The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

The bible is the inspired word of God, and your read of history leaves much to be desired. First, many of the books in the NT were considered canon around 140 AD, just as the early church was getting its start, and there was no conspiracy in selecting them. The only issue in the selection process was to weed out the gnostic writings and the uninspired works from the old testament era. Second, the RCC was not an institution until much later. By the time the bible was canonized in 367, the whole church was in agreement about what should be in it. There is also no evidence of editing. We have the early manuscripts and can check this.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

That's as biased a read of american history as I have ever heard. To say that Christianity had nothing to do with the founding of this country is patently absurd. If you want evidence, feel free to read my other post, or do some *unbiased* research. I suppose you have never seen the Mayflower Compact?

http://www.pilgrimhall.org/compact.htm

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

It's impossible for you to understand the bible without the Holy Spirit. It might as well have been written in swahili for the good that it did you reading it. The accuracy of the bible is not just a historical matter but also in how it describes the human condition. That's why you have those quotes you have to admit are undeniably true, because the bible tells us the reality of the human heart. Yes, of course the founders read it (many of them went to seminary). There were many books in those days, and many philosophies, but they specifically chose the bible, and books based on the bible, as references to draft our nations founding documents, which itself is well documented. Most of them believed the bible was the inspired word of God, which was the reason they used it, not because it was a "popular book of short stories".

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

Apparently you don't know but there was a defacto state religion; almost every state had its own church, and every state constitution mentioned God. Again, they held church every sunday in the house of representitives. Clearly the founders were not interested in removing religion from government, they were only concerned about the balance of power. The secular dream you think the founders had never existed; they loved God and deliberately included Him in public affairs. After they wrote the constitution, Washington declared a day of thanksgiving and praise to God

"to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God"

"http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/"

>> ^Hive13

@shinyblurry:

The bible isn't some mythical book written by some omnipotent being. It is a collections of short stories, carefully selected and complied by the Roman Catholic church 200 years after some guy names Jesus may or may not have lived. They were hand selected and occasionally edited to create a book that the Roman Catholic church could use to control and scare the pagan and outlying sects of early christianity under one banner.....theirs.

To say this nation was founded on Christian ideals is a complete and utter fallacy, one that has been force fed to you and every other American for decades. The entire revolutionary war and the rebellion against England had absolutely nothing to do with god or religion. It was due to the occupation of Boston, the taxes levied on everything imported or exported from the colonies and the fact that the colonials were fed up with totalitarian control from a king 3000 miles away. When those men were killed at The Boston Massacre in 1770, their religion, race or background played zero part in the aftermath and the birth of a revolution that soon followed.

Were members of the first Continental Congress religious? Of course. Were they highly educated and well read? Absolutely. The Bible was one of the most widely available books at that time and I am sure every one of them had read it. I am a staunch atheist and even I have read it cover to cover (ironically reinforcing my atheism). Of course references to the bible are in the early writings, documents and monuments of the day. The bible, while complete, man-made fiction, is still full of fairly useful and often poignant quotes.

Freedom of religion is as much freedom FROM religion and it is to practice whatever religions you want as you see fit. The separation of church and state was not only to avoid having a state religion, but to also avoid the church taking over the government as it had so many times in history. Sadly, we have fallen right back in the trap where religion, specifically CHRISTIAN religion, has as much impact on policy in the America government today as it did during the crusades in Europe when people's lives were dictated by what the church deemed appropriate and right and not the people as a whole. When you have a president of this nation saying that he went to war, ignoring Congress in the process, in the Middle East because god told him to, shit has gone WAY too far.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Meaning, that government gets its power from the people. Further, this power comes down from the Most High God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Has the government strayed far from the intentions of the founders? The answer is a resounding yes. It is most certainly becoming a police state. This is the broader trend in the world, that will eventually coalesce into a totalitarian one world government.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

I agree that our government is corrupt and acts contrary to our interests. However, I am not an anarchist. If a government is infringing upon our inherent rights or direct commands given to us by God, then yes I think we have the right under God to disobey them. Protesting rich people doesn't appear to fall under that category.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.

No, I say that if you receive an order from authority you can expect to be forced into compliance if you disobey that authority. My comment is about the way this incident was portrayed, as if the protesters were just arbitrarily sprayed without any warning.

As far as the occupy movement offering a redress of grievances, I hardly see how a bunch of marxists, and socialists waving communists flags, defecating in the streets, and shooting up in their tents addresses any relevant issue this country is facing. It started out with a point, and was quickly taken over by hippies, anarchists, and every other far left wingnut with a pet cause and a bucket for handouts.

Comparing this sad menagerie to the civil rights movement? Come on..

because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

This is just a shadow of what is to come. The future rule of the antichrist is going to make Nazi Germany look like candyland.



>> ^enoch:

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peacef.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

I guess it mostly has to do with how you were raised. I grew up with one semi-religious parent, and one Dawkins-style atheist parent. They never "indoctrinated" me about religion. If I asked questions, they'd answer, but they'd mostly say "I believe X, but you need to make up your own mind about things".

I would say that on most days I don't spend much time worrying about God. But I do understand spirituality. I do understand the religious mode of thinking, and prayer, and trying to commune with a supreme being. It's not in and of itself a bad thing -- all the dogma, the judgment, the hate, that's not an intrinsic component of it.

And there's nothing about atheism that precludes dogma, or bigotry, or hate, either.

I just like to be specific about what I don't like. I've got no beef with people who want to believe in God, it's the people who say "God told me to hate X" that I've got a beef with.

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.

If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.


_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:

[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.

No one has the right to disobey a lawful order. You cannot have a rule of law that way. If it is an unlawful order, that is a different story. If you want to protest, you also have to be willing to take the heat, and to be civilly disobedient and risk arrest. What you're hoping for is to gain public support and enact some change in the mind of the public, which will hopefully led to a change in the system. That's the way it works. I don't buy that someones highfalutin ideals gives anyone the inherent right to defy the police. That's called anarchy. I feel the authorities here were not being entirely unfair, and did let them stay for a few days before asking them to leave. Why should people have the right to form impromptu tent cities and live in the public space for weeks on end? That's not a protest, that's called squatting.

I am speaking here of western style democracies. Totalitarian regimes are a different story. I believe God gives us certain inalliable rights, and if an authority is suppressing those rights, I believe we have right under God to transgress the earthly authority in those cases.

>> ^Kofi:
What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.
Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.
If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?
Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"
This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).
If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I agree but then you're the one who just suggested godwin should "include any hyperbolic comparison to a totalitarian dictator (and/or his regime) though, and not narrowly limited to Hitler/Nazi comparisons."

Touche. I guess I tend to think that the whole use of Godwin's law as an internet meme isn't quite so narrowly or rigidly defined.

Seems a shame to let people making inappropriate Stalin/Soviet Union comparisons off the hook though. "Guilt by association fallacy channel" just doesn't have the same ring.

>> ^NetRunner:

IMO, channel descriptions should just be providing a little clarity about which definition of the word you're using. It shouldn't artificially narrow or expand the scope of the channel to include/exclude things that you would normally associate with the channel's name. Most channels do in fact work that way, and the ones that don't can be rather annoying.


I agree but then you're the one who just suggested *godwin should "include any hyperbolic comparison to a totalitarian dictator (and/or his regime) though, and not narrowly limited to Hitler/Nazi comparisons."

I'll add godwin to the main list, too. I'm going to leave fallacy as well, though, since I think that could be a decent channel.

>> ^NetRunner:

I've been thinking it might be worth having a godwin channel.
It should include any hyperbolic comparison to a totalitarian dictator (and/or his regime) though, and not narrowly limited to Hitler/Nazi comparisons.


How about we generalize it more? How about #fallacy? So few people even properly understand Godwin's Law that I'd hate to see it be the namesake of a channel, especially one that covers more than just that.

>> ^NetRunner:

I also think we need a delusion channel. This would be for the "Obama was born in Kenya", "Vaccinations cause mental retardation", strain of lies. They're not true, but they're not really lies per se -- the people saying them seem to believe they're true, they're just delusional.
It'd also give rude atheists the chance to slap it on religious videos for added hilarity and hijinx.

#lies does actually cover this, despite its title.

Any videos stating,showing or blowing the whistle on blatant falsehoods are welcome here.

I've been thinking it might be worth having a *godwin channel.

It should include any hyperbolic comparison to a totalitarian dictator (and/or his regime) though, and not narrowly limited to Hitler/Nazi comparisons.

I also think we need a *delusion channel. This would be for the "Obama was born in Kenya", "Vaccinations cause mental retardation", strain of lies. They're not true, but they're not really lies per se -- the people saying them seem to believe they're true, they're just *delusional.

It'd also give rude atheists the chance to slap it on religious videos for added hilarity and hijinx.

@Lawdeedaw, I'm glad I could be of some help, you're welcome.

People tend to get upset when you generalize about an entire group of people, especially if the defining characteristic of the group is something that wasn't a matter of choice (e.g. race, gender, height, sexual orientation, eye color, etc.).

I say talking about public policy is a whole other category of conversation. Personally I think the theory that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle is pretty much bogus. Even if you make the reasonable assumption that both sides are telling lies to amplify their position, it's a mistake to assume those lies are always equal.

Taking your health care example, the most extreme lefties were saying some rather radical things about single payer health care (Medicare for everyone). They'd say it'd improve overall care, reduce costs, and make health care accessible to all.

The other side says it'll mean the government "comes between you and your doctor", it'll mean death panels, it'll lead to genocide, and the end of freedom itself. Not only that, it won't even cut costs, it'll just mean more taxes, and worse care.

I don't think it's reasonable to look at those things and say "the truth is in the middle." For example, is Canada a genocidal totalitarian socialist state that's executing its elderly? Is France?

How about the slightly less crazy-sounding stuff. Are they spending a higher share of their GDP on health care than we are? How do medical professionals rate the quality of care there? How are health outcomes generally (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, etc.)? Do they offer that health care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay?

>> ^darkrowan:

Notice, at 0:51, just as she says the line the actor in the background gives her the "WTF?" look from behind. That's attention to detail right there


Good catch! Really liked the themes in this show. For those that haven't watched B5, you should. Compared to the dramas today, it is a little slower, episodic, and showing its age...even so, pretty decent. They take on more of a totalitarian kind of role as "peace keepers", a little more so than I like. But the Meta themes are really spectacular.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'newark, police, camera, abuse, free press, police state, despotism, totalitarianism' to 'newark, police, camera, abuse, free press, abuse of power' - edited by xxovercastxx

Sick of the lies
Sick of the war

We’ll never have another, don’t be a silly bugger,
Check under the tree have a more than a stocking stuffer
It make my belly shudder, Don’t want to eat my supper
Come mother earth wanna serve jam and peanut butter

Another latecomer, here comes a great summer,
Arnie Schwarzenegger owns more than eight hummers,
But the trees suffer, too many woodcutter,
Each and everyone is killing off the earth mother
I shouldn’t even entertain the scene, humanity: insanity machine
Admit that it is us that lost this dream, Last generation passed the buck onto me.

Like a duck out of the water, we’re not going where we oughta
Pretend we’re getting tougher, fronting that we got this covered
But the rights are given up ah, given to the new-world-order
Too many men are nutters, taking out sisters and brothers.

Oh why won’t you see for your self, oh why wont you see for your self

Because I’m sick of the lies and I’m sick of the war and I’m
Sick of the lies and I’m sick of the war.

What did I really come here for? should have been among the sons of war
Time is on, and many man come but gotta be a part of the freedom cause
What a mess were in, we’ve got money in the tin,
But a president acting like a totalitarian
Some of them think it don’t matter, why the fat cats are getting fatter
Some of them think the phenomenon is given on a silver platter
What you seek to gain is what you can’t afford, well I’m
Sick of the lies and sick of the war

There’s a young man in an old cafe, rising his coffee cup he says
“I’m holding on to yesterday, until I build a better world some way”

Just let your mind fall away, It doesn’t matter what the haters say
Forget that man has to be this way
Forget that man has to be a slave
Follow your art, say what you’re saying
It’s all around so why are we waiting?
Come on people now we better start celebrating,
People all around, we better start celebrating
People all around, we better start celebrating
Come on everybody, we better start celebrating
People all around, we better start celebrating
Come on everybody, come on everybody now yo

People all around, we better start celebrating
If your mind is not ok then do some meditation
There better be another way until we’re communicating
We got to move faster because humanity is fading
I can see that we need intelligence operating,
We better call Mister T and the rest of the A-Team
We need true intentions and not just faking
We got no time for stalling or procrastinating

Sick of the lies and I’m sick of the war.