Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Quoting for posterity here (and so you can look back on it when you are less drunk/high). Are you trying to make a point? If so, you are failing.
a) Would you like a list of the comments I'm referring to? Was looking at the comment thread under the video I link to too hard?
b) Nowhere did I say only women get raped. What's your point?
c) OED: "antisemitism: Hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people; (also) the theory, action, or practice resulting from this." Keep grasping at straws dude. I made no oversight, antisemitism is common among Muslim Arabs and Africans. We're all Africans, that doesn't mean some of us aren't racist against Africans. See?
d) this dipshit makes the same mistake of comparing rape to diabetes. Is it like a meme or stg?

Next time you're going to post a giant response, think about it a bit, m'kay?
>> ^vaire2ube:

Watch Truth[video] watch truth be called treason [video] RIP Patrice brother you had it down pat. Fuck 'em baby!!!
"Several comments about it here on the Sift sing the tune of "if you don't like it, don't listen to it", but that is missing the point completely."
uh no... besides that being that actual and only point.... one who would post such are ignoring an egregious and combative point of view, that is a result of being offended personally, not because one is perpetuating any kind of crime themselves, but because stupid people who cant seperate comedy from reality are quite a burden... sometimes... but you can argue with patrice when you get there... somethings are more important than explaining humor to the humorless. go be offended elsewhere BECAUSE NO ONE GOT HURT WITH THE JOKE OMG
What did the nun say to the priest?
Nothing, she fingered herself watching him fuck a little boys ass.
only women can be raped??? so no more priest jokes then? oh wait you're ignoring anal rape of men, HOW DARE YOU BE SO INSENSITIVE TO NOT ADDRESS THIS RABBLERABBLERABBBLE IM DESERVE TEH ATTENTION ETC
Here's something interesting that is real: Semitic =/= Jewish. It refers to language origins. Arabs are Semitic too. Care to explain your oversight there? How certain people get to appropriate things to be offended about whilst denying anyone who disagrees as not allowed? Because....??? See the problem here with allowing people who are offended to just have their way... It leads to excuses that de facto result in violence because there is nothing to reason with.

Anyone who would downvote this is either antisemitic, willfully ignorant, or both.

Only the second part in and already: *siberian train ride, *drunk russians, *antisemitism, *dancing koreans, *smug journalists.....

I would but people threw a fit when I hobbled @quantumushroom, so now I just ask @dag to do it and avoid the controversy altogether.

>> ^Taint:

May I suggest using your nightstick, officer?
TradingPlaces

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Good point. @dag. I suggest a ban.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Engels:
>> ^gorillaman:
So stop pretending jews are human beings.

So, what -does- it take to get banned from Video sift? Clearly outright hate speech doesn't.

Agreed! Down-right, open, hateful antisemitism.

May I suggest using your nightstick, officer?

TradingPlaces


>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Good point. @dag. I suggest a ban.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Engels:
>> ^gorillaman:
So stop pretending jews are human beings.

So, what -does- it take to get banned from Video sift? Clearly outright hate speech doesn't.

Agreed! Down-right, open, hateful antisemitism.

Good point. @dag. I suggest a ban.
>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Engels:
>> ^gorillaman:
So stop pretending jews are human beings.

So, what -does- it take to get banned from Video sift? Clearly outright hate speech doesn't.

Agreed! Down-right, open, hateful antisemitism.

I've gone and looked it up for you. May this knowledge serve you well in future endeavors.

From Wiki:

Anti-semitism is suspicion of, hatred toward, or discrimination against Jews for reasons connected to their Jewish heritage. According to a 2005 U.S. governmental report, antisemitism is "hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity." In an extreme form, it "attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]" in which they reside.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

>> ^gorillaman:

Several people in this thread need to look up the word antisemitism, because they're not using it correctly.

Several people in this thread need to look up the word antisemitism, because they're not using it correctly.

>> ^Engels:

>> ^gorillaman:
So stop pretending jews are human beings.

So, what -does- it take to get banned from Video sift? Clearly outright hate speech doesn't.


Agreed! Down-right, open, hateful antisemitism.

@MycroftHomlz

I am disappointed that some people can so readily decry just about anything as antisemitism. "Silly" was the harshest word I used, and I think most things about any religion are just that. I didn't even mention that I think they are self-righteous, arrogant, delusional, hate-filled, racist, sexually-repressed misogynists.

I'm an anti-theist, not an antisemite. Big difference. Also, human beings invented the Golden Rule centuries (millenia?) before they invented Jesus, and Confucius wrote it down long before Matthew did.

Their behaviour toward this little girl is despicable, and... they kinda remind me of the black "Spy vs Spy" guy, and he was definitely Jewish!

*promote... It is a horrible, shameful thing to force your values on someone else.

On a side note, I am disappointed by the antisemitism going on here. You can do better. I expect as much from @gorillaman. This is the character he plays here. But come on @Fletch. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." You might hate the christians, but Jesus had a point on that one.

>> ^Fletch:

Silly hats. Silly coats. Silly hair. Silly religion.

>> ^gorillaman:

So stop pretending jews are human beings.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

" Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, that was already growing antisemitism for several decades before he came to power"
Had Bernanke and Geithner been decent people, the crisis/meltdown would have been much less than it is right now. No two ways about it.

The right Hitler analogy to describe what you're talking about would be:

"Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, Neville Chamberlain could've done more to stop him, so isn't the Holocaust really all his fault?"

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Bernanke and Geithner did nothing but make the problems larger than they had to be [for the average american] so that their banker friends could shovel more money into their private accounts before more shit hit the fan.
Why give either of them any slack at all?


Because Bernanke has actually done a lot to try to make the situation better. He could've done more, but not a tremendous amount more. Geithner fits your description a lot more closely, but again, I dispute that Geithner made the problems worse, and I definitely dispute that he intentionally made things worse for his own gain.

I sorta don't get what your point is in arguing all this. Do you really think single individuals in any position anywhere deserve all the blame for the economic crisis? Do you really think the people most culpable are all government employees?

@NetRunner

" Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, that was already growing antisemitism for several decades before he came to power"

Had Bernanke and Geithner been decent people, the crisis/meltdown would have been much less than it is right now. No two ways about it.


Bubbles burst all the time and there's a formula to deal with the damage from them.

Bernanke and Geithner did nothing but make the problems larger than they had to be [for the average american] so that their banker friends could shovel more money into their private accounts before more shit hit the fan.

Why give either of them any slack at all?

The claim for Arabs right to the land is stronger because they did not leave the area (as a group). They are also not as diluted genetically from their original ethnicity(s) (shared with Jews, who are of multiple ethnicities, but mainly of Arab decent).
Zionism is the support of the Jewish state, not necessarily the support for it's expansion (although that support is strong in Israel). That means all Israelites are Zionists, unless they are traitors to their own country and are working to end the Jewish state, there aren't many if any of those people in Israel, they would be stoned to death. I'm not sure what definition of Zionist you are working with, it must be different from mine. Not all Zionists are expansionists, and there is nothing in the word that requires poor treatment of others.
To answer Boise_Lib: Because these children are required to serve in the army, actively supporting the state, they are Zionist, whether by choice or by birth. They have the right to leave AFTER their service, or before if their parents leave Israel, so like any child, they are at the whim of their parents and forced into their belief system whether they believe in it or not. This means I was partially wrong in my statement and I will revise it..., all adult Israelis are there 100% by choice.
I love the 'you are just wrong, I can't be bothered to tell you why' mindset. It really doesn't help your argument or help sway my ideas, it gives the impression that you really don't have anything to point at as 'wrong' you just don't like what you read. If you really can point out any inaccuracies I would like to know so I can learn or clarify, but I think you are simply reading in what you want to argue against.
I'm flabbergasted by your idea that (to paraphrase) 'we only send $2.5 BILLION a year, that's not much'. It shows clearly that you aren't being logical or reasonable in the least. If we are going broke fast (and we are), why should we be sending 2.5 BILLION to ANYONE? Especially if your contention, that it isn't a large part of their budget and they don't need it is correct, why bother sending them a dime? There are certainly others we could send that money to and do FAR more good, like Africa.
Anti-Zionism might help, anti-Semitism probably not so much. Pro-Zionism is certainly hurting things by supporting one sides expansion while ignoring the atrocities that causes the Palestinians. As I previously wrote, anti-Semitism often is a by product of anti-Zionism, where the anger at the Zionists is misapplied to only and to all Jews. Therefore, Zionism creates anti-Semitism, rightly or wrongly. I am not an anti-Semite, I am an anti-Zionist...being human, sometimes the two are confused or convergent but not intentionally on my part.
The BEST solution in my eyes is a diplomatic one that stops the expansion and solidifies borders, and one that gets us OUT of the conflict as a nation (if the nutjob born agains want to send their own money, that's their business). I don't see that as the ONLY solution, and obviously neither does Israel, since they are not negotiating in any serious way, and instead continue to expand and provoke, expand and provoke. The Palestinians on the other hand have been pushing for solidified borders for decades and continuously agree to them only to have "settlers" (invaders) move into the land as soon as the treaty is signed. This gives them the moral high ground to me, but does not mean we should be involved.>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^newtboy:
Yeah sure, we're all 'Africans', but that designation intentionally ignores the evolution of the species and differentiation since the second great migration, (the first was the aborigines, genetically different from the second wave) and so intentionally ignores 'ethnicity' as a concept.
True, the scattering of the 'Jews' (ethnic term intended here) has changed them from the other 'Arabs' they originally were to the mixed ethnicity they are now, making them slightly different from the Arabs of the region today. Shouldn't the fact that their ethnicity has been diluted also dilute their claim to their ancestral lands (as if such a claim should hold water anyway, if your ancestors lost the land, it's lost, right)?
anti-Semitism is what results from the miss-application of anti-Zionism in many cases (including for me sometimes). For me, it is NEVER an ethnic issue, always a religolitical (religious/political)issue that causes the dislike of the group.
All Israelis are Zionists by definition and action, I suppose this is not true for ALL Jews (of either definition) but is the public position of their 'church' and their ethnic leadership as well. I feel fairly safe saying it's the position held by nearly all Orthodox Jews, but that might be wrong, I don't know many. That makes them a completely different animal from the Chinese, where many in China actively don't support their government or even their system of government, but are forced to stay in China and work for it. No Israeli is forced to live in Israel, it's 100% by choice.
I do understand that in large part, the 'fundamentalist Christians' (and also American Jewish Zionists) are to blame for us funding and supporting Israel, I hope I misread and you don't think they foot the bill too, we all do.
Can we agree that religious justifications for ANY otherwise bad act are wrong, and reinforce the idea that religion itself is wrong and bad?>> ^hpqp:
@newtboy
If we go back far enough, we are all Africans; ethnic distinctions happen to take the history of peoples' migrations into account. Yes, ethnic Jews are Arabs (or vice-versa) just like most Australians, Americans and Canadians are Europeans, except instead of colonisation it is the Jewish diaspora that is the cause for their break from their "land of origins".
Antisemitism is racism against Jews (ethnic group), whether they be religious or not. I fully disagree with Israel's politics and their funding by Americans (speaking of which, you do know, I hope, that they are above all funded/supported by fundie evangelicals, don't you?) for the purpose of colonisation, but to lump all (ethnic) Jews/Israelis (that's a nationality btw) together saying that they support this is about as ridiculous as saying that all Chinese in China and around the world support the communist government in China just because they're Chinese.
That being said, I agree entirely that the religious justifications over land - from both sides btw - is ridiculous and dangerous. "My prophet died here so it's my land!" Ugh.

Also very broad and inaccurate generalizations.
You can read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions for a pretty detailed explanation.
Dilution of ethnicity and claim of their ancestral lands can just as easily apply to 'Arabs' there.
And just like Jews, "Arabs" is a general term for various ethnic and religious groups.
So whose land it is is a very subjective topic of how far back in history you want to go.
Not all Israelis are Zionists. The word Zionist have many various meanings and definitions, but you seem to have a totally wrong understanding of what it is. There's a sizable portion of Israel Jew's population that is against those settlements and treatment of (to call it broadly) non-Jewish populace.
There are also many other wrong assumptions and generalizations in your post.(right now I'm too tired after work to elaborate on them all).
Needless to say the whole Israeli conflict is a very complex and messy situation. There are guilty parties on both sides. Cutting funding/aid to either side will not move things for the better. Over the last 10 years US aid to Israel was about ~$2.5billion/year. That is about 1% of Israel's $217billion GDP economy. While sizable, cutting that aid will not be a significant hindrance.
External boycotts, protests and especially antisemitism will not help things either. That will only make them more stubborn and have justification for potential threat to their sovereignty and survival. The only real solution is a diplomatic approach to change governments' policies.