I don't think you're that far off. That seems like a reasonable hypothesis. Another thing that comes into play are our affordable "luxuries". Cable TV, microwaves, dishwashers, heating/AC...these things are now things that we risk by protesting/revolting. Why go outside and get shot at when we can watch Cosby reruns for hours on end?>> ^peggedbea:

the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.
i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:
Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

the cost of food isn't high enough yet. historically, people are generally complacent with letting the ruling class do whatever as long as they can afford food and expect a reasonably brighter future. i wonder if part of the reason we subsidize agriculture is to keep food prices artificially low longer to avoid social unrest. and then there's fast food. which consistently remains cheap. my paranoid brain is starting to formulate fast food as social control conspiracies. also, google holodomor. and think about monsanto.

i think we've all given up on the "brighter future" part... and food prices keep fluctuating.. it's coming though, don't worry. the rest of us will join you soon. as soon as we can no longer afford a mcrib. >> ^rottenseed:

Why isn't USAmerica rioting? I am. It's just me though.

Take a look at James DeMeo's seminal book, Saharasia, which details the origins of genital mutilation practices and how the preservation of these barbaric traditions only serves to sustain the emotional armoring in fear of violence so necessary for social control.

I'm terribly late to the party, but I can't resist commenting here. This is a wonderful post with loads of great ideas and comments. I'll go bullet style like all the cool kids are doing.

* Taxation of individuals, and more to the point enforcement of individual tax laws, comes down to prioritization. Morally, it may feel better to want the IRS to tackle the super rich, but financially, it is in fact more beneficial to audit those less capable of evasion. If the IRS can spend $5k to get $10k from several individuals, that is fiscally more useful than spending millions going after one individual that can indefinitely avoid settling up. Corporations, on the other hand, are another matter entirely. Corporations are given the rights of citizens, like free speech, due process, etc., but are not expected to fulfill the same obligations in terms of taxes, being honest with law enforcement, being eligible for military service, voting, etc. That's a whole other can of worms opened up by the SCOTUS back in the 1800s. The answer lies in removing the citizen like rights of corporations, but that's not going to happen in our lifetimes.

* Welfare serves the dual purpose of helping those who have been screwed over by circumstance and those who have been screwed over by the system. It is something that the vast majority of right wingers will claim is better served by private charities, which are invariably faith based. Even AA is a religious organization. And every person that subscribes to a faith of one sort or another will tell you that nearly all charities are faith based. You know why? Because its virtually impossible to get non-profit status and wide recognition for an organization unless it is faith based. That historical/cultural bias is reason enough for me to justify a secular/communal charity system.

* Conventional nuclear power is great, assuming it is done safely. That's the problem, though - is it economically viable to maintain conventional nuclear power plants safely? None of the arguments I've seen on either side of the issue really deal with that aspect. It basically comes down to a matter of risk management, which TEPCO clearly failed at. Implementing conventional nuclear power safely requires a really absurd amount capital, but it may be economically smart at a large enough scale. Figuring out the economics of safe nuclear power is way above my pay grade. Ultimately, I believe it is something humans are quite capable of doing, but is there enough political will to do it properly?

* Free markets are awesome! Don't confuse free markets with capitalist bullying, though. A free market assumes that everyone in the market has the same information as everyone else. That's the only way it can actually be free. As soon as one party manipulates the information available to others, the market is no longer free. That applies to everything from snake oil remedies to irresponsible mortgages. A free market doesn't mean a market free of regulation, it means one in which everyone has equal access to the marketplace, producers and consumers alike.

* Small government, or even no government, is ideal because ideally everyone thinks like you do, and has exactly the same minimal requirements that you have. In the real world, the needs of individuals in very large social groups are immensely varied. You may live your whole life without ever needing the services of a fire department. You may not ever need to protect yourself from a psychopathic killer. Hell, you may run your own website from your home and never do more than walk your kids along a deer path to a private school near you. But you are a part of a society. Your kids' teacher may live 50 miles away and need to travel along paved roads to get to that wonderful school. The web of internetworked computers upon which your income relies was first conceived by people working at public institutions. The smallpox vaccination you got as a kid was developed by a tax funded group of doctors. The nuclear power that you want to support would never have been possible without vast amounts of federal funding. Bureaucratic and corruption waste is not unique to government, and any properly organized system can minimize waste. It's not the idea of government, but its implementation that makes it wasteful. Corporations are no more immune to that waste than any other collective. It's true that waste is easier to identify and possibly eliminate in smaller systems, but very large organizational systems are required for big results like space travel, vaccinations, and imperial domination.

* Do not confuse religion with spirituality. Religion is about dogma and social control. Spirituality is about one's connection with the universe. If your neighbor believes in a grey bearded man in the sky that created everything 6000 years ago, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his desire to eliminate the teaching of evolution from public schools. He may use the former to justify the latter, but the two are not really connected. If someone comes to your door offering a deeper connection with the universe around you through Jesus, you can listen politely, tell them that you are already plugged in, or whatever. If someone comes to your door to tell you that you and your family need to behave in a certain way, you can tell them to fuck off with a quite clear conscience.

I don't think any of these ideas are young or old, but it does take some time to refine them into something coherent. I'm 41 and I barely know what coherent or consistent means. One last thing to remember is that you are not who you were 10 years ago, or even 10 seconds ago. Every moment fresh water flows over the fall - it might look the same, but the rocks are never touched twice. (oh - now I'm just getting pretentious)

Why do markets allow people to suffer?

1. Better system than capitalism would be a balanced hybrid system of capitalism and socialism controlled by people in a true democracy - as opposed to the plutocratic charade we live under now. Think Finland, Switzerland, Nordic Slavic type social democracies. These systems are infinitely better than our capitalist nightmare by any metric.

2. All the think tanks that tell you what to think are funded by deep corporate pockets. Your guru milton Friedman was chummmy with all the neocons - Reagan, Rummy and some pretty nasty dictators. David Koch was even on the libertarian ticket. Open your eyes to reality, friend.

3. Feudalism is only freedom for the wealthy elite. You don't seem to understand that you have a very subjective and limited concept of 'liberty'.

7. Free market reforms are terrible to labor, as we are seeing right now, where libertarians are calling on American labor to 'get competitive' with Chinese slaves. No fucking thank you.

8. There's no shortage of excuses for your belief system, and never any empirical data. This is why I deride your political beliefs as religious beliefs.

9. It's nice that you used 'Corporatist America' as a way of refuting my contention that European social democracies are superior.

It's amazing to me that someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality could call anyone else ignorant. Time and time again your politics are debunked on this site, only for you to redouble your efforts. I hope one day you are able to overcome your indoctrination.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm an atheist. When I attribute things to God and say things like, "Why does God allow the his devout followers to suffer?" I don't mean, "Why does the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around allow his devout followers to suffer?" What I do mean is, "Why does your personal god that you believe in allow his devout followers to suffer?"

Most atheists, I think, tend to use God in this way, not because they believe in the existence of a personal god, but because it's the widely held understanding of God (if not the original definition). It's irrelevant to our conversation, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. Your analogy is bad, IMO.

And you and I will continue to disagree what free markets are, and that's something I cannot change.

1. The claim was "[A free market] states that altruism and empathy are bad; greed and selfishness are good." That's what I was responding to. Still ridiculous. I've said constant that if you could find a better system than Capitalism, I'd be on board, but there IS NONE. All of this tap dancing around definitions is obfuscation.

2. Patently false. An absolutely disingenuous and false statement. What's pathetic about this comment is how you continue to twist this bastardized government legitimized entity back on free exchanges when we've covered this a billion times. Again, corporations are antithetical to free markets, because they enjoy a government created reduction of competition, government subsidies, corporate welfare, and so on. In short, they enjoy intervention in the marketplace, which is what YOU'RE touting, not me. So, it's YOUR concepts of government that have been and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. I think people claim the free market is "self-correcting" more than "self-regulation", but that's a digression. But listen to what you wrote. "Claims of freedom, liberty" will spring forth in a free market? Yes. Yes very much. Why, you ask? One must only look to the definition of a free market: the voluntary exchange between people without coercion. That is liberty and freedom on its face. The opposite, your idea of regulated and interventionist markets, is coercive and authoritarian. The opposite of free.

5. Good for them.

7. What? No, I'm saying you're associating things like lowering taxes and "taking away power from labor" with free markets, which is ridiculous.

8. Failed states caused by the failure of statism (and the pilfering of government employed opportunists) is not the free market in action. Nice try.

9. Says you. California is a perfect example. It's struggling at the moment to pay for the huge number of government pensions for those unionized "heros" that retired at age 55 and get 90% of their income for the rest of their long lives. But then just recently the LA city council, a haven for modern liberalism and your capitalist/social-democratic utopia, cleared a 1.2 billion dollar construction project to build a fucking luxury hotel. According to this article, "overtime pay for the Los Angeles Fire Department soared 60 percent over the last decade", and "the department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006." And that's just overtime. I could go on, but I've already been over this with NetRunner. Suffice it to say, this is your utopian hybrid in action, and it's a complete failure. And it's slowly going bankrupt. In fact, California has asked the Federal government repeatedly for a bailout.

Do go on, though. I like to watch you dig that grave a little deeper.

Ignorance is not a moral high ground.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
It's very common in arguments of religion for atheists to attribute things to "God". Why does God cause so much pain and suffering? Why doesn't God heal amputees?, etc. It rolls off the tongue a lot better than 'Why doesn't the ancient fictional religious construct that you based your life around heal amputees.?'

It's not the definition of 'free market' that I question, it's all the wide eyed, miracle elixer promises that are used to entice gullible followers. For instance, there is no evidence that free markets self-regulate. There is no evidence that living under unfettered markets would create a desirable political climate for anyone but the super rich. All that stuff about 'voting with your wallet' is naive.

Free Markets do not equal free people. This is the big lie that gives this ideology its (fake) moral center. Under a free market economy, there would be a huge power imbalance between business and labor, which is why corporations champion (if disengenuously in your eyes) the free market. Deregulation, privatization, gutting social welfare programs and other "Free Market" inspired austerity measures always result in low wages, unemployment, poverty and labor abuse. Free Dumb.

1. Friedman has praised greed. Rand has praised selfishness. You have complained about the dangers of government programs motivated by compassion. Do you dispute this?

2. My point is that corporations, regardless of how you feel about them, are the driving force behind American styled libertarianism. Doesn't it give you a moment of pause that your concept of liberty has been, and continues to be shaped by corporations?

3. Again, it's not the definition I object to, it's the wild ass claims of freedom, liberty, self-regulation and other doctrinal bullshit that is supposed to mysteriously spring forth somehow once a set of arbitrary conditions are met. When I talk about lack of evidence, I'm talking about these pie in the sky promises.

5. It is funny that liberalism and libertarianism have swapped meanings in this country. American libertarians are always so confused when Chomsky calls himself a libertarian.

7. So you are saying that deregulation, privatization and the cutting of social programs would not function as intended if they were implemented by force? Why is that? Can you understand my skepticism when individual elements of free marketism fail on their own, and then I'm told that we need even more elements of free marketism for everything to work correctly? It's like a homeopathic doctor saying "of course these homeopathic remedies are making your cancer worse, you forgot the ginseng. You can't cure cancer without ginseng, silly fool."

8. Failed states with no taxation or government should be free market wonderlands, no? It's a common swipe at free market partisans that never gets addressed. Care to give it a go?

9. The most successful states are currently capitalist/socialist hybrids. We trail behind other states (European states) with a more even balance of state and business. If I believed in utopia, I wouldn't be a liberal, because compassion and empathy would be unnecessary in a true utopia.

http://videosift.com/video/The-evolution-of-empathy

For a rugged individualist, you sure do love your little categories and boxes. Do you ever notice your need to be defined and to define others? I don't share your need for precise definition. I like to keep my options open.

"Ignorance is not a moral high ground." I like this quote, especially when you use it to defend an irrational belief system. I'm stealing this quote.

I was talking about tipping in currency. Powerpoints might be interesting too, though. But let's talk about what might happen with money.

@Hybrid's worry may be legitimate, although I don't personally think comment spam would necessarily increase with tipping. I think that's more a function of other social controls - there's a difference between the Sift userbase and the Youtube userbase, and whatever checks manage to keep things mostly civil here would still be in place even with tipping.

In any case, what I was mainly thinking about was tipping for good sifts, maybe also for maintenance functions. That might necessitate some kind of monthly pot to be divided among the most active fixers of dead videos, for example, but I digress.

Tipping for sifts might, if it took off, lead to a kind of curation system on top of the usual functioning of Videosift. I'm thinking of virtual TV channels in a way - long playlists of material, related or not, maybe according to some theme, maybe just on a whim. Current stuff - a collection of news broadcasts and commentary relating to a specific issue over the last week or so, for example. Things that take time and effort and skill to put together in a way that is useful and enjoyable to watch.

Maybe tipping could encourage that. Maybe it could be done anyway, maybe someone's already doing it to some extent. I'm just thinking that in addition to people coming to see what Videosift as a whole has to offer, they might come to see what a specific member has to offer at any given time, kind of like people tune in to watch The Daily Show, not just the Comedy Channel. Bottom line, I think curation is a legitimate service that the Sift could possibly benefit from, and financial incentives might encourage people to spend time on doing more extensive sifting (no pun intended) through material with an eye on creating a coherent narrative on a specific subject. The Sift could take a cut for providing the platform, or maybe ad revenue might increase if enough new viewers came on as a result. (I'm not familiar with the dynamics of ad revenue vs. server costs with increased traffic.)

This could probably be tried out quite easily. Flattr, I think, could readily be implemented here, but it would be hard for the Sift to take a cut (and I do think it deserves one) with that system. For bitcoin, there's http://www.youtipit.org , though that's beta and frankly looks ugly as hell. Also again, taking a cut would require extra work.

Oops.. I meant that to be an upvote!

Sorry.


>> ^raverman:

There are two ways to unite people against a difficult cause.
a) Create a blessed Hero martyred for the cause, challenging all followers
"He died for You! For our freedom! It must not be in vain"
b) Create a cursed Villain, hidden and all around you. All freedoms must be given up to protect against the curse. Anyone who questions is a hidden enemy and must be silenced.
9/11 while tragic, and by... coincidence... for the first time ever, created both in a single act. The most powerful combination of events for total social control, completely by accident.

There are two ways to unite people against a difficult cause.

a) Create a blessed Hero martyred for the cause, challenging all followers
"He died for You! For our freedom! It must not be in vain"

b) Create a cursed Villain, hidden and all around you. All freedoms must be given up to protect against the curse. Anyone who questions is a hidden enemy and must be silenced.

9/11 while tragic, and by... coincidence... for the first time ever, created both in a single act. The most powerful combination of events for total social control, completely by accident

so humiliation is one of the oldest forms of "civil" social control. I do find it weird that people want their humiliation on TV, but a lot of times these people SEEK to be on the show because of the results they may receive. And the humiliation makes a lot of people want to watch it. So, no humiliation, no TV show.

did a presentation in my high school law on this so here's a lil breakdown for ya'll-

Prostitution is a legitimate business and it needs to be legalized to stop unnecessary crime and spread of disease in the community and to enforce the human right of fornication to its extent.

Why Legalize?

When you make something illegal, whether it is drugs, guns or Prostitution, it goes into the underground. Circuits of black market trade and illegal activity are formed. Plainly, when something is illegal, it becomes dangerous instantly for anyone in contact with it. The reason that prostitution does spread disease and murder is only because it illegal.

1. When prostitution is illegal, there is no way of controlling the spread of HIV, AIDS and STDS. Prostitution only accounts for the spreading of 3-5% of STDs while 30-35% is teen-related. Making Prostitution illegal increases the number of the disease’s victims. If a prostitute is infected with AIDS, and she does have 868 partners that year, without a condom that is 868 new cases of AIDS, only further to be spread. Although this is very unlikely since most prostitutes use condoms. The issue of pregnancy also occurs, since AIDS will be passed on directly. With the legalization of prostitution this problem will be wiped out entirely and the number of HIV, AIDS and STDS will go down significantly. All brothels mandatory check their clients monthly, sometimes weekly, and mandate the use of condoms.

2. Again, making prostitution illegal makes it extremely dangerous for prostitutes to work. Prostitutes are the most targeted female group for violence. If a prostitute is raped or violently abused, she cannot go to the police. Prostitution fatality rates are extremely high and the homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000. Perpetrators include violent clients, pimps, and corrupt law-enforcement officers. Serial killers also target prostitutes since the authorities will show less effort to solve the case as apposed to the murder of a schoolteacher or secretary. Jack the Ripper is said to have killed at least five prostitutes in London in 1888. In a recent US study of almost 2000 prostitutes followed over a 30-year period, by far the most common causes of death were homicide. The homicide rate among active female prostitutes was 17 times higher than that of the age-matched general female population.

3.Will eliminate all other illegal infusion such as drugs, gun crime and violence.

4. Will eliminate pimping completely

5. Will help stop the underground child sex slave trade and sex trafficking.

6. The fear of being prosecuted will not exist. This will not prevent prostitutes to go to authorities when needed. Men whose intention is violence or a combination of sex and violence can then be stopped.

7. Most women who prostitute have no previous work experience and live in poverty. Legalizing prostitution will provide prostitutes with a safe work environment and a legal, beneficial job. In result, poverty rates will drop.

8. Less accidental pregnancies causing women to go onto further poverty taking that child down with them.

9.”It costs $2,000 per case to arrest, court, and jail a prostitute. Cities spend from $1 million to $23 million dollars, for an average of $7.5 million dollars, on prostitution-control. Despite the expenses made trying to prevent prostitution, it hasn't been prevented, but only driven underground to places where prostitutes are in the greatest danger of having their rights violated by pimps, clients, and cops. Instead of spending an average of $7.5 million trying to prevent prostitution and arresting prostitutes, cities should spend that money preventing rights-violations against prostitutes, and punishing those who commit crimes against prostitutes.

History

Prostitutes have existed in every human civilization knows to date. It is only recently that a 180 was done in its regard. Throughout 1910 and 1915 the Woman’s Christian Temptation Union strongly influenced the ban of Prostitution. This was the same time as the alcohol prohibition. In 1949 The United Nation released an act that stated that prostitution is against human morals and should be abolished. Since then it has been, in many countries, especially the U.S, which is supposed to be the land of the free.
Prostitution is said to be the oldest female profession. It was one of the only way for females to do gain money throughout most of history, since they were greatly oppressed by men. Mind you male prostitutes did exist and still exist. In Greek and Japanese societies, prostitutes were held on a higher level then most other women. They had an excellent income, were respected and influential figures and admired throughout the community. They were called Hetaeras and Geishas. Although Religion is the main reason prostitution is currently illegal, it was actually a main supplier and benefited of prostitution throughout history. Cyprus and Corinth temples were in charge on thousands of prostitutes. The bible also contains prostitution. King David’s grandmother was one. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church was the main supporter of brothels and gained more wealth and power from it. Augustine of Hippo claimed that Prostitution is a necessary thing, in order to stop greater sins such as masturbation, rape and sodomy.


World Prostitution and Criminal Code

Muslim Countries- Death Penalty
Thailand-prostitution is illegal
New South Wales, Australia- any person over the age of 18 may offer to provide sexual services in return for money.
Victoria, Australia- a person who wishes to run a prostitution business must have a license. Prostitutes working for themselves in their own business, as prostitutes in the business, must be registered. Individual sex workers are not required to be registered.
Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Netherlands- prostitutes are tax-paying and unionized professionals and brothels are legal
Bulgaria and Sweden- outlawed pimping, legal prostitution
Japan- vaginal prostitution is against the law and fellatio prostitution is legal
Turkey- street prostitution is illegal. There are government-run brothels in most cities, which house sex workers. Private brothels must have a license.
Brazil and Costa Rica- prostitution per se is legal, but taking advantage or profit from others' prostitution is illegal
United Kingdom-prostitution is not formally illegal, but several activities surrounding it are outlawed such as pimping, brothels, street and car prostitution
America- Nevada and Rhode Island have legalized prostitution. In all other states it is illegal. A Prostitute can be sentenced up to 15 years in prison.
Canada-prostitution itself is legal, but most other activities around it are not. Pimping is illegal and it is illegal to negotiate a sex-for-money deal in a public place. Section 213 of the Criminal Code states that communicating for the purpose of prostitution is a summary conviction offence. Summary offenses are considered "less serious", carrying a maximum six-month jail term, a $2,000 fine, or both.


Statistics

One prostitute may have 868 partners a year. This is knows as a under reported number.
16% of 18-59 year old men have paid for sex (arguably also under reported)
Per a hundred thousand people, 23% are Prostitutes.
1 in 3 women in jails re arrested for prostitution
15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes, 59% of prostitutes have thought of committing suicide, compared to 61% of non-prostitutes.
77.8% of arrests are women, 22.2% men. In larger cities, 20-30% of prostitutes are male


Hypocrisy
There is a president place for the US constitution to support prostitution.

In 1965 the Supreme Court in Griswold vs. Connecticut found a right of privacy that covered the right for couples to use birth control.
1973 that right of privacy was extended to abortion in Roe vs. Wade, which later extended to Laurence very Texas to same sex conduct.

Based on this principle Prostitution should therefore logically extend to encompass the right of consenting adult to procure fornication part of a monetary transaction. The hidden agenda is social control.

It is a human right to have sexual intercourse whether it is free or paid for
Prostitution is said to victimize. If a woman willingly provides sexual services to a man who is willing to pay money for it, there is no violation of human rights.
Catholic and Christian group’s word cannot hold a strong meaning since their religions have been the top benefactors of prostitution throughout history
It is hypocritical for the government to say they are banning prostitution with people’s well being in mind when it is the ban that provokes thousands of deaths related to prostitution.



If Legalized

Brothels would be completely legal with guidelines of monthly health checks and security.

Private prostitution would be legalized with a license. A mandatory course would be required for education on health risks, contraception, prostitute rights, smart and careful choice of customers and advertising recommendations.

Street prostitution would not be made legal because 80% of prostitutes are killed on the street and although with legalization this number will improve, I consider it still dangerous. A 1500$ penalty and community hours will be enforced instead of imprisonment.

What if a husband lusts for his wife or a wife lusts for her husband?

I believe as the bible was a form of social control, the making of lust into a sin was brought about as they believed lust lead to action on the lust and in many cases the result was rape.

Today, we still don't know if porn and lust leads to sexual deviancy of certain individuals so their solution seems just as reasonable today. I don't agree with it, but definitely can't say it's horrible logic.

>> ^rottenseed:
I would like to know all the quotes about hell in the bible...
I am pretty sure the idea of hell came as a sort of social control. The idea of hell has been used for this for a long time before Christianity. But, the idea of hell certainly didn't come from the Jews.


You are right, it didnt come for "the jews" as you put it, nor from the torah, or Old Testament as Christians call it, the Old testament God was a terrible, vindictive, sadistic God, but once you were in the ground, he was done with you, but the so-called New Testament mentions and describes hell several times.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm

I would like to know all the quotes about hell in the bible...

I am pretty sure the idea of hell came as a sort of social control. The idea of hell has been used for this for a long time before Christianity. But, the idea of hell certainly didn't come from the Jews.

truthopedia says:

"The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and , in many peoples' opinions, repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive."

so.... i guess you're out of luck MG. find me a definition that doesn't sound like the USA/UK and call me back.

Yes, despite being a devout Catholic, and despite trying to remain loyal to the church, Galileo could not ignore the observations showing the sun at the centre of the solar system. The catholic church was of course teaching that the earth is the centre of creation and the universe (Aristotle). They persecuted Galileo. In later years, the catholic church recruited and funded astronomers which was the beginnings of the church using science for persuasion of its esoteric teachings which still goes on to this day. Today it's called Intelligent Design.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Galileo? Seriously?


In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"The Catholic church gets bashed on a lot and I'm never sure why."


The vatican staying silent about the holocaust during WWII,

Still teaching even today that HIV can pass through condoms in AIDS stricken Africa,

Covering up child abuse allegations, for example that of Father John Geoghan, accused of sexually molesting over 100 boys in the Archdiocese of Boston,

The persecution of Galileo, the inventor of the telescope,

The infamous brutal and violating interrogations directed at the suppresion of heresy,

In fact hundreds of years of years of persection, deceit, lies and social control; much of which can be levelled at any religion in the world. Take your pick.

The vatican's position on evolution does not explicity say that evolution is the most likely creation theory, only that "faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a 'special creation', and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins."

This is always worth saying: Science is a METHOD, not a position.