[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm neither an atheist nor do I believe that all religions are equal. I'm agnostic, and I think that Scientology takes crazy to a whole new level

Scientology was an awesome business ruse. For Commodore L Ron.

[besson3c]

The free market has spoken!

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. I guess it would have been more accurate to say "Christian denominations"?

Most denominations believe in the same general ideas, just vary on minor issues (Except Catholics and Anglicans). Does God care about the denominations? I'm guessing they don't matter to him at all.

I think Christianity's previously violent nature is due to the fact that it became a political movement... not just spiritual. When any religion gets mixed with politics, things get messy.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

When any religion gets mixed with politics, things get messy.

When anything at all gets mixed with politics, things get messy.

[imitchellg5]

Very true.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the overall message is clear why are there so many Christian faiths, some of which have even gone to war against each other?

Why are there so many political parties? Why are there so many varying interpretations of the US Constitution? People disagree. People in disagreement over material possession such as land, resource, governance, etc... will fight others over them. Religion simply becomes a vehicle to motivate the masses, often in spite of their respective religious doctrines. War is not exclusive to religion as it is human nature. Disagreement is also human nature.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why are there so many political parties? Why are there so many varying interpretations of the US Constitution? People disagree. People in disagreement over material possession such as land, resource, governance, etc... will fight others over them. Religion simply becomes a vehicle to motivate the masses, often in spite of their respective religious doctrines. War is not exclusive to religion as it is human nature. Disagreement is also human nature.

Exactly my opinion. Religions aren't evil and most don't drive their followers to war (I don't know of any that do, but I allow for the possibility that some might exist). Leaders who want war will twist the interpretation of the religion (or of an opposing religion) in ways that will motivate the followers of that religion to war.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you talking narrowly about the New Testament?

Christians believe the OT is the NT concealed and the NT is the OT revealed. I'm talking narrowly as a Christian.

Also, are you saying that there's no room for logic among those faithful to scripture? Logic is very important to me as a person of faith. For example, although I invariably accept that there have been miracles that transcend the normal logic of the natural universe, I won't accept religious claims that are not theologically consistent.

I don't believe there is normal or abnormal logic. Logic is logic. Those instances of miracles that transcend the laws of the natural universe must generally be accepted a priori; that is, on faith. This does not mean there is no room for logic among those faithful to Scripture. It means that those who are hostile to an ideal may attempt to apply logic to its most contentious facets while failing to acknowledge what they've already accepted a priori regarding the intention of the text itself or even their own beliefs. It means simply that logic is insufficient as a guarantor of faith or faithful living to a Christian.

Take origins for example. There is no plausible or natural mechanism for the origination of energy. Those who adhere rigidly to naturalism must accept a priori, a wholly natural "genesis" event founded on as-yet, supernatural phenomena. They may postulate ideals like electroweak baryogenesis for matter, but then the question turns to the origination of energy. The science is so infantile that at this point one adhering strictly to naturalist tenets must simply be content (faithful) that science will discover a natural mechanism. To the faithful naturalist this may be an important question, but there are many important questions and many things to learn. At the end of the day, we are all limited to rationalizing what we can with what we know. This doesn't mean we don't apply rationale.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Exactly my opinion. Religions aren't evil and most don't drive their followers to war (I don't know of any that do, but I allow for the possibility that some might exist). Leaders who want war will twist the interpretation of the religion (or of an opposing religion) in ways that will motivate the followers of that religion to war.

I agree, but coupling the idea of there being one true path and the rest being heretical coupled with fanaticism can lead to this sort of thing, right?

Religious fanaticism can be a definite evil. Even if it doesn't involve war it can involve female circumcision, self mutilation, oppression of women, weird sexual behavior/crimes, etc. when in the hands of the right people/mindsets. Does it take the right leader to drive somebody to this sort of fanaticism? I don't think that this is always the case.

[imitchellg5]

Those are cult activities, I'd argue that those would fall under something outside of religion.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Those are cult activities, I'd argue that those would fall under something outside of religion.

Cult activities today, but some were mainstream religious practices of the past.

[imitchellg5]

Really? The only one I've ever heard of as mainstream is the oppression of women.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Those are cult activities, I'd argue that those would fall under something outside of religion.

What about male circumcision? Also a "cult activity"? We rightly get upset about female mutilation, but for some reason have no problems with male mutilation ...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree, but coupling the idea of there being one true path and the rest being heretical coupled with fanaticism can lead to this sort of thing, right? Religious fanaticism can be a definite evil. Even if it doesn't involve war it can involve female circumcision, self mutilation, oppression of women, weird sexual behavior/crimes, etc. when in the hands of the right people/mindsets.

Religious fanaticism is not the only manifestation of evil. This error in logic assumes that religion is causal of fanaticism/evil instead of simply correlative. Because most people of all cultures and regions adhere to a religion, it's an easy mistake to make.

A degree of certainty in a science for example may lead one to conclude that there are more or less evolved humans. This ideal can lead to unspeakable atrocities such as social engineering or even eugenics to accomplish an end. It may take more subtle forms such as an inability to see any merit to faith, giving way to a general distrust of religion. This, contingent upon specific societal conditions, can lead to distrust of religious people giving way to the ideal that they are the hinderance to progress or worse; destructive.

In order for this degree of intolerance to prevail, there must be a baser need of the majority involved. Totalitarianism will always prey on the poorer classes through ideals that require an enemy; any enemy that will distract the masses from their true oppressor and facilitate the tyrant's goal. An evil desire for absolute power will use any vehicle at its disposal to thrust its agenda.

Does it take the right leader to drive somebody to this sort of fanaticism? I don't think that this is always the case.

It takes the right leader, saying the right things in context of the greater need at the right time.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Really? The only one I've ever heard of as mainstream is the oppression of women.

Catholics used to whip themselves as punishment over their sins. This is depicted in the movie Elizabeth, for instance... Of course, heretics of all kinds were met with the most brutal of punishments.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What about male circumcision? Also a "cult activity"? We rightly get upset about female mutilation, but for some reason have no problems with male mutilation ...

Male circumcision is intended to *enhance* the pleasure for men. Female circumcision literally takes it away (as you would expect cutting out the clit).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Religious fanaticism is not the only manifestation of evil. This error in logic assumes that religion is causal of fanaticism/evil instead of simply correlative. Because most people of all cultures and regions adhere to a religion, it's an easy mistake to make.

A degree of certainty in a science for example may lead one to conclude that there are more or less evolved humans. This ideal can lead to unspeakable atrocities such as social engineering or even eugenics to accomplish an end. It may take more subtle forms such as an inability to see any merit to faith, giving way to a general distrust of religion. This, contingent upon specific societal conditions, can lead to distrust of religious people giving way to the ideal that they are the hinderance to progress or worse; destructive.

In order for this degree of intolerance to prevail, there must be a baser need of the majority involved. Totalitarianism will always prey on the poorer classes through ideals that require an enemy; any enemy that will distract the masses from their true oppressor and facilitate the tyrant's goal. An evil desire for absolute power will use any vehicle at its disposal to thrust its agenda.


It takes the right leader, saying the right things in context of the greater need at the right time.

I wasn't trying to assert that there is a definite relationship, I was just pointing out that there are so many more facets to all of this. It is insufficient to simply say that religion only turns evil when politics are applied to it (because it can also turn evil when fanaticism is applied to it), and it is insufficient to say that these forms of fanatical activities have always been just what weird people in cults did.

I'm not trying to suggest a relationship that religion = all of this stuff. However, I think it is accurate to say that religion has been a part of all sorts of horrible activities in our past that can't really be justified by saying that these were just a few crazy people doing a few crazy things. I'm not suggesting that all of this applies to religion today, but I think that part of confronting religion should rightly include all of the many heart wrenching, bloody sorts of things that have come out of it, including war. I don't blame the religion itself, but the man made institution of religious doctrine.

The problem many people have is either grasping the notion of whether you can achieve salvation, redemption, enlightenment, or whatever it is you are looking for without the religious institution, or whether there is some way to reconcile all of the horrific religious history with our faith today. Some people have a very difficult time with this, and simply saying that this was man's mistake is often not enough.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The problem many people have is either grasping the notion of whether you can achieve salvation, redemption, enlightenment, or whatever it is you are looking for without the religious institution, or whether there is some way to reconcile all of the horrific religious history with our faith today. Some people have a very difficult time with this, and simply saying that this was man's mistake is often not enough.

Let me build on this a little....

Many people, including Doofy for example, have a problem with Islam. They have a problem because of what people have done in the name of Islam. If people of that faith were quiet and didn't kill people or whatever, I'm sure these people wouldn't have the same problem. Many people consider Scientology crazy, but also simultaneously harmless beyond celebrities jumping up and down on Oprah's couch... We don't get anti-Scientology sentiment the same way we get anti-Islam sentiment.

It is fine to say that Christianity itself has nothing to do with the sorts of deplorable acts people in generations past committed, but this is still the same sort of "gone out and done something horrific" factor. The only difference is the time in which this happened.

Therefore, it's hard to wrap my head around the notion that Christianity itself has progressed beyond these dark times. The people have progressed, the faith remains the same. How can one have a strong faith by mentally discarding all of the people that have followed it for so many years? We're talking the same faith that inspired all of these acts, after all.

Does this make sense?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What about male circumcision? Also a "cult activity"? We rightly get upset about female mutilation, but for some reason have no problems with male mutilation ...

Cultures differ just as regions differ. There is absolutely no theological basis for female genital mutilation nor are ethical differences like these as cut and dry as this discussion would have you believe. I'd say there's a stark difference between a male "mutilation" performed in a professional, clinical environment and that performed by one using lake water and old, crude instruments, but I'm afforded the luxury of this quality of care.

This would also depend on your definition of mutilation. Cultural/regional differences are hardly an indictment against religion, particularly examples where practices enjoy a medical benefit.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Many people, including Doofy for example, have a problem with Islam. They have a problem because of what people have done in the name of Islam.

No Bess. I have a problem with islam because I've read the koran.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No Bess. I have a problem with islam because I've read the koran.

And? Words on a page might be offensive, but so are so many other words and forms of speech. It's what people do and where these words take people to that is the real problem.

If I wrote some crazy text about how black people, Jewish people, people who don't wear bow ties should all die and their families raped and murdered and nobody acted on this and it went nowhere, you could just not read my text, condemn it, yet still cope right?

[imitchellg5]

That's not what he meant.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The more important issue is that you can go millions of generations without ever gaining the immense number of beneficial mutations that would be required to go from the simplest life to more complex life, to go from pond scum to frogs, let alone pond scum to people.

First of all, neither frogs nor humans evolved from algae. Secondly, evolution is dictated by natural selection. If, for millions of generations, there are no set of circumstances presented the encourage the survival of a species with a specific mutation, then those species won't evolve as rapidly (or at all) compared to others.

If you take the very depths of our oceans as an example, where the ecosystem hasn't changed for hundreds of millions of years, we are finding organisms still thriving that we had previously only found in fossils.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Creatures change and adapt within their kind based on selection pressure - microevolution. Macroevolution is an utter falsehood. But if it helps you to believe the Darwinian fairy tale because you just have to reject G-d, that's your call.

Did we just go back in time? I think you need to read up on something that isn't 10-years-old. There is no such thing as macroevolution. Your lack of understanding is the only thing perpetuating this myth that there is somehow a difference between single-celled and multi-celled organisms evolving.

Evolution isn't biased against microscopic or complex organisms; the process by which organisms evolve is independent of the scale of their biology.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Is macroevolution falsifiable in your opinion?

Yes, at least, as it pertains to what you claim it stands for.

[olePigeon]

Another way to put this: I'm telling you 1+1=2, you're telling me God invented math. Whether or not God had anything to do with it doesn't concern me, it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't change that 1+1=2. There is no reason why science has to be at odds with your personal beliefs. If you want to believe God invented math, fine; I'm simply showing you that 1+1=2, God doesn't even enter the equation as far as the universe is concerned.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Another way to put this: I'm telling you 1+1=2, you're telling me God invented math. Whether or not God had anything to do with it doesn't concern me, it's completely irrelevant. It doesn't change that 1+1=2. There is no reason why science has to be at odds with your personal beliefs. If you want to believe God invented math, fine; I'm simply showing you that 1+1=2, God doesn't even enter the equation as far as the universe is concerned.

And, here is how religious people deal with aspects of their faith that appear illogical to those of us who don't share their belief:

If God wants 1+1=3, then 1+1=3, no questions asked.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, here is how religious people deal with aspects of their faith that appear illogical to those of us who don't share their belief:

If God wants 1+1=3, then 1+1=3, no questions asked.

Unfortunately.

[besson3c]

That is also where it gets circular. 1+1=3 cause God says so, and to see that you need to have faith and to not worry about whether or not there is something contradicting the notion that 1+1=3.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is also where it gets circular. 1+1=3 cause God says so, and to see that you need to have faith and to not worry about whether or not there is something contradicting the notion that 1+1=3.

If something happens to contradict the notion that 1+1=3, it must also be God's will and, therefore, ok.

[Doofy]

And if you look deeper into it all, 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 is actually the case.
Quantum decoherence, people.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And if you look deeper into it all, 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 is actually the case.
Quantum decoherence, people.

Both are explained very clearly in quantum physics.

[imitchellg5]

If math is in, I'm out. Peace.

[auto_immune]

1+1 will also equal 3 in cases of potentiation.

[olePigeon]

I'm a very right brained person. I get extremely frustrated because I have a very hard time with math and physics, but I appreciate emphatically the general concepts. I love reading about it, even if I don't understand the basic mechanics. I'm what you'd call an armchair scientist.

If I wasn't so stupid, I'd 've been an cosmologist or anthropologist (or both.) Maybe someday NASA will need a computer tech. I'm good at fixing computers.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

If math is in, I'm out. Peace.

Are we offending you?

[Powerbook]

I have no problem with religious backgrounds, either Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Hindu (real religions aka no money scams like Silentology). What really give me the creeps are simple-minded fundamentalists and of course violent radicals.
Christians who educate their kids that the Earth is 4000 years old and everyone else is in on a conspiracy against God. Jews who - even with the background of the Holocaust - think that Palestine was given to them by God and that Arabs are just a filthy annoyance. Muslims who are indoctrinated by uncounted local hatemongers and sent into useless hate missions against everyone and everything. Hindu fanatics who regularly firebomb Muslim Indian neighborhoods because these stain their precious elitism of pure Hinduism... etc etc

I'm not a big supporter of organized religion.

PB.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does it not seem a little counter-productive though, to perpetuate more and more bloodshed in the name of religious belief? Especially bloodshed that seems to have no end to it? At what point do God's commandments to not kill others in combination with the realization of the longevity of the war and senselessness of war in general override the zeal behind defense in the name of religion?

For Judaism it's a matter of established religious law. All life, even the life of an enemy, is valued. The Torah commands, for example, that if you see an animal roaming that you know to be owned by an enemy, you should return the animal even though you're doing a favor for your enemy. But a person is allowed to defend him or herself, and when the holy nation is threatened by warfare there is a Jewish obligation to protect life and property by waging defensive war (war again restricted to defending the borders of the Land of Israel maximally).

it's very easy to say "I have a solution... How about stopping ****ing killing each other?" It's a sarcastic and smart-ass way of looking at it, but is it far from being sensible?

Yes, it is easy to offer that solution, but it's much harder to put it into practice. As far as the Arab-Israeli conflict goes, if the Arab side permanently put down its arms there would be an end to the conflict, whereas if the Israeli side permanently put down its arms there would be a second Holocaust. Some around here have advocated just that second evil solution.

I guess I've never understood why not killing people and the horrors that go along with any war do not override religious text and religious principle from either/or a religious and/or practical standpoint. From a purely global perspective, as far as keeping peace around the world it is very easy to say that we would all be better off without any sort of religion.

As far as Judaism goes the Sixth Commandment is do not murder, but the distinction is made between unjust killing and just killing in defense of people and property. In Islam there is an obligation to spread the religion by the sword, to expand the empire to the whole world through holy war. There will be natural conflict in the world between Islam and all other religions - except for those religions that are completely pacifistic and would offer no defense against Islamic incursions.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

First of all, neither frogs nor humans evolved from algae. Secondly, evolution is dictated by natural selection. If, for millions of generations, there are no set of circumstances presented the encourage the survival of a species with a specific mutation, then those species won't evolve as rapidly (or at all) compared to others.

You did not answer my question. Over as many generations of development as you want to look, the simplest life will always be simple and will never gain the ordered, complex genetic coding required to yield novel species.

If you take the very depths of our oceans as an example, where the ecosystem hasn't changed for hundreds of millions of years, we are finding organisms still thriving that we had previously only found in fossils.

Uh huh, and you think that proves your point? Life that hasn't changed for hundreds of millions of years certainly doesn't sound like macroevolution to me.

Did we just go back in time? I think you need to read up on something that isn't 10-years-old. There is no such thing as macroevolution.

Perhaps to Darwinists there is no distinction, but are you saying that there is no such term but there was ten years ago? What major shift in thinking took place then?

Evolution isn't biased against microscopic or complex organisms; the process by which organisms evolve is independent of the scale of their biology.

I didn't say it was biased. I said that thinking that mutations will give rise to novel species that require substantial increases in ordered genetic information (especially the huge amounts of precisely designed genetics required to make new functional species) is bunk.

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Jews who - even with the background of the Holocaust - think that Palestine was given to them by God and that Arabs are just a filthy annoyance.

Who specifically are you describing (if you think that applies to me you're wrong), what does a Holocaust background have to do with it, and why do you insist on calling that land by the name that the Roman occupiers gave it in order to disgrace the Jews?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wasn't trying to assert that there is a definite relationship, I was just pointing out that there are so many more facets to all of this. It is insufficient to simply say that religion only turns evil when politics are applied to it (because it can also turn evil when fanaticism is applied to it), and it is insufficient to say that these forms of fanatical activities have always been just what weird people in cults did.

I don't think anyone broke it down quite as crudely as this.

I'm not trying to suggest a relationship that religion = all of this stuff. However, I think it is accurate to say that religion has been a part of all sorts of horrible activities in our past that can't really be justified by saying that these were just a few crazy people doing a few crazy things. I'm not suggesting that all of this applies to religion today, but I think that part of confronting religion should rightly include all of the many heart wrenching, bloody sorts of things that have come out of it, including war. I don't blame the religion itself, but the man made institution of religious doctrine.

Either we're saying the same things or I'm confused. I guess I don't understand how one relegates religion to human construct, but violence is a religious construct. The only reason one can connect religion to violence knowing that non-religious ideals can also be used to commit atrocity, is that most people adhere to a religion. You're suggesting that man-made doctrines are causal of man-made violence when there's nothing to suggest one came before the other. In reality, a tyrant will simply use whatever vehicle is at his disposal to commit atrocity, often in spite of religious doctrine. There is no doubt in my mind that if religion didn't exist, something else would take its place as a motivating factor; a social cause perhaps.

Lions fight over territory, but of what religion do they claim the right? If they had the self-awareness to invoke a religion perhaps they would, but violence seems to occur in spite of this inability.

The problem many people have is either grasping the notion of whether you can achieve salvation, redemption, enlightenment, or whatever it is you are looking for without the religious institution, or whether there is some way to reconcile all of the horrific religious history with our faith today. Some people have a very difficult time with this, and simply saying that this was man's mistake is often not enough.

If you don't believe you have a soul, the salvation of it would not matter to you. If you don't believe there is anyone to redeem your soul to, redemption is of no consequence to you. There are those who believe you must abandon religion to achieve enlightenment and their level of intolerance may be just as horrible. They are no more accepting of contrarian views than anyone else.

With regard to the history of religious violence: it is illogical IMO to assume one is acting in faith to their God simply because they claim it. Again, if religion is a human construct, why is violence a religious construct? One may claim they are acting in faith to their God against another religion, but this does not mean they are genuinely faithful to their God. They may see the need for territory over the dogma of their faith, but use the faith to garner support for winning the territory. This, evidenced by the number of times a tyrant has acted in conflict with the religious tenets he's supposedly beholden to. This tyrant must be a skilled orator and able to seize very specific societal conditions to motivate the masses.

A door-to-door salesman may seize on your golf magazines and pictures on the mantle and somehow golf enters its way into his spiel. This does not mean golf is to blame for salesmen.

You're correct though, saying "it's man's fault" is often not enough, but then I have to wonder how genuine the question. People quick to indict religion for historical atrocity somehow rarely give it merit for democracy, missions work, the first 24 institutions of higher learning in the US, science, art, architecture, medicine, long-term care, care of the elderly, the poor, the sick, etc...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No Bess. I have a problem with islam because I've read the koran.

I assume this would be the same Qur'an that peaceful sects of Islam read?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Who specifically are you describing (if you think that applies to me you're wrong), what does a Holocaust background have to do with it, and why do you insist on calling that land by the name that the Roman occupiers gave it in order to disgrace the Jews?

First, I do not count you to that loud 5% minority I described above - why would I.
Second, it's not hard to notice the stance of radical settlers, war crimes apologists, and general right wingers in media (just saw an Israeli military openly describing what they learned of German camps when constructing their great new wall). One could assume that a society that lived through the Holocaust might actually have learned something from it? I finished the biography of Wladek Spiegelman these days, who thought nothing of it to describe Blacks as a race of muggers and thieves.
Third, I'm all for historic accuracy but you can be sure there are no Roman occupiers left who take any joy in that "disgraceful" name of Palestine. It's simply a shorter name for "The-region-between-Mediterranean-and-Red-Sea-including-the-state-of-Israel-and-such-habitat-constructs-as-the-Gaza-strip-etc-plus-occupied-lands-of-Arabic-land-owners-etc etc". and as such used by various media in Europe.

PB.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

First, I do not count you to that loud 5% minority I described above - why would I.

I didn't know you who specifically you were referring to, but as an outspoken right-wing Jew on these forums (whose views on the conflict many would classify as far-right) I thought you could have been including me.

Second, it's not hard to notice the stance of radical settlers, war crimes apologists, and general right wingers in media (just saw an Israeli military openly describing what they learned of German camps when constructing their great new wall).

The usual stance of Israeli settlers is to hold on to and defend their land. Sometimes settlers react to Arab attacks by taking the law into their own hands and punishing nearby Arabs, and they make themselves look bad in the process. That is wrong, but it is also symptomatic of the fact that these two dissimilar groups of people should not be inhabiting the same small amount of real estate together. As for war crimes apologists, you may put me in that camp because I don't think Israel committed war crimes; to the contrary it appears to me that it exercised undue care for the hostile civilian population that the terrorists hide within. As for the Israeli army talking about adopting building strategies from the Germans, I would have to wonder if that's anti-Israel propaganda you got because it would be odd indeed to see any Israeli refer to adopting techniques from Nazi practices in any regard.

One could assume that a society that lived through the Holocaust might actually have learned something from it? I finished the biography of Wladek Spiegelman these days, who thought nothing of it to describe Blacks as a race of muggers and thieves.

I assume you're talking about his son's comics, which I'm not sure count as a real biography, but aside from that I fail to see how a Holocaust-era Polish Jew's racism can give you much information at all about contemporary Israeli societal views.

Third, I'm all for historic accuracy but you can be sure there are no Roman occupiers left who take any joy in that "disgraceful" name of Palestine. It's simply a shorter name for. . . used by various media in Europe.

Fair enough. I just am sensitive to seeing that name, which was imposed by the Romans to denigrate the conquered Jewish people, abused to perpetuate false history and historical denial of the continual 3,000+ year Jewish history in the land.