does not, in itself, mandate authoritarianism) as has nationalism in causing World Wars I and II.

Denouncing religion in favor of science will only render science itself subject to the same social and historical forces, thus perverting it and rendering far less effective.

In addition, your understanding of religion is, as I noted, extremely flawed. You do not seem to grasp the implication of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy." Here it is: Primarily orthopraxic religions do not have creeds. Thus, there are no creeds to submit to. Only a general sense of what moral principles to act on, and the performance of a few ritual acts. This leads to vast diversity in all areas of thought, including the ethical. (Compare Stoicism to Epicureanism to Cynicism sometime. Then remember that they arose from the same culture with the same religion.)

"Supernatural" elements do not always require faith. "Faith" does not always mean "unquestioning belief."

During the Dark Ages--classified by historians as the first half of the medieval period, roughly 476 to 1000--there was relatively little religiously motivated violence. There was plenty of violence of other kinds, but Christianity was used as a tool to abate it to some extent. (There are exceptions, of course. There was the beheading of remnants of paganism in the Eastern Roman Empire, the bloody persecution by Charlemagne of pagans in the Saxon Wars, and the persecution of Norwegian heathens by King Olaf I. Without these three elements, there's a substantial chance some pagan religions might have survived.)

In the second half of the medieval period, the Crusades were not motivated merely, or even mainly, by Christianity. The Western Crusaders marching on Jerusalem murdered Christians just as readily as they murdered Muslims and Jews. They killed because they had been trained for war since childhood. Though there was a rise in violence caused by religion as evidenced by the Albigensian Crusades, which were religiously motivated, and the Inquisition.

I think it's obvious to some extent that aspects of most religions are in there to control the populace. But the same can be said of government. Government is far more explicitly "control over individuals way of life, their income, and their thoughts." Religion, in contrast, has far more often been an agent of change and rebellion in various cultures. That's how Christianity and Islam started--though there were elements of authoritarianism from the beginning. From a less authoritarian perspective, one also has Protestant Christianity, Sikhism, Mormonism, the Quakers, the Shakers, modern pagan revivalism, the Nation of Islam, Rastafarianism, Druze, and many more. Each of these religions was created explicitly to rebel against the authority structure of the day.

You really don't seem to have studied "religion" very much, Gwiz, and yet you're awfully quick to condemn it. I would recommend a great deal more study before consigning such an integral aspect of human experience to the great dustbin of history.

I've not seen Obama state that we need to give more support to Georgia. In fact, the charge was made that Obama's response wasn't forceful enough because, as Lieberman put it, it had a "moral ambiguity" as far as placing blame on either country (since Georgia isn't blameless).

I've also seen a lot of statements from the Obama campaign that "there's only one President", referring to a tradition of, well, not trying to undermine the President's authority in the midst of a crisis.

To the larger charge of their policy being the same, I think that's inaccurate -- they're similar in their view that America has a role to play on the world stage, and that our national interests involve places like Georgia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

The way they choose to deal with those challenges differs wildly.

Grampy McSame John McCain wants to forego diplomacy, and move straight into the military response phase with all of those guys (except Pakistan, oddly). Obama thinks diplomacy is in order, with military action being a last resort, not a first resort.

McCain believes in the right of the United States to act with total disregard of the international community, Obama seeks to work within the International community first, while reserving the right for unilateralism as a last resort.

It's true that both have a huge difference from Ron Paul's policy of total non-intervention, but I'm not sold on the concept that America should try to change instantly from it's current level of involvement to Switzerland in one go.

Obama moves us several steps towards Switzerland, McCain moves us closer to a Roman Empire model.

Much as I wish Ron Paul, or Bob Barr, or Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney had a shot at winning, they do not. Either Obama or McCain will be our 44th President.

If you believe in what Paul has to say about foreign policy, Obama's your guy.

Astronomers say the entire solar system is heating up:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

Solar physicists say that the current lack of sunspot activity may predict abrupt global cooling:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html
"solar scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is certain that it’s an indication of a coming cooling period."

Government studies say it's man made.
Conspiracy theorists say it's all a hoax.
Alex Jones (quite rightly) points out that CO2 feeds the trees.
Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal in London doesn't believe that humans will survive past the end of the century.


My thoughts -
Humans are killing the planet by our servitude to the unsustainable system of development we have created, and that is now our master. And how we *love* our servitude to it, and how it rewards us with shiny *things*.

The mess we are in now was completely predicted in the 1950s. Huxley and many others warned of it.

I believe the situation will have to get worse before the message of "doing something about it" will be potent enough to act as a catalyst for real change, real sacrifice, and a real return to the archaic.

This is how it has always been. Christianity would not have brought the Roman empire to its knees had the empire not been so brutal and destructive. The worse the situation, the more potent the spark of hope when it appears over the horizon.

*history, eh?

Tiny little division of the Roman Empire, great.

This humour totally belongs to *woohoo too.

And *geek for much of the humour. Like Air Newton.