2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This is a very interesting question that I've thought quite a lot about during my life (to myself, not in any sort of professional capacity).

The conclusions that I have come to (so far) are:
I think that, yes, religion in general terms IS a significant (but it is a stretch to say the ONLY) restraint on a pretty large number of people. Which is a prospect that I personally have a negative and pessimistic reaction to, similar to what it sounds like you do.

However, I think that there are lots of mitigating circumstances. First, many different religions currently provide that restraint to people. And in the past, many many more religions provided it to even more people. Many of those different religions have been very very different. Some have been near polar opposites. That proves that if your goal is restraining people from being utterly evil, and someone suggests that religion has made or is making a noble effort towards that (like your uncle), the positive aspects they are cheering for are not unique to any single religion, or dogma, or whatever.

If one accepts that many many diverse and completely different religions can potentially have the positive effects that we're looking for, then the actual source of those effects can not be something specific to any one religion. Instead, it has to be something that is held in common by all such religions.

Religions are so diverse and different, it might be hard to imagine something that they have in common. No specific god is held in common, even though all the Abrahamic religions might arguably share that aspect. Not even the simple idea of a god or gods or creator is far from universal; Buddhists revere no god.

Yet I believe that there is one easily overlooked thing that all religions DO have in common. Humanity. They all come from flawed but usually well-meaning people.

However, atheists hold that humanity in common with religions as well. And that makes me believe that if we understand humanity better, either through psychology, or empathy, or whatever, we can achieve the positive effects of religions without the religions themselves. Certainly without the stone-age dogmatic nonsense -- which tends to have arguably as many if not more BAD effects as good. This actually gives me great hope for humanity; rather the opposite to the conclusion that I came to originally when pondering the question.

There may always be people who have no empathy, and for whom nothing would serve to restrain them from what humanity at large would easily identify as great evil. No religion will handle such individuals any better than no religion ... so I guess I don't lose any sleep over that.

Um...Ok.
The Iranian 'revolution' was a surprise to most, including the Iranians. Carter didn't cause it.
Iran/Iraq war wasn't our problem, or fault. Regan getting involved and backing Saddam ended with atrocities and the US/Iraq wars to remove him later...should have let Iran do the dirty work.
Panama was a lease, which ran out. You think we should have gone to war with Panama and stolen it? Oh man.
We should have let the soviets 'take' Afghanistan, otherwise known as the graveyard of empires. We certainly should have stayed the hell out of there ourselves. Often invaded, never held, that's Afghanistan.
I'll just ignore the rest of your post. It needs no reply....except to note that your attempted insult of 'peanut farmer' (a noble career itself) ignores that he's also a Nuclear Sub Executive Officer/commanding officer AND designer.

@newtboy
we agree.
i think the difference lies in this:
1.you attempt to change the system by using the very system you acknowledge is corrupt.i find this extremely noble,and yes..optimistic (sincerely) ,but is about as effective as chewing bubble gum to solve an algebra equation.

2.i find the system to have made itself irrelevant by the very virtues it purports to uphold.
equal under the law? not even close.
for the people by the people? oh yeah? which people? certainly not you or i.
defense and security? if that means wars of aggression.
civil liberties? for whom? in this security and surveillance state?we are the most surveilled...the most propagandized..the most indoctrinated.

the system we have now is no longer representative of the original intent of our forefathers.who were looking to build an empire but as a republic,pretty inventive and ingenious.

i do not submit to this authority because they lost the right to that authority.
i know the real power is where it has always resided:the people.

the system is broken and it is time it is taken down.

but as you stated,some are under-educated and i'll add that some are over-educated and indoctrinated.either way,we find ourselves in a society of vapid consumerism,immense inequality and where we,shamefully,criminalize the poor.

so when is this revolution starting? i'll bring the beer.
cuz i aim to misbehave....

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.

I don't understand why she doesn't do what most women (and men) who don't want to be approached (be it by men, women, panhandlers, whomever!) while walking through a city do, and wear earbuds??? It's a very simple solution and provides an easy and practical way of ignoring most of these attempts (if not dissuading them altogether).

Also.. This.

And:
"Let's all stop and focus our attention on "catcalling" women. Let's forget the drone bombings of entire cities, the fact that the US has 900 military bases in over 153 countries, the fact that you are almost 9 times more likely to be killed by a police employee than a terrorist....let's take a break from that and focus on the fact that sometimes men are creepy to pretty women."


And:

"The path to empowering women is not by disempowering men.
While many feminist campaigns and viral videos are great at expressing the (superficial) problem, they're not helping to solve it. Prolonging the "battle of the sexes" and "blame game" mentality will never stop rape, harassment, or abuse. All that's being done is expressing pain and anger, which is fine, unless it's directed at another. Attacking men for attacking women isn't going to solve anything.
We need to go so much deeper than this. So much deeper.
We don't need to see more proof of "how fucked up society is"; this only propagates stereotypes that induce resentment and fear. We need to see the power of compassion, love, forgiveness, healing, empathy, and acceptance between both sexes. We need to learn why people hurt other people (hint: it's because they're hurting themselves) and how to heal it and empathize with it.
We need women to open up and love in the face of men approaching, not shut down and run away. We need men to open up and love in the face of rejection, rather than becoming bitter or forcing our will upon another.
Unabashedly, I do not support or promote campaigns that are based in pain, resentment, anger, or fear, no matter how noble the cause. I wish to lift up both sexes – nay, all people – without perpetuating the pain and conflict.
This darkness has been illuminated out in the world, now it's time to illuminate the darkness within ourselves and heal it. What we see out in our culture is a reflection of how so many of us are unable to resolve the conflicts, rejection, and hurt caused by the masculine and feminine inside of us. We can not fix this by signing new laws or going out and trying to control everybody; we do this by starting the forgiveness and healing process within ourselves and going out into the world shining love instead of hate."

I love mind-stretching stuff, but the purpose is a little confusing in this. The science in visiting a comet and discovering sand dunes is damned great. (reference: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/10/scientists-discover-that-comet-stinks-and-has-dunes-just-like-earth ) But this little film buries that in the equivalent of master/apprentice wizardry and magic.

Yeah, yeah, effects were superb, and per Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", and the story was meant to be noble. Got that.

But this still put me off a touch because it muddied the waters. Cool science is cool without CGI, and this went a bit too far down that lane.

I didn't know the investigation and the trial was already over. Guess that's it then.

You do realize that even if this situation was properly officiated by the police, that that is still a problem with people? I also hope you realize that, again if this situation is proper that still Black people aren't treated properly in America.

I understand that there are always these controversial situations which everyone jumps on. They try to pick teams and make sure they win as best as they can, but this isn't about winners and losers. This is a society, and it has rungs, those at the bottom tend to be disproportionately Black and they get abused by those higher up. That is hardly debatable, and we have to decide if it is tolerable.

Unsurprisingly those at the bottom rung have decided it is not tolerable, which happens occasionally in history. It's a constant struggle and many gains about been made. I want to be on the side of history that espouses equality, that is ahead of the curve. I find it noble to drag humanity, kicking and screaming sometimes into a future of further enlightenment.

I'm not going to name people as racists or not-racists. It seems to me though a choice must be made by the individual. If this isn't tolerable to you than you can stand up. If it does not concern you then you need not inject your voice. It's not an attack on you, your world or your advantages. It's a struggle for those who see a problem, they will keep going. Those who stand with the status quo will not be remembered as noble people, they become the false prophets of history.

@lantern53
did you just compare a famous nazi warmongering propagandist (who got his playbook from an american *edward bernaise*) to a political satirist?

a political satirist who is skewering actual so-called "journalists"?

jon stewart is NOT a journalist and this segment is not about reporting on ferguson but rather pointing to the absurdity of some news outlets and how THEY propagandize.

nobody knows for certain the details of what went down,mainly in part to "news" outlets such as the daily show is revealing to be muppets rather than journalists but ALSO how the police department is handling the situation.

the news outlets are also ignoring the under lying reasons why there was rioting and looting.

or do you actually believe that people in this community just decided to blow up businesses and take to the streets.as if it were inherent to their nature and that rioting is fun!
yaaay rioting! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEE!

but maybe...
juuuust maybe.
there had been an ongoing persecution brought on by years of flagrant abuse of authority and a disproportionate focus on this poor community?
think that could be possible?
not only is it possible but probable,because thats exactly what many of the residents have actually said.

a few decades of bad policing will have that effect on people.

who is the blame?
do we blame the residents?who after years of police stepping on their necks resorts to violence?
well,they do hold some responsibility.though we may understand,we cannot condone.

or do we blame the police?

well,several weeks ago you made the argument that it was actually those in command that set the tone for the entire force.

that was a good argument.
i agree with that argument.
being former military i understand the chain of command and how vital it is to a working and successful force that wields immense power.

so here is my basic problem with your commentary:
you chastise stewart for ignoring the violence,rioting and protesting,while at the VERY SAME TIME ignore the REASONS why that that violence erupted.

you appear to be very vocal in your support of the police,ANY police,which commendable...even noble,but you,yourself,noted that those in command could be corrupt,vicious and incompetent.

so my question is this:
why would you defend those cops?

Based on the book The Rebel: The Outlaw Josie Wales, written under a pseudonym by Asa Earl Carter, a White supremacist. There was a This American Life (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/527/transcript) which goes into AEC and The Education of Little Tree. It's interesting how, based on that, AEC's pecular point of view comes across quite clearly in this clip--the distrust of Blue Coats, the disdain for government, and even viewing the Native American as a "Noble Savage".

I think it's noble to do whatever little you can to oppose the brutal half-century long occupation, humiliation, starvation and assassination of your people, yes.

Israel is an illegal occupying power in international law, that's a fact. It constantly violates practically every obligation that occupation incurs in international law; it engages in collective punishment, it regularly seizes and destroys private property, it laughingly fails to provide for the safety and welfare of the population under its control, it settles occupied territory with its civilians, it forcibly relocates Palestinian civilians, it routinely ignores the UN's attempts to restrain these and other illegal behaviours, these are facts.

Israel is engaged in terrorism in Gaza and elsewhere, and has been for decades - fact.

You actively admit supporting terrorist organisations? Why stop at Hamas then, you can’t have double standards now can you. Here I’ll help you:

"There are no terrorist targets in Iraq. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Al-Qaida rocket fire/suicide bombings isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble."

Do you think it’s noble to fire rockets out of hospitals hiding behind defenceless civilians?

The whole world expect Russia,Turkey and China sees Hamas as a terrorist organisation, maybe you should consider moving from the UK gorilla warfare man.

There are no terrorist targets in Gaza. Occupied people have a right to resist, both ethically and under international law. Palestinian rocket fire isn't terrorism, it isn't war, but a ghetto uprising; just as doomed and just as noble.

I saw the first one when it came out, more out of curiosity than anything else. I was a big transformers fan as a kid, but I wasn't expecting much from Bay. Even my low expectations weren't met.

Tonight, by coincidence, Dark of the Moon was on TV. "Maybe I'm being too hard" I thought. I mean, they're only glorified toy commercials anyway, right? Maybe I'm guilty of just jumping on the Bay-hate band wagon...

Nope.

Aside from being a completely un-fucking-watchable mess, it was just boring. How the hell do you spend that much money (and the money clearly didn't go on writers or actors), have that many explosions and still have it be boring?

I didn't like JJ Abrams new Star Trek movies, but at lest he was in trying (in his own half-assed, ham-fisted way) to pay homage to the property. Bay clearly hates this whole concept. He hates the characters, the design, the plot lines, he's not even really interested in the central concept of robots that bloody transform. And to top it all off, you couldn't even let kids watch this. Instead of the noble, if naïve leader of the 80s, Optimus is just a dick here. And a psychopathic one too. He flat out murders his defeated enemy at the end.

FFS, if it's a terrible movie and you can't use it to sell toys to kids..what is the goddamn point of its existence?