Agree completely on that whole not having to explain itself. Apparently it was written by a teenage Luc Besson and thinking about it does sort of reflect the kind of story you make up as a kid. A lot of imagination, not much direction and completely carefree.

My intepretation was always that Leeloo was the fifth element. She represents life in its purest most innocent form as a counterpart to that wierd ball of death/evil that calls Zorg up on the phone (wat.). Leeloo learns of all the atrocities humanity commits, she loses sight of the point of life until Gorban gives her a reason. Love is the key but not the element imo. I just threw up a little. But here we are analysing a film which defies it. It just wants to show us something fantastical and doesn't care if we understand or not.

ps. That Gorban - Leeloo relationship is still wierd. I was getting a father daughter vibe until they touch lips at the end. Meanwhile in Leon...

The resion why u cannot let people think about religoin or interprit it is because then they will ultimately come to the conclusion that its a load of shit.

allso if your going to openly intepret a religoin it esentualy becomes redundent because you are forced to recognize that ethics dont come from a single book or cosmic entity with conchousness . and you are allso then forced to find another methadoligy to determin what is true or false a method that allows you to consistantly prodict the future and the way things will behave , that mathod is called scence.

Sigh, I had typed up a half a page worth of comment and realized I needed another half page more so decided to just give up. Now I see SDGundamX's comment and wish I had posted mine.

So here's the short version. This video is misleading; in at least one spot it is misleading to the point of spouting hogwash. It mixes together separate phenomena from cosmology, quantum mechanics, and plain probability without clearly labeling them or distinguishing between them. Their "parallel universe theory" is not a theory, but an interpretation, of which there are multiple, of quantum mechanics; it's not even the most widely accepted interpretation. If you're interested in the phenomena they fumble over in this video then google, or just wikipeida, these terms: Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds intepretation, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality.

Would it have mattered, QM? Kerry was a skull and bonesman just like Bush at Yale.... Both were from the same cut. Both designated by Bilderberg conventioners. Both part of the same NWO objective. If your too blind to see it then you will continue to let our freedom be slowly chipped away by a shadow government that dictates from behind the scenes.

>>> This type of conspiracy stuff has been around forever, long before the country was even born. I refuse to play along with the logic that "No solid evidence equals proof of just how good these conspirators are!"

Go ahead and scoff at the notion. One day you will realize when the Constitution is gone. Then it will be too late. Then we will truly be slaves or worse. Al Queda was trained by the fucking CIA. We supplied them arms in Afganistan, trained them in the ways of terror. Now this tool is being used against us for many purposes. To instill fear, to further secure the arms contracts that supply the war, meanwhile those orchestrating the whole thing are getting wealthier from the manufacture of the weapons, the oil fields, the R&D contracts, the NWO's 5th objective that Bush Sr. stated (Sept. 11, 1991 - look up the video http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Sr-NWO-5th-Objective-Sept-11-1991) they were implementing is now moving into the 6th-10th objectives at once. NAFTA and PNAC, Euros, Dollars into Ameros into National ID with a cashless society, even implanted with a microchip.

It's "too late" already. FDR's threatening to pack the Supreme Court with cronies ushered in the modern welfare state. Up until then even the most liberal Supreme Court justices intepreted the Constitution to mean exactly what it read. Barring alien invasion, a warped, facetious interpretation of the "Commerce Clause" has made government's expansion permanent. I don't like it, you don't like it, but half the country wants everything handed to them for nothing while the other half would see the law manipulate markets to improve the bottom line, also not a new concept.

You don't need conspiracy theories, homey. Here's a crime in plain sight: there's nothing in the Constitution that says the gummint must provide anyone with an education. But since they do--a crappy one at rip-off prices--the teaching of American History, the greatest bulwark against rehashed political schemes--has all but vanished.

If it were up to me I'd scrap the whole public "education" machine, which is a grossly expensive, decades-long commercial for government dependency, and give people their money back.

Are you going to roll over for these elite neocon bastards? Have you already?

The System is the System. Tolstoy wrote, "Everyone thinks of changing the world but no one thinks of changing himself.” Stand up for what you think is right, but try to keep some perspective. None of this political BS or world news, most of it lies anyway, is worth your happiness.

Let me ask you a question. In purely practical terms, as an atheist surely you realise that the best way to change what you don't like in any given religion is to help support and promote the voices of moderation within that faith. You have a far greater chance of convincing believers to intepret their holy texts in a more moderate way - i.e. non-literal, and in its textual and historical context - than you do of convincing them that their fundamental beliefs (often a key component of their personal identity and cultural heritage) are completely false and without any merit. For this reason I often think that the atheist movement is very short sighted in its approach. If your aim is to convince people of the falsehood of all religion then your best bet is to begin undermining what you see as the most serious negative elements of particular faiths. Once all faith is moderate and entirely compatible with secular liberal values - then you go after the central belief - theism. But by going after the central core of religion - theism - you very often just put people's backs up - rather than enticing people to your flock you drive them away.

Similarly, it seems that many prominent atheists reserve the right to be as critical/abusive about religion as possible. I believe in free speech so I would support their right - even though I don't agree with what they are saying. However, the abusive way in which many atheists refer to religious people - 'morons', 'idiots', etc, and the way that they abuse and ridicule spiritual leaders - drives away many people who may be questioning the veracity of their faith. It is not the doctrine of atheism which is driving them away, but the way in which that doctrine is sold.

btw - In the God Delusion, Dawkins sets out a scale of 1-7, 1 being a 100% believer in God, and 7 being a 100% believer that there is no God. If I remember correctly Dawkins says that his a 6 veering on 7. Where are you?