51. Is God poison?

Comment #31179 by troodon on April 11, 2007 at 9:10 am

Helian wrote: "He insists that I choose which "camp" I belong to, because, for him and other ideologues like him, it is inconceivable that human beings can have any intellectual existence outside of a "camp.""

Okay, I stand corrected. There was no good reason for me to use the word "camp" and suggest that you belong to one. I apologize to you for this, but need to point out that in your reply you have made the same erroneous assumption about me. I don't fit neatly into any boxes such as "liberal", "conservative", "left" or "right". It is not inconceivable to me that human beings can have any intellectual existence outside of a camp.

That aside, I am interested to know your thoughts on the causes of anti-American sentiment in other countries. Do you think that there is any valid justification for this sentiment based on historical events over the past 50 or so years? Or is it just an irrational hate such as "it's just that the US really is evil"?

What is your vision of the role of the US in the future? What changes would you advocate on the environment and human rights?

52. Is God poison?

Comment #31090 by troodon on April 11, 2007 at 12:01 am

Helian, I think you're way off base to label Richard Dawkins anti-American.

As for myself, no question that I'm anti-Bush - as are two thirds of U.S. citizens by the polls and likely a much higher percentage here in Canada. I have a lot of U.S. friends, relatives, business associates and even a few former girlfriends. To think I'd be labelled anti-American because of my dislike for current U.S. politics, religion and foreign policy is a bit insulting. If I were to make a list of people (both living and dead) that I most respect, Americans would be well represented.

I don't think there's any question, however, that anti-American sentiment does exist around the world and is increasing.

I agree that anti-Americanism didn't start with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Some of it was undoubtedly a resentment simply because the U.S. is a superpower. A lot of it, however, is justified and based on U.S. interference in foreign countries for economic and ideological reasons.

You wrote: "Anti-American hate is real, and will not disappear when Bush is gone, regardless of who becomes President."

No, it won't just "disappear" by itself. The new president would have to take positive action to slowly reverse the damage, especially that built up during the tragic Bush years. The new president would have to base his foreign policy on fairness and compassion - not oil and corporate profits. He would have to ensure that the U.S. does its share in global environmental protection, especially with global warming and industrial pollution. He would have to make a strong stand for secular human values both at home and abroad. He would have to work toward a goal to make the U.S. a good global citizen, where the well being of people all over the world takes precedence over U.S. corporate profits.

I don't think the U.S. Christian right is EQUAL to the Taliban. But I do think it's just as dangerous to world peace, and just as likely to drive us back into another Dark Ages or worse. Whether they are as extreme as the Taliban is not as important as the fact that they could take control of the most destructive military force in the history of the planet.

You wrote: "Good, then rely for your information on my country, not just on hide-bound leftist ideologues, but also on the many strong voices in my country representing alternative points of view."

Okay, which camp of alternative voices do you advocate? Are you supportive of human rights and strong environmental protection around the world - even when these goals might conflict with Exxon profits?

Yes, the U.S. can reverse the anti-American feeling around the world. But it will require re-defining its place internationally - especially with foreign policy, human rights and the environment. Respect is earned, not forced by F-16's.

53. Long live satire

Comment #24555 by troodon on March 7, 2007 at 8:04 am

Thanks Sue. I agree with you and also with Christopher Hitchens in the link provided by Sancus.

Question: Does anyone know more about the history of the three additional cartoons that were used to spark the riots - the squealing pig etc?

It's plausible that the imams themselves had a hand in creating them deliberately to add fuel to the fire, but I haven't seen anything that would confirm or deny that.

What would happen if the imams were shown to have done it themselves and were therefore "blasphemous"? Would there be riots and marches demanding the beheading of those imams? I doubt it, but that would at least expose the hypocrisy.

54. Darwin's God

Comment #24266 by troodon on March 5, 2007 at 3:38 pm

37. Comment #24252 by Yorker

Yes, I am a dinosaur fan and the troodon is one of the coolest creatures from the late Cretaceous. My kids and I spend a lot of time finding dinosaur fossils in the Alberta badlands.

The title "Rational Party" might not work to capture people's imagination and its appeal may be too narrow. "Civilization Party"? Any other ideas?

55. Darwin's God

Comment #24240 by troodon on March 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm

Yorker (post 7)

The strategy you've proposed has strong merits. I too am getting angry with our politicians who seem to be prepared to throw away free speech, democracy, separation of state and religion, women's rights, good education and other fundamental human rights - in the name of political correctness, multiculturalism, respect for religion and cultural relativism.

How many people over the centuries have devoted their lives for the basic human rights that we enjoy today? How many have been burned at the stake, shot, beheaded and had their families raped and murdered in order that we can finally enjoy the fruits of their visions?

Yet now we could be on the verge of losing all the benefits of their struggles and torture within one or two generations. It is appalling if we just sit by and watch the religious fanatics reinstate the Dark Ages for our children and grandchildren.

In Canada, Ontario almost allowed sharia law and it was only due to the strong protests from people such as Homa Arjomand that this was prevented. http://www.nosharia.com/

Jeepyjay (post 27), I think you might be missing the point. This is not about smart people sitting around in back rooms trying to come up with a rational consensus about every issue that comes up on the table. This is about a VISION for the future and a MOVEMENT that will bring about the kind of a rational, just, secular society that will enable the human civilization to fluorish and protect the environment. It has to appeal to people's EMOTION and IMAGINATION. Leaders such as Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Gorbechov didn't spend their time trying to reach a rational consensus with other politicians. They had good ideas of what needed to be done and had the charisma and conviction to present their ideas directly to the public. They were leaders, not consensus makers. They changed the course of history.

Our ideal candidates would be political Carl Sagans.

This is an important topic and I think it should have its own heading in the RD Politics & Current Affairs forum. It won't get read by enough people buried in the discussion of Scott Atran.

56. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23978 by troodon on March 3, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Ah, those wonderful Catholic morals - in the spirit of the Old Testament. Yahweh himself would be so proud!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301948.html?nav=hcmodule

57. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23780 by troodon on March 2, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Bizarro,
Since you attend Liberty, I'm curious if you were part of the Liberty group at Richard Dawkins presentation at Randolph-Macon Woman's College. Also, maybe you could let us know what kind of discussions the students had after, and what kind of explanations (excuses) Rev. Falwell had for the students.

From watching the videos it seemed like the Liberty students were completely unprepared for the level of debate with Prof. Dawkins. Did some of the students do as RD suggested and resign from LU to get a proper education from a better university?

58. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22075 by troodon on February 12, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Richard presented our side very well, but it was way too short.

I think Ellen Johnson could have been more prepared. She should have shredded the Christian guy when he asked, "where do you get your morals from?", but she let it fizzle and then time was up.

59. The Current: Part 3: The Religious Right

Comment #21577 by troodon on February 10, 2007 at 1:27 am

Chris Hedges is also on CBC's The Hour.
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1357

60. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21123 by troodon on February 7, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Memorable quotes.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King Jr.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Nelson Mandela

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein

I think they need to shut up.
Karen Hunter

61. Taking the fight to Islam

Comment #20776 by troodon on February 6, 2007 at 12:37 pm

BBC Hardtalk just had a half hour interview with her. I just watched it on TV, but can't get the internet link to work. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/6335401.stm

She comes across as intelligent, focused and well spoken. Unfortunately the Hardtalk interviewer, Stephen Sackur, seemed to spend almost the entire interview on the attack. He went after her to defend her uncompromising attitude, her political affiliation with the VVD, her lies to gain immigration status in the Netherlands etc. I got sick of hearing him say things like, "Don't you feel guilty about...." I wanted to hear more from her about her vision for the world and strategies for achieving integration and peace.

She addressed Sackur's repetitive questioning candidly and with confidence - a direct, no b.s. style.

62. Open Letter to Rev. John Auer

Comment #16897 by troodon on January 9, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Something that intrigues me: does the Christian religion even regard pedophilia as a sin? I'm certainly no expert on the bible or its various interpretations, but in the little reading I've done, any forbidding of pedophilia is conspicuously absent. The Ten Commandments are much more concerned about "important" sins like working on the Sabbath or worshipping other gods, than about protecting our children.

The Old Testament, from the few passages I've read, seem to sanction child sexual abuse rather than forbid it. This from Numbers:

"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Jehovah. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

What glorious, uplifting moral teachings!

Can anyone else, with more knowledge of the bible than myself, tell me if pedophelia is even considered an "official sin" by the Christian religion? Or Islam or Judaism?