Non Aviation & Not For The Faint Hearted

[mo32a]

Once you have a run in with security/customs/immigration you are flagged in the system so they are all going to give you a good look.

[boestar]

If you want to avoid being inadvertently flagged for secondary screenings always use your middle name when filling out the APIS or any other documentation. There are cases where Joe Bob Blow is on a list but Joe Bill Blow is not. If you just use Joe Blow then you get flagged

[Seeker]

“Being called Mohamed had something to do with it,” he said.

Ya think? Like it or, historically, the vast majority of terrorists have been black Muslim guys named Mohamed (although that does seem to be changing lately).

Furthermore, it occurs to me that a Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator may have a vested interest in highlighting a personal agenda.

[Seeker]

Here is an excellent book on the subject - I recommend it:

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

...and some quotes/excerpts from the book:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/God_Is_Not_Great

[FireFox]

Agreed. I like to draw basic parallels to the Christian crusades. Christian armies overrunning cities and towns, killing all the non-believers, raping the women, pillaging and burning the towns. Sound like anything that might be going on today?

[GDR]

Another example of a moderate Islamist speaking out.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/calgary-imam-staging-hunger-strike-to-draw-attention-to-home-grown-terrorism-1.1971163

[Critter]

Seeker.

Watching any of Christopher Hitchens' debates is extremely thought provoking. YouTube is loaded with them if you have the time.

The guy plainly knew history and the contents of the bible and the Koran better than most devotees.

[Seeker]

Seeker.

Watching any of Christopher Hitchens' debates is extremely thought provoking. YouTube is loaded with them if you have the time.

The guy plainly knew history and the contents of the bible and the Koran better than most devotees.

I have been a fan if his for many years and often watch interviews and discussions of his on YT. You are correct on it being thought-provoking - the thought it provokes in me is that religion is a net negative influence on humanity, or as George Carlin says: the only good thing to come out of organized religion is the music.

[Mitch Cronin]

[...] or as George Carlin says: the only good thing to come out of organized religion is the music.

Well, I think you'd have to include a lot of beautiful art and architecture. ...but then, I think people would have been (and will continue to be) just as creative, without religion.

[Trader]

While this Calgary Iman may not like the violent radicals he is still wants Sharia law in Canada................moderate Islam is not moderate by typical standards ie. a moderate Catholic would likely be defined as one who practices irregulary. If this is an exampel of morderate islam then there is an issue!

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=5162d29c-ffe4-4f4a-8d25-fe5e097c0963

A google seach will provide other examples of the ;moderates' views.

[GDR]

Everyone has faith and believes in something. Everyone has their own world view.

I was a big fan of Chris Hitchens because he intelligently asked all the right questions and poked holes in the religious beliefs of a lot of people. However, I disagree with him in the conclusions he ultimately came to. He could effectively find fault with the beliefs of others, but his own beliefs went largely unchallenged.

Hitchens was an atheist. As an atheist he had to believe that the our existence is simply the result of the chance combination of mindless particles without even questioning the age old question of why there is something instead of nothing. Even if we dismiss the idea of first cause of the universe then we still have to consider how life came into existence. Hitchens again had to believe that a single cell, with all of its incredible complexity simply came into existence because of a chance combination of chemicals, which were the chance combination of the atoms that formed from the chance combination of the particles that came into existence at the point where time = zero or the big bang if you prefer.

Then Hitchens came to the conclusion that once single living cells came into existence they evolved into the myriad of life forms that exist today without the aid of an intelligent prime mover. As we have learned, evolution is a beautiful complex process that allows life to re=create itself. Does that really look like the result of non-intelligent chance? However we not only have simple life but we have sentient intelligent beings. Atheists have to conclude and believe that the root cause of intelligence is non-intelligent in which case they have no basis to actually trust in their own intelligence.

However we can't just stop at simply intelligent life. We have at least one creature that has a sense of morality. We all have a conscience, a sense of right and wrong. Certainly we can ignore that conscience and even deaden it out of self interest, but universally there is a sense that the "golden rule" is a universal truth. This being the case then it is logical that individuals and societies that out of self-interest, and the all too human desire for power, will claim that there is a higher authority that has made them special in order to cause their tribal groups to subvert their concerns for others and declare them to be enemies. This higher authority can take the form of a deity, a human individual or the state.

It isn't religion that is the problem, it is people. Religions are man made attempts at understanding the nature and the workings of the prime mover regardless of whether that prime mover is called God, Allah or Zeuss. Unfortunately too much of religious belief involves human attempts to control the prime mover and to get him onside with our own selfish desires. That does not constitute any form of evidence that there is no prime mover.

I can't muster up enough faith to believe that life at all, let alone sentient moral beings, exists by chance. I do have faith that there is an intelligent prime mover. I believe and have faith that the prime mover is moral and desires that we reflect that morality into our world. I believe that the prime mover exists partially in that still small voice of our conscience that calls us to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us". Yes, as a Christian I believe more than that, and yes I disagree with the religious beliefs of many other Christians including those who make an idol out of the Bible. I also believe that some of what I believe is no doubt in error with the problem being that I don't know which of my beliefs fall into that category. However, as I said at the beginning we all have faith and believe in something.

Greg

[Seeker]

I can't muster up enough faith to believe that life at all, let alone sentient moral beings, exists by chance. I do have faith that there is an intelligent prime mover.

Greg, you believe that God created life on Earth because you can't accept that it could come about from any other cause but have no problem with accepting that God exists without having been created. Do you not see the contradiction here?

[GDR]

It isn't that I can't accept any other cause. We exist and there has to be an explanation for our existence. None of us "know" what the explanation is but we can have faith in some explanation. I contend that atheism is the least likely explanation.

Certainly HItchens and others ask the question if God created the Earth the who created God. Good question.

Besides reading theology I enjoy reading books written at the popular level on science. (I have no background so my understanding of science is conceptual and as basic as it can get.) However, with that disclaimer in mind, I have read several books on cosmology. One of the things that they write about is our concept of time, with time essentially being the way we perceive change. I have actually read books written entirely about time.

The mathematics of physics tells us that time should be symmetrical. We should be able to experience time in either direction but as we live in a a universe governed by entropy, and as a result we only experience time, or change, in one direction. Presumably, without entropy we could experience time in either direction and be able to go infinitely back and forth in time. I subscribe to Scientific American and the cover of the Nov 2010 issue had this as its lead story. "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - an entire universe my be silently interwoven with our own". We perceive our universe as having a beginning, or a point where time equaled zero. If however that theory as espoused in SA is correct then maybe our reality is only a part of a greater reality.

Much of theoretical physics uses mathematical formulas requiring more than one dimension of time. Let's speculate that the hidden universe in that headline included three time dimensions similar to the way our universe contains three spatial dimensions. If we our essentially and emergent property (with only one dimension of time) from a greater reality then it is quite reasonable to understand that greater reality as being infinite and that we could move around infinitely in time just as we can currently move around infinitely in space. If the greater reality that we are a part of is infinite then there is no reason to believe that a prime mover is also infinite, thus not needing to be created.

Interestingly enough I really enjoy reading the books written by Brian Greene. The last book of his that I read, (which I had personally autographed by him when he was speaking at U Vic), was titled “The Hidden Reality”. It was fascinating book. One of the things I found so interesting was that even though Greene is a secularist the book sounded as much theological as it did scientific.

I regard science as a natural theology. I also contend that science and theology are drawing closer and closer all the time. That however is JMHO.

Greg

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

The sincerity and earnestness which accompany deep beliefs are independent of morality, but morality itself, sometimes characterized as "received", is a human-construct which is proven by counterexamples to be maleable and even convenient moralities, depending upon context. Integrity of belief is an individual state and (to use Kant's notion) is not "categorically imperative" or necessary to or for others. We must encounter exceptions to prove the rule.

The question that occurs to me is, how do we separate or at least distinguish between deeply-held, sincere and consistent beliefs & belief-systems which also differ radically from one another?

Put more succinctly and practically, how do we distinguish between the sincere and absolute belief of Islamic extremism and a moderate, western Christianity? Religion held deeply regardless of which, drives people to blow themselves up, burn themselves to death, whip themselves, kill others, and otherwise to physically or socially/psychologically exclude 'non-believers' or those who question, from their group. Such primal behaviours are foreign to a gentle religion which honors self-and-all-life, (which may be understood as our western notion of a morality). And if such differentiation is possible, by what indelible means can it be so? I think discovering that within the human psyche may be our way forward but there are severe impediments to dialogue, beginning with the conflation between metaphorical ways of expressing belief and the reality that is everyday life for vastly differing peoples.

This is by no means or description, a new form of relativism dressed in another rhetorical cloak. There is nothing "relative" about beliefs deeply held. The question arises when the two worlds collide, as they are at the moment, as never before, and so dangerously.

You're "convinced", is the Imam's "convinced", and, save violence, power and coercion, we have no way in our present world to sort out which is to be favoured, except that most agree that life is to be preserved vice extinguished, although we are certainly going to find beliefs counter to that seemingly "foundational" principle.

The notion of the infidel exists in both western Judeo-Christian religions and in Islam. How it is applied, to what end and to what intention is the appeal to a fundamental and familiar exceptionalism which all religions claim. Approached this way, the problem is by definition, insoluable.

One may continue in one's beliefs quite apart from such serious questioning, but the questions remain and the world proceeds, apace, and dangerously so.

To me, while the title of his book is theatrical, this is what Christopher Hitchens was about - the question cannot help but be observed and where courage overcomes hegemonies, correctly and properly asked.

"Atheism" is used as much as a noun as it is an adjective and like any naming of something, it becomes a "frozen" debating concept. Hitchens however, was a state-of-mind, a "stance", an approach, a posture, a way of travelling in life, a point of view in which the question of religious belief and the notion of god necessarily remains "in suspension" given all.

I think the questions Hitchens either asked or implied are more than just intellectually valuable. Nor am I against a religious world for such expresses the human "way" which cannot be expressed in the scientific discourse. But I think the changes in world view that are hinted at can provide ways for our survival as a relatively brand-new species.

[GDR]

Hi Don

I thought I might hear from you.

I can't know that what I believe is right and the Imam, our even if Isis is wrong. As I said earlier we all have faith in something and I firmly believe that Sharia law and what Isis is doing is universally wrong and that the "Golden Rule" is a universal truth. If that is correct then it is obvious that humans are flawed beings and as a result this world is often as not a dangerous place.

I think a book that you would enjoy, (I have likely mentioned it before), is called "The Evolution of God" by a secularist, Robert Wright. It goes through the history of the human understanding of our various deities over the centuries. It is interesting that less than two thousand years ago the civilized societies enjoyed as entertainment people being killed by wild animals or fighting to the death. We have evolved away from that in much of the world. I imagine that you would contend that it is from a natural evolutionary process that saw the benefit of behaving co-operatively. However that doesn't really explain selfless altruism. Frankly when we look at the resources that individuals send to the third world I think we have to consider that there is more going on than simply the well being of ourselves or even our genetic pool. If the population of Africa were to disappear tomorrow it would leave the resources of that continent to be used for our own well being, and yet myself and others transfer their own wealth to help that continent. Some risk their very lives in that cause.

It appears to me that our spiritual understanding and the nature of our hearts is in general evolving towards having hearts that embrace the golden rule. Certainly individuals and groups have subverted that growth but on the whole we do appear to be creatures that not only evolve physically but that evolve spiritually. We can make up our own mind if that is the result of a prime mover by whatever name we want to use speaking to our hearts and minds through our conscience.

Here is the Webster's definition for infidel.

a : an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion

b : one who acknowledges no religious belief

a disbeliever in something specified or understood

I don't use that term, but I just see people that disagree with me as being wrong and not evil.

Yes there have been horrendous things done in the name of Christianity just as there have been horrible things done in the name of the state or tribe. Humans often lust after power and they will latch on to whatever vehicle that best suits there purpose. That does not negate the existence of a theistic and moral prime mover.

Always good to talk to you Don.

Greg

[Seeker]

The notion of the infidel exists in both western Judeo-Christian religions and in Islam. How it is applied, to what end and to what intention is the appeal to a fundamental and familiar exceptionalism which all religions claim. Approached this way, the problem is by definition, insoluable.

Well, this is really the heart of the problem: the Abrahamic religions are constructed on the basis of conflict. You cannot build a straight house on a crooked foundation and the foundations of Judaism, Islamism and Christianity are very crooked indeed. All three of these religions have duality as their founding principle; good vs evil, light vs darkness, my belief vs your belief. As soon as you choose to see the universe in these terms it becomes impossible to see it any other way. I have, over the last few years, read a lot about eastern religions such a Hinduism and Buddism and it's quite refreshing to see that they do not see the world in terms of a conflict between opposing states or viewpoints but rather in the terms of acceptance.

The best and only solution to religious conflict is the widespread adoption of the concept of non-duality, which is a logical impossibility.

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

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg;

Well, it's been a while eh? ...and I know my own thinking has evolved over the past few years - life is for changes!

Thanks for the book recommendation. My own recommendation is anything by Joseph Campbell, particularly the Power of Myth, The Hero With a Thousand Faces and "This Business of the Gods", the latter not easy to find. Campbell is neither secular nor religious - he says that such characterizations just don't describe his condition. We could say however that he is a most spirtual man, (whatever that means in today's society...he died in 1984).

If I may, I doubt if those to whom the term "infidel" really means something, have read Webster! It is a word with its unique meaning. ;-)

I think given the satisfaction of all physical and emotional needs such as food, shelter, companionship and hope, that the social animal remains thus - altruistic to a certain extent. However, sharing with those less fortunate is an extensive and complex notion; we not only do it with physical objects, we do it with ideas, hoping to convey a 'better life' for others. When we do so, we do implicitly with ideas of what, who, where and why are "better". Most of the time it is obvious - a society under threat from invasion, starvation, physical harm from geological events, etc. However, our recently-evolved triune brain does have its reptilian core. I think altruism remains a core value of humans without any sense of "exchange" or return favour, until it doesn't. We see this in the higher life forms, of which we are learning of animals' vast and complex "emotional" life.

All things being equal in terms of power, we seperate, ostracize and kill more for psychological territory, (ideas) than we do for food, love or physical territory.

What is the price of being "wrong"? Is it pergatory as the Old Testament would have it, or is it possibly, merely reputation? We do not have an arbiter of such things; we have only ourselves and the short and long-term consequences of those ideas. For me, the arbiter is, as it has been for 3-billion years, the planet itself and, for the past few thousand years our stewardship and governance of both it and ourselves. While for some a very fine beginning, it takes more than faith to alter our present trajectories.

Thanks for your thoughtful response as always, Greg. Such an exchange always intends to highlight and not persuade.

Don

[Don Hudson]

Seeker;

If anything, I would describe myself as a "buddhist", but not a "Buddhist".

The notion of dualities is inherent in some languages - every notion expressed implies the existence of it's paired opposite. But embracing the "either-or" in social interaction, possession and power takes us down a path of division where none is inherent in life, only language. The notion of the duality is a uniquely western concept dating initially from Plato and then Aristotle. Certain present-day philosophers have taken this Greek intellectual heritage on and challenged the dualistic view of the world and the universe. Among these men was Jaques Derrida, and earlier Ferdinand Saussure and even Martin Heidegger, who had regular communications with Eastern philosophers in the 30's and 40's on these very ideas. Though never necessary for a good life, one cannot dismiss these notions out of hand without foreshortening one's view of "us-in-the-world". The most important question one might ask oneself from such a point of view is, What is the understanding that understands?

[GDR]

Well, this is really the heart of the problem: the Abrahamic religions are constructed on the basis of conflict. You cannot build a straight house on a crooked foundation and the foundations of Judaism, Islamism and Christianity are very crooked indeed. All three of these religions have duality as their founding principle; good vs evil, light vs darkness, my belief vs your belief. As soon as you choose to see the universe in these terms it becomes impossible to see it any other way. I have, over the last few years, read a lot about eastern religions such a Hinduism and Buddism and it's quite refreshing to see that they do not see the world in terms of a conflict between opposing states or viewpoints but rather in the terms of acceptance.

The best and only solution to religious conflict is the widespread adoption of the concept of non-duality, which is a logical impossibility.

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

I would contend that you misrepresent the Christian faith when you say this. Sure there are many places in the Old Testament that involve conflict and other heinous acts. It has God commanding genocide and public stoning. So how do we read that? Do we take it literally, while wondering just how this message was actually conveyed, or do we look at the teachings of Jesus who said that that all law hangs on the command that we are to love. There was Jesus as a Jew living under the brutal Roman regime and telling His fellow Jews that they were to love their enemy, go the extra mile and turn the other cheek. It would be like someone in Nazi occupied territory going around saying that the way to defeat the Nazis was to love them until their hearts were changed. It kinda figures that Jesus was pretty unpopular in a lot of circles.

The religion is called Christianity - not Bibleianity. The Old Testament has to be understood in light of the teaching of Jesus. That message of peace and love was revolutionary and still is. Conflict just seems to be part of who we are. Sure religion can be divisive but so can loyalty to our countries or any other type of tribal thought. If you don't believe that just look at the history of airline mergers.

If Jesus was here telling us the parable of the "Good Samaritan" today I suggest he would substitute Muslim for Samaritan.

As far as Buddhism is concerned I remember reading through the "Book of Buddha" and being impressed as to how similar the teaching of the original Buddha to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I believe that all other faiths are totally wrong headed or that I have everything right.

[DEFCON]

"Just because I am a Christian does not mean that I believe that all other faiths are totally wrong headed or that I have everything right."

With respect; while you can describe yourself as a moderate, there are at least as many Christians out there that hold to a considerably stricter doctrine. This is the case with most, if not all theologies.

How should mankind, with all its different considerations, protect those of us that don't wish to follow any of these highly speculative paths to enlightenment from being harmed by the religious zealots that are driven to kill us simply because they believe we're 'infidels'? As a member of society I've got to say, I 'm sick & tired of fearing people that are driven by fantasy and have been, are being, and will continue to be an impediment to peaceful life on this planet. I'm also tired of the 'it's only a minority within the faith' style of excuse for murderous behaviours. Minorities aside, people motivated by religious belief continue to perpetuate mass attacks against the rest of us while the moderates within the same fundamental belief system remain unable to control, probably because the moderates fear the extremists too?

It is only mho, but I 'believe' it's time for a big fundamental change in 'modern' world thinking.

[DEFCON]

PS

Back in the time of the Soviet Union, I was of the impression that that form of government was cold and lacked any sense of a soul because 'religion' was outlawed within the state. I'm now of the opinion the Soviets may actually have had sound rationale in support of the rule.

[GDR]

PS

Back in the time of the Soviet Union, I was of the impression that that form of government was cold and lacked any sense of a soul because 'religion' was outlawed within the state. I'm now of the opinion the Soviets may actually have had sound rationale in support of the rule.

Hmmmm.....so this is your answer

Joseph Stalin, who died 60 years ago in Moscow, was a small man -- no more than 5-foot-4. The abused son of a poor, alcoholic Georgian cobbler, Josef Vissarionovich Djughashvili (the future Stalin) also had a withered arm, a clubbed foot and a face scarred by small pox, but he stood very tall as one of history’s most prolific killers.

Stalin’s extremely brutal 30-year rule as absolute ruler of the Soviet Union featured so many atrocities, including purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, torture and good old-fashioned acts of mass murder and massacres (not to mention World War II) that the complete toll of bloodshed will likely never be known.

An amoral psychopath and paranoid with a gangster’s mentality, Stalin eliminated anyone and everyone who was a threat to his power – including (and especially) former allies. He had absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life.

But how many people is he responsible for killing?

In February 1989, two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, a research paper by Georgian historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev published in the weekly tabloid Argumenti i Fakti estimated that the death toll directly attributable to Stalin’s rule amounted to some 20 million lives (on top of the estimated 20 million Soviet troops and civilians who perished in the Second World War), for a total tally of 40 million.

''It's important that they published it, although the numbers themselves are horrible,'' Medvedev told the New York Times at the time.

''Those numbers include my father.''

Medevedev's grim bookkeeping included the following tragic episodes: 1 million imprisoned or exiled between 1927 to 1929; 9 to 11 million peasants forced off their lands and another 2 to 3 million peasants arrested or exiled in the mass collectivization program; 6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million exiled from Moscow and Leningrad in 1935; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938; 4 to 6 million dispatched to forced labor camps; 10 to 12 million people forcibly relocated during World War II; and at least 1 million arrested for various “political crimes” from 1946 to 1953.

Although not everyone who was swept up in the aforementioned events died from unnatural causes, Medvedev’s 20 million non-combatant deaths estimate is likely a conservative guess.

Indeed, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the literary giant who wrote harrowingly about the Soviet gulag system, claimed the true number of Stalin’s victims might have been as high as 60 million.

Most other estimates from reputed scholars and historians tend to range from between 20 and 60 million.

In his book, “Unnatural Deaths in the U.S.S.R.: 1928-1954,” I.G. Dyadkin estimated that the USSR suffered 56 to 62 million "unnatural deaths" during that period, with 34 to 49 million directly linked to Stalin.

In “Europe A History,” British historian Norman Davies counted 50 million killed between 1924-53, excluding wartime casualties.

Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, a Soviet politician and historian, estimated 35 million deaths.

Even some who have put out estimates based on research admit their calculations may be inadequate.

In his acclaimed book “The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties,” Anglo-American historian Robert Conquest said: “We get a figure of 20 million dead [under Stalin], which is almost certainly too low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so.”

Quotes attributed to Stalin reflected his utter disregard for human life. Among other bons mots, he allegedly declared: “Death is the solution to all problems. No man -- no problem,” and “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Part of the problem with counting the total loss of life lies with the incompleteness and unreliability of Soviet records. A more troubling dilemma has to do with the fact that many some deaths – like starvation from famines – may or may not have been directly connected to Stalin’s policies.

In any case, if the figure of 60 million dead is accurate that would mean that an average of 2 million were killed during each year of Stalin’s horrific reign – or 40,000 every week (even during “peacetime”).

If the lower estimate of 20 million is the true number, that still translates into 1,830 deaths every single day.

Thus, Stalin’s regime represented a machinery of killing that history – excluding, perhaps, China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung -- has never witnessed.

http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789

[Don Hudson]

Hi Greg, just reading your observation, "I don't use that term, but I just see people that disagree with me as being wrong and not evil. :)" Interesting. I've never had it explained to me what I was actually "wrong" about. I've never seen an explanation of what I don't believe in either.

On the above regarding Stalin, I wouldn't have used the USSR as an example of a model secular state but then I wouldn't use many so-called "Christian" nations either, beginning with the United States which continues to conduct its foreign affairs more today by proxy (which includes drone warfare), but nevertheless similarly.

It is possible to be of good heart, altruistic, faithful to oneself and one's life companions without religion.

I think DEFCON raises a particularly keen point which has yet to be addressed here, as well as by all religious groups and all religions. I think this notion captures and expresses a very widespread feeling among civilized peoples - that "religion" has taken over public, civilized discourse. In some countries it has gone to the foundations of political thought and action such as in the United States. In other countries it has descended to incivility to the point of engendering a genuine fear of phyical harm or at least ostracizing from one's community. There is not the sense of distancing from the violence or even outrage at the carnage spoken in the name of mainstream religious thought. The silence, even from the Catholic Church but certainly from world's leaders of the Muslim faith, deafens. One cannot isolate oneself in such a world by stating that 'this isn't religion', but of course, it is - it is the vehicle, and those who disagree with their church have a duty to speak out at every opportunity, if such actions are not of the religious.

I've raised the question of survival and it hasn't been addressed. Our activities began threatening our very survival in the mid-fourties and have refined the potential for our extinction many-fold. Where is religion when it comes to life now, here on earth? I think in this particular way, the notion of "heaven" or an afterlife or a return to earth is, within this context, a dangerous one for it forgives many sins that really ought to be addressed. The hope that is expressed in such notions is wonderful but it must be accompanied by action, here and now. In this we may be in agreement!

best

Don

[DEFCON]

GDR

Yes, Stalin was the pure living expression of evil and not someone I could ever rally behind.

On the other side, for others there to have maintained the banishment of organized religion from the State suggests that governments of the period saw religion as a distraction to the progress of the State for a number of reasons. These reasons no doubt included legitimate government concern with respect to the potential for interference with State doctrine by clergy. That's not to say there was anything good about the Soviet State, only that its motivations were not any less corrupt than those of a given church; i.e., conducting military 'crusades' against another weaker country as a legitimate form of political / religious expression.

[GDR]

Hi Greg, just reading your observation, "I don't use that term, but I just see people that disagree with me as being wrong and not evil. :)" Interesting. I've never had it explained to me what I was actually "wrong" about. I've never seen an explanation of what I don't believe in either.

On the above regarding Stalin, I wouldn't have used the USSR as an example of a model secular state but then I wouldn't use many so-called "Christian" nations either, beginning with the United States which continues to conduct its foreign affairs more today by proxy (which includes drone warfare), but nevertheless similarly.

It is possible to be of good heart, altruistic, faithful to oneself and one's life companions without religion.

I think DEFCON raises a particularly keen point which has yet to be addressed here, as well as by all religious groups and all religions. I think this notion captures and expresses a very widespread feeling among civilized peoples - that "religion" has taken over public, civilized discourse. In some countries it has gone to the foundations of political thought and action such as in the United States. In other countries it has descended to incivility to the point of engendering a genuine fear of phyical harm or at least ostracizing from one's community. There is not the sense of distancing from the violence or even outrage at the carnage spoken in the name of mainstream religious thought. The silence, even from the Catholic Church but certainly from world's leaders of the Muslim faith, deafens. One cannot isolate oneself in such a world by stating that 'this isn't religion', but of course, it is - it is the vehicle, and those who disagree with their church have a duty to speak out at every opportunity, if such actions are not of the religious.

I've raised the question of survival and it hasn't been addressed. Our activities began threatening our very survival in the mid-fourties and have refined the potential for our extinction many-fold. Where is religion when it comes to life now, here on earth? I think in this particular way, the notion of "heaven" or an afterlife or a return to earth is, within this context, a dangerous one for it forgives many sins that really ought to be addressed. The hope that is expressed in such notions is wonderful but it must be accompanied by action, here and now. In this we may be in agreement!

best

Don

Just a couple of thoughts. I think that if you google just a little you'll find that that many religious leaders such as the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury do speak out issues such as the environment, various horrific acts of violence etc. Just read about the work of Desmond Tutu and hisTruth and Reconcilliation Commision.

People have used religion for centuries to rally the gullible and those mostly young people looking for a cause to fight over. However, I still contend that if religion wasn't available they'd find something else to fight over. In the end it is all about power and pride.

However just because religion is often wrong headed, and sometimes downright evil does not mean that there is no theistic prime mover. Religions are made up of fallible human beings like any other organization, and sometimes religions attract people for the wrong reasons. I wonder how many ngo's would be left in Africa if all the Christian affiliated ngo's pulled out. It is easy to point out the evils of religion, (and they certainly exist), while ignoring the mountain of good that is done.