Tags for this video have been changed from 'Stephen Colbert, Glenn Beck, MLK, King, speech, 828, I have a dream' to 'Stephen Colbert, Glenn Beck, MLK, King, speech, 828, I have a dream, incrazing' - edited by calvados

Glad to hear everything's okay in RL!

So, to answer your first question, yes, I have read the Bible and many Buddhist sutras (particularly the Lotus Sutra). I'm familiar with some parts of the Koran, but have not read it in its entirety. What knowledge I have of Hinduism comes from Hindu friends.

Your interpretation of these religious texts is that they promote an obedience to a God or gods. For sure the Buddhist sutras do not, as most sects of Buddhism do not believe in sentient gods per se but in an innate (non-sentient) life force that we all share. But leaving that issue aside, I don't see how you can't have both themes (love thy neighbor/obey god). You couched it as an "either/or" solution, but why does it have to be? There's no logical reason why you can't follow your individual deity and treat other humans with compassion and respect. In fact, in most cases the themes go together--by treating other people with compassion and respect you are following the commands of your deity.

But let's take it further than that. I'm just going to quote you here: Of course you dont have to [interpret the Bible that way], and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way. Wouldn't you agree that if most people don't interpret the Bible as a form of control, then really your interpretation is not the representative of Christian belief? For certain some people do interpret those religious texts as you have-- fundamentalists, for instance. But I would hardly consider them the majority of religious people or the average representative of religion. In short, just because you’ve interpreted a particular religious text in a particular way, it doesn’t mean your interpretation is by any means “correct” or mainstream.

On a side note, I agree with you that there's a lot of f'd up stuff in many religious texts. Take the Old Testament for example and the bloodshed and wars described within it. However, we’re looking at religion as a whole--not just superficially at the religious text but how that text is interpreted and how the people who follow that religion conduct themselves in daily life. One problem with this, as I mentioned in the last post, is that the most vocal nutcases are usually the ones that you see in the media and not your "average" religious person, so it is easy to form a biased perception of virtually all religions if you’re not associating with members of that particular religion on a daily basis. If you ask the majority of Christians what the major theme of the Bible is, you’ll almost certainly get some answer regarding love and redemption—not your interpretation or violence and control.

To address your second question about empirical evidence about the benefits of religious belief--there's lots. I don't have time now to find all the links. You’ll just have to Google it. I've seen the studies--legit ones on both physical and psychological health published in JAMA and other peer-reviewed sources--and they were enough to convince me. Very few counter-examples have been published with the exception of a recent one in 2010 that showed a correlation between religious belief and obesity, but it was such a small sample size that it could have been a chance finding or attributable to other factors (it drew its participants predominately from African-American /Hispanic communities which typically have worse health-care access than other ethnic groups).

Frankly, I’m a bit surprised at your next argument about MLK. You seem to be stating that it wasn’t MLK’s religious beliefs that prompted him to take action. All I need to do to refute this is point you to any biography of the man or his numerous speeches where he clearly states that his religious beliefs have led him to believe in both the moral imperatives of equality for all people and non-violence as a means of achieving this. Was religion the thing that made him what he was? Absolutely. Same with Ghandi. And Mother Theresa. And the Dalai Lama. And a host of other people who have attempted to or succeeded in changing the world for the better.

Next, let’s talk about the Hitchen’s challenge. I find the challenge ridiculous. Why should religion have to be somehow separate from daily life? All religions are deeply concerned with secular life—with how we live and act. Furthermore basic psychology tells us we don’t act because of any one reason but due to a complex interaction of many reasons, some of which are conscious and some unconscious, and which in the end are in our own self-interest. Hitchen’s challenge is a straw-man argument—replace religion with some other construct such as democracy or music and you will be equally unable to find anyone who meets that challenge (by promoting democracy you protect your own rights; musicians may love music but even they need to sell songs in order to pay the rent and will compose for money).

I think equally ridiculous is the argument that things such as genital mutilation have no other possible explanation or cause than religion. Wouldn’t misogyny be a much better and more rational explanation than religion? Clearly religion is used to fuel the misogyny but it would certainly be a mistake to assume that the misogyny couldn’t exist without religion. Let’s take another example—the Spanish Inquisition. The cause of that tragic slaughter was clearly secular in nature—having finally wrested the southern part of the country from Muslim rule, Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unify a country in which many different religions co-existed. In short, religion didn’t cause the Spanish Inquisition; plain old political power-struggles did. Religion was simply the vehicle through which it was carried out.

And this is really what I’ve been saying all along—that religion is not, as you keep painting it as, the cause of humanity’s problems. It is a tool—a tool that, can be used for great good or great evil. As the folks at religioustolerance.org state: “Religion has the capability to generate unselfish love in some people, and vicious, raw hatred in others. The trick is to somehow change religions so that they maximize the former and minimize the latter.”

Later on, they go on to state that they feel that religion overall has a positive effect on society. That pretty much sums up my view of religion. If you do away with religion, you throw out the baby with the bath water. You lose the Martin Luther King Jr.’s, the Ghandi’s, the Mother Teresea’s, the Dali Lama’s of the world. It’s too a high a price to pay. For me, it’s all about dialogue—talking with others, getting them to see the common ground we all share, respect each other, and, as they said on their website maximizing the good and eliminating the bad.

As long as we keep talking—as you and I have been doing through these threads--we will keep moving forward. But I believe the instant dialogue ends—the instant you demonize the” other” and refuse to engage with them--you’ve planted the seeds of the next conflict: the next Spanish Inquisition, the next Bosnian massacre, or the next 9/11.

Firstly, about the RL busy stuff, I'm fine, I've just been moving and stuff, nothing bad, but thanks for caring

While I agree religion is more than dogma, I think i have a bit of a different perspective on it, religion is, or can be a large part of someone life, obviously, and in that sense it is, as you say a complex socio-cultural phenomen. but heres where i have a problem with the stuff you say:

If you look at the Bible, or the Koran, or the Buddhist sutras, the overarching message you see is one of love for fellow humankind: the Golden Rule. That is religion and that is what people should be practicing.

Really? Have you READ the bible? or the Koran? These books are not written with the golden rule as a model. Sure, there are some hints of that here and there, but the overall theme is something quite different. The message that these books emphasize is one of total obedience to god. Of course you dont have to, and most religious people dont, read or interpret it that way, but that is in fact the main focus of these books.

The empirical evidence we do have, though, shows religious people live longer, happier, and healthier lives overall.

Uh, really? where can this evidence be found? seriously? I live in Norway, one of the least religious countries in the world. We live longer,happier and healthier lives than most of the planet.

For every example that you might choose to offer, say the Inquisition or the 9/11 terror attacks, that supposedly show why religion needs to go I can offer you a historical counter-example like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi as to why religion is crucially important.

Ok, I completely agree that keeping scores here would be pointless, so lets think about this for a few seconds. Take MLK jr. Great guy, obviously, and yes, he was a preacher and certainly religious, by all means, and he also famously quoted the bible in his speeches. But answer me this: Was religion the thing that made him into what he was? Lets suppose he was an atheist, or lets say a muslim for that matter, would he have been totally lost without the wisdom of Moses, who famously said "Let my people go"? or the teachings of Jesus? You know what? I think MLK was a great guy, who fought for a great cause, and I think that independent of his religion. And we all know there were plenty of good arguments OUTSIDE of the bible for a civil rights movement, in fact, the bible doesnt even come around to condemning slavery. So its not really a religious thing, is it? I can say honestly and with a straight face that yes, i think a non-religious person could do what MLK did, (and in fact MLK was actually critized for having to many non-religious people in his circle at the time)

Now look at my side of the scoreboard. And I'll give you the challenge Christopher Hitchens has given many times: You have to name me a good act done or a good thing said, by a religious person, that doesnt have any secular, non-religious basis or potential argument in its favour. and then you have to come up with a bad or wicked thing said or done.. I dont even have to end the sentence.. You've already got several, stuff that you couldnt possibly do for ANY OTHER REASON then the religious one. Who would cut into their childrens genitals without a good medical reason?, who would discourage condom-use in countries where the % of aids victims are well into the 2-digits? what maniac would run an airplane into a skyscraper and think this act would give them 72 virgins in paradise? What sadistic bastard would stone a young girl to death because SHE was raped?

Well, You get my point. I think very large parts of what you call religion, I simply attribute to our normal, human behaviour. not to repeat the MLK point to much. But I think the feeling of injustice that he and all black americans felt at the time had nothing to do with religion, and i think that ultimately his rebellion against it had nothing to do with religion, and again, people listened and things finally changed, not because of religion, but because it was the right thing to do. Just like most Christians and jews refrain from killing people, not because a commandment says so, but because thats how we humans work. But still, there are those who think thats why we dont all just kill eachother, and even those who thinks thats why they dont kill their neighbour , but obviously, thats not it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Opening up a plantation next to MLK's grave would be an equalish comparison.

Not really.

A better comparison would be if someone wanted to open up a church next to MLK's grave, and people opposed it because the people who shot MLK were Christian.

It doesn't even make sense as a thing to get upset about unless you're making a fundamental mistake about the nature of what happened on 9/11.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Opening up a plantation next to MLK's grave would be an equalish comparison. Not all Muslim's are terrorists, not all plantation owners are racist; it is the connotation people are upset with. Now, the government shouldn't be in the business of regulation what qualifies as a, what some would see as, morally offensive position. However, it shouldn't go as unexpected that people going in and out of that building might suffer a fair share of contempt from locals. I am not a very sentimental person, so I don't really care at all, but I can see how people could.


It makes sense that a lot of the public feels this way. The public relations industry scored huge points for equating Iraq with 9/11 to the point of people believing Saddam was behind it and that there were Iraqis on the planes. It's a tremendous achievement that shouldn't be overlooked, we went from a country not wanting a war with Iraq in the least to feverishly desiring war completely.

So when you equate Muslims with some extremists that follow their same teachings, you're simply doing what the media, yes the liberal media wants you to. They want war, they are in charge of a democracy, they have to find some way to control the people. They have gotten very good at it, the fact that all the countries around Iraq, even Kuwait which was nearly destroyed by them didn't feel threatened by them at all yet we claimed that they were an imminent threat to our very survival and thus needed to be subjected to war. It's quite extraordinary.

It's the same people that were in the Reagan administration telling us that Grenada was a threat to our survival. The rest of the world looks at us and thinks either we are a tremendously racist country, or we're so heavily indoctrinated we can't see strait. Stop being so scared, you look like an idiot.

Opening up a plantation next to MLK's grave would be an equalish comparison. Not all Muslim's are terrorists, not all plantation owners are racist; it is the connotation people are upset with. Now, the government shouldn't be in the business of regulation what qualifies as a, what some would see as, morally offensive position. However, it shouldn't go as unexpected that people going in and out of that building might suffer a fair share of contempt from locals. I am not a very sentimental person, so I don't really care at all, but I can see how people could.

Part one, I think that might be a little bit harsh. Even though you (and I) believe civil liberties are important, there's no denying that they -have- been used as a distraction and a wedge issue. Albeit primarily by the conservatives. And no, both parties are -not- "exactly the same" on the "important" issues. I dunno, PHJF, maybe you weren't too harsh.

But on part two, did anyone really think we'd "conquered" prejudice and bigotry? I know I sure as hell didn't... You've never had to look far to see that it's still well accounted for, if not quite as in-your-face as Archie Bunker used to be. The human race is full of those that just love being assholes, especially when they can do so towards a relatively powerless minority, with plenty of other assholes keeping them company.

>> ^PHJF:

Uhhh I think civil liberties are sort of important, you douchebag. It's a shame MLK didn't include "... and gay people, too," in his I Have a Dream. We're today trudging through the same filth and muck of intolerance we supposedly conquered decades ago.

Uhhh I think civil liberties are sort of important, you douchebag. It's a shame MLK didn't include "... and gay people, too," in his I Have a Dream. We're today trudging through the same filth and muck of intolerance we supposedly conquered decades ago.

“I’ll have them nggrs voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.”

---Circa 1964, President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s vow after he signed into law civil rights legislation.
Inside the White House, Ronald Kessler, Simon & Schuster, p. 33.


Conversely MLK was not a "staunch Republican". Had he lived he likely would've ended up a shakedown race-hustler like Je$$e $harpton.

When the MLK picture comes up and the cat opens its mouth and turns its head to the side, the background is white instead of the guy's shirt color. Also yes, the teeth look fake as hell.

>> ^volumptuous:

http://www.kxl.com/pages/7471948.php
"Police said Monday's incident began about 3:10 p.m. when the officer was driving north along Martin Luther King Jr. Way. The officer saw an 18-year-old man jaywalk across the busy street about 15 feet from a pedestrian overpass. After the officer stopped the man, he saw four women jaywalk at the same location and ordered them to come over to his patrol car, police reports say. At that point, the women became verbally antagonistic, and one turned and began walking away, police said.
When the officer approached her and began escorting her back to his car, the report says, she tensed and pulled away, ignoring his order to put her hands on the patrol car. By then, a crowd had gathered. Police said the officer then began trying to handcuff her."

Apparently breaking a law, then refusing police orders, and then pushing a police officer is somehow OK and according to Nordlich, the officer should've been beaten to shit by an angry mob.
Just, wow.

edit/update: Both of these "poor girls", Angel L. Rosenthal, and her friend, Marilyn Ellen Levias, have criminal records. Angel's is pretty hefty.
http://dw.courts.wa.gov


I figured that's how it went. I drive up MLK every once in a while. There's a great butcher in Columbia City.

There is a lot of jaywalking in Seattle. I do it all the time. I look both ways and take responsibility for myself. I've even seen police pull over to talk with jaywalkers. Every time I've seen it, the police officer scolds them and sometimes forces them to walk another whole minute to an actual cross walk.

So let's be honest about this situation. It seems that the police officer stopped the women for jaywalking and they blew up. Ever seen a cop try to give a warning and have antagonist people turn the situation into way more than it had to be. I think at that point, most cops internally say fuck it and arrest the offenders. Then they physically resisted.

The cop needs to take some training with emphasis on some effective holds to quickly subdue the person he is trying to arrest.

As for hitting a woman... I'm a gentleman, but if a woman is attacking me, I'll punch her. It is utter b.s. to dismiss the consequences of someone's action just because of their sex. Maybe I read too many Louis L'Amour books as a kid.

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses and both can become tyrannical in absence of the other. I don't want pure socialism or pure capitalism. Give me a hybrid. Let industry build my car and my government build me a road to drive it on. Let industry make my macbook and my government build me an arpanet to connect it to.

"Socialism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social." -MLK

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/

Here's a good resource chock full of MLK's documents, with historical annotation and context. For those who want to go beyond that one famous speech, and learn what the man was really about.

>> ^NadaGeek:

also the reason MLK's speeches are hard to actually hear and see now is because they were all copyrighted .

also the reason MLK's speeches are hard to actually hear and see now is because they were all copyrighted .

So the rightwing contingent of videosift has come to the consensus that: If black people shut up about racism the problem will go away?

I'd love for either quantummushroom or geesusfreek to help me understand how this seemingly oppressive and counter-intuative logic is supposed to work? And how you've come to this conclusion after watching a speech about taking pride in who you are and where you come from? It seems like you've missed the point.

MLK isn't denouncing the emancipation proclamation, the civil rights bill that he worked so hard for or any other legal actions that confront racism. He is simply stating that these things alone will not cure the pain and degradation of living in a culture where blackness is considered ugly and evil, and that this type of mental adversity can only be overcome by taking pride in who you are.

Transitioning from this inspirational speech to your political 'racism of reciprocity' bullshit is condescending, and transitioning from 'I'm black and proud' to 'stop all this heehawing about race' is just plain disgusting. It's also interesting to note that you have no problem heehawing about race yourself. How do you justify this? White privilege fringe benefits?