[L'enfanTerrible]

Bear with me, I have an idea and I'd like to articulate it while it's fresh. If you don't agree, save the flames and we can discuss my theory.

The many religions around the world have been a strong authority since their inceptions, and it's been very easy for those in power to manipulate the values and morals of a society to their will.

ex. The Bible teaches that God covered Adam and Eve with clothing and made them feel ashamed of nakedness, and this has led us to a society that is shameful of nudity, and is generally sexually repressed.

ex. Christianity taught for centuries that the universe revolved around the Earth, and Man was the centre of that universe. They hindered the discoveries of science by propaganda and pressure tactics. Many scientists were imprisoned for life.

Religious authority is held on a pedastal, and it is considered "atrocious" to break any of a certain religions laws. Forgive me, I have limited experience with Islam and other religions so I am going to focus mainly on Christianity.

We have seen in the past century great scientific discoveries and also the revolution of ideas that were once considered very taboo ie. the sexual revolution.

It is my belief that religions are losing their authority within the world, and soon enough they will disappear. Where does this leave the Religious right in America? (Forgive me again, I am mainly focusing on my part of the world and I am not focusing on the Democrats, but I concede that they too are bad)

The religious right in America has no other recourse than to restrict civil liberties and manipulate the laws so that they can remain in total control. When most people did not question the scripture, the Church did not need to proactively control the population. Everyone paid their tithes, and also remained poor and mentally unhappy, while the Church and monarchy remained extremely wealthy.

There was an insurrection in the Americas in the 18th century and the monarchy was eliminated from the power structure of what was destined to be the strongest country in the world. The founders of the United States also urged a separation of Church and State. But religion has remained a strong influence and it is my belief that they would disregard the constitution if it meant they could control the population. For what, you ask? Money, money, and more money.

We are in a very turbulent time, and we have seen indications that the current president (Bush) and his administration will restrict civil liberties.

eg, TIPS; the push toward complete elimination of privacy on the internet; and other more sci-fi examples like the brain-scan reader in the airports (NASA)

Fear is being propogated by the media and the government and there is a sad distortion of the facts. It wouldn't be hard and it wouldn't take long for a society to degenerate into a facist state such as the State of "Oceania" from George Orwell's "1984"..

So there you have it. My theory is that the dying religious authority, and any other power hungry, greedy authority group would try to use facist authority to control people on this earth.

I want to end this with a thought about laws. Laws are made by man to control the direction and growth of a society. We must remember that laws need to evolve and change with society to reflect the times. As soon as we eliminate the process of free thought and debate about our laws, they will remain static and punishing, when they are really supposed to aid us in our evolution..

Thank you for reading.

L'enfanTerrible

[El Pre$idente]

Where does this leave the Christian Right? Well, this is what I think will eventually happen.

Because of India and China's booming population and growing industrialisation and modernisation, the Arab world will join the Asian market and will be forced to modernise too. Islam will go through the same process Christianity went through and lose significance until it simply becomes a cultural artifact like Christianity is too many Westerners today. Sidelined.

With Asia's huge market it will be impossible for Asians in general to take second place to the American dominance, particularly because Asian culture is very rich with very deep roots and America specialises in creating junk out of anything it can. In America the doner kebab became a junk food at McDonalds. The healthy Italian pizza became a junk food full of chemicals too. And now it is the turn of coffee and cappucinos. Because the USA has no deep rooted culture of its own it takes from others and turns it into some kind of franchise to be mass produced to death.

When Asia does emerge as the dominant power in the world many liberal Americans, Africans and Europeans will migrate to Asia in search of opportunity just as Asians have migrated to Europe and elsewhere today. The only people who won't take part in these migrations will be a core of ultra-patriots and rightwing Christians who will not want to abandon their own nation, hang out in brown man's land and probably won't be welcome outside the US anyway.

Thus the US will lose liberals and slowly turn into a puritanian theocracy very much like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan have been of late. In other words, the next modern world will be in the East and the next religious fundamentalists will be from the West. The tables will be turned.

If anyone thinks this is doubtful, just look at India and China. By 2010 6/10 people you meet on the net will be Indian or Chinese. Together they already make up half the world's population and they work hard and are naturally secular.

The only way the US can maintain itself on a the democratic and modern road is to pay its dues to the UN, humble itself on the world stage, play a fairer game with the developing world, allow other nations to control their own resources instead of stealing them and to never vote Republican again.

But it's probably too late.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Given that idea for the future, I am excited to see what happens to the world dynamic in the next few decades. I envy the youth. I love other cultures, and I hope to make my home outside of North America anyway.

The thought of Asia developing greatly really intrigues me, and I envision great metropolis' of a multi-cultural and strongly linked population.

Asian culture is very rich with very deep roots and America specialises in creating junk out of anything it can.

That cracks me up. But where will America be without Asia to manufacture all the crap? LOL sh!t outta luck, that's where.

[L'enfanTerrible]

[bump]Thoughtful, articulate posts get no replies.

Jesus poll is crowded.

Thats life El Pre$. [/bump]

[Zimphire]

Christianity doesn't control me. I do things because I WANT TO.

My Christians friends wont disown me of I sin or go against what the Bible says.

I feel more free now than I did when I wasn't a Christian.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Christianity doesn't control me. I do things because I WANT TO.

My Christians friends wont disown me of I sin or go against what the Bible says.

I feel more free now than I did when I wasn't a Christian.

Good, Zimphire, I'm glad you feel that way.

Honestly, I agree with your statement that Religion is not what does atrocious acts, it's the people who do them (even in the name of Religion).. I know there can be good people who have Faith in a God. I don't, I put my faith in Mother Nature and the great eco-system that we are a part of. I think my state of mind is not best described as "free" but I feel I am more a "part of something very large."

Religion is too individualistic for me.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Christianity doesn't control me. I do things because I WANT TO.

My Christians friends wont disown me of I sin or go against what the Bible says.

I feel more free now than I did when I wasn't a Christian.

You converted me! Where can I $ign?!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Good, Zimphire, I'm glad you feel that way.

Honestly, I agree with your statement that Religion is not what does atrocious acts, it's the people who do them (even in the name of Religion).. I know there can be good people who have Faith in a God. I don't, I put my faith in Mother Nature and the great eco-system that we are a part of. I think my state of mind is not best described as "free" but I feel I am more a "part of something very large."

Religion is too individualistic for me.

Wow what a nice normal response. Color me impressed.

I also respect what you say, but don't agree with the last part.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Wow what a nice normal response. Color me impressed.

I also respect what you say, but don't agree with the last part.

The lounge needs an injection of intelligence and decency between our fellow man. I'm just doing my part.

I don't think my original post in this thread is anti-religious. It's more a theory about the structures of power in our world, and religion has played a part. So have the greedy, immoral capitalists.

[Sven G]

Something I find scientifically and technically very fascinating is control theory and chaos theory: in particular, as to this thread's implicancies, the consequences for our Earth's (and universe's) future. Here's an interesting hint (taken from here):

"Control of chaos refers to a process whereby a tiny perturbation applied to a chaotic system produces a desirable (chaotic, periodic or stationary) behavior. Relevant issues connected with chaos control are targeting of chaos, and communicating with chaos, i.e. controlling chaotic motions carrying desired symbolic sequences."

As our socio-political scenario can also be considered a chaotic system, it is then rather obvious that also small changes in some places could produce big worldwide changes - of course, I would auspicate changes towards more democracy!

The "worldwide metropolis" idea is interesting - provided it is a reticular, decentralized, networked and free confederation of regions (otherwise, if it were a centralized, monocentric entity, it would be a huge mess!)...

[deekay1]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
It's more a theory about the structures of power in our world, and religion has played a part. So have the greedy, immoral capitalists.

...which are going to play an ever bigger part in terms of opression/control in the not so distant future!

i think we have talked enough about religion. it's really marginalized anyway (at least over here )

what bothers me far more than some people believing in an anchient superstition, is the fact that "life" is ruled by "money" these days (i know to a certain extent it always has).

but today there is very little left to counter the "capitalism only/neo liberal" cultural (global) dogma, which does very nicely without religion.

any thoughts?

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Bear with me, I have an idea and I'd like to articulate it while it's fresh. If you don't agree, save the flames and we can discuss my theory.

The many religions around the world have been a strong authority since their inceptions, and it's been very easy for those in power to manipulate the values and morals of a society to their will.

ex. The Bible teaches that God covered Adam and Eve with clothing and made them feel ashamed of nakedness, and this has led us to a society that is shameful of nudity, and is generally sexually repressed.

ex. Christianity taught for centuries that the universe revolved around the Earth, and Man was the centre of that universe. They hindered the discoveries of science by propaganda and pressure tactics. Many scientists were imprisoned for life.

Religious authority is held on a pedastal, and it is considered "atrocious" to break any of a certain religions laws. Forgive me, I have limited experience with Islam and other religions so I am going to focus mainly on Christianity.

We have seen in the past century great scientific discoveries and also the revolution of ideas that were once considered very taboo ie. the sexual revolution.

It is my belief that religions are losing their authority within the world, and soon enough they will disappear. Where does this leave the Religious right in America? (Forgive me again, I am mainly focusing on my part of the world and I am not focusing on the Democrats, but I concede that they too are bad)

The religious right in America has no other recourse than to restrict civil liberties and manipulate the laws so that they can remain in total control. When most people did not question the scripture, the Church did not need to proactively control the population. Everyone paid their tithes, and also remained poor and mentally unhappy, while the Church and monarchy remained extremely wealthy.

There was an insurrection in the Americas in the 18th century and the monarchy was eliminated from the power structure of what was destined to be the strongest country in the world. The founders of the United States also urged a separation of Church and State. But religion has remained a strong influence and it is my belief that they would disregard the constitution if it meant they could control the population. For what, you ask? Money, money, and more money.

We are in a very turbulent time, and we have seen indications that the current president (Bush) and his administration will restrict civil liberties.

eg, TIPS; the push toward complete elimination of privacy on the internet; and other more sci-fi examples like the brain-scan reader in the airports (NASA)

Fear is being propogated by the media and the government and there is a sad distortion of the facts. It wouldn't be hard and it wouldn't take long for a society to degenerate into a facist state such as the State of "Oceania" from George Orwell's "1984"..

So there you have it. My theory is that the dying religious authority, and any other power hungry, greedy authority group would try to use facist authority to control people on this earth.

I want to end this with a thought about laws. Laws are made by man to control the direction and growth of a society. We must remember that laws need to evolve and change with society to reflect the times. As soon as we eliminate the process of free thought and debate about our laws, they will remain static and punishing, when they are really supposed to aid us in our evolution..

Thank you for reading.

L'enfanTerrible

You've posed some good question and I'd like to reply to them all, but I am at work now... I will reply to all these things as I can through the course of my day but it may be late before I can get back to this.
I will try to hit the first two points right off.
The Christian church has NO (political) POWER in it's inception. After Nero burned Rome to the ground he blamed the Christians (who were an easy scape goat) and they were slaughtered for "entertainment". The Catholic church has used political sway to do what they wanted but that was by twisting Scripture. Even the teology of the Catholic church elevates the opinion of their clergy to be equal or above that of the scriptures. They added the appocrifa (sp?) to justify their practices after the reformation when people started the reading the scriptures themselves and asking questions.
God created Adam and Eve naked. They remained that way until they ate of the fruit of the tree they were commanded not to eat. Once they did that they became awar of their nakedness and became ashamed. When God came to Adam in the garden he even asks something to the effect of "who told you you were naked?"
Again you're confusing the Roman Catholic church for all of Christianity. Yes much of what that church has done is dispicable, but it's also not supported in scripture. No where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat, that man is the center of the universe or that the sun revolves around the earth. That idea has been supported by certain verses in the Bible, but doing so is a poor interpretation of what the scriptures are saying. By taking one or two verses from the Bible and using them out of context youcan justify just about any action you want to, that doesn't mean the Bible Justifies it though.

Now I'm farther behind than I was 15 minutes ago.

back to work

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


You've posed some good question and I'd like to reply to them all, but I am at work now... I will reply to all these things as I can through the course of my day but it may be late before I can get back to this.
I will try to hit the first two points right off.
The Christian church has NO (political) POWER in it's inception. After Nero burned Rome to the ground he blamed the Christians (who were an easy scape goat) and they were slaughtered for "entertainment".

back to work

Actually that was Nero's 'war on terrorism'. Romans were in Palestine which, like Saudi Arabia is to Muslims, was Holy Land to the Christians whom you should actually call Messianics since Christian is simply a Greek term. Messianics would have detested any foreign rule or presence in their nation, hence the attack on Rome.

Sounds familiar. America = Great Satan. Rome = Whore of Babylon. Even the myth associated nicknames are still used.

So much for the Nero's war on terrorism. Eventually people got so tired of what was a never ending war that they created a new religion and absorbed all the cults under the Roman empire into the new religion. Easy to convert people that way you see. People can't abandon their traditions overnight.

So the secular Roman empire became the 'Christian empire' and things got even worse. So much for Jesus Bin Joseph and Nero. Imagine where we would be today if they kept their mouths shut!

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by deekay1:


...which are going to play an ever bigger part in terms of opression/control in the not so distant future!

i think we have talked enough about religion. it's really marginalized anyway (at least over here )

what bothers me far more than some people believing in an anchient superstition, is the fact that "life" is ruled by "money" these days (i know to a certain extent it always has).

but today there is very little left to counter the "capitalism only/neo liberal" cultural (global) dogma, which does very nicely without religion.

any thoughts?

Life really does revolve around money. Here's my thought on this issue. Money has become a part of our culture that we use (and I think I am going to make up a word right now) inter-societaly meaning that: we use money as not only a means of exchanging goods among ourselves in our, but it is also a measure of somebody's worth. We are taught that the most important thing in life is having a good job. The most important thing to the hunter/gatherers was not the act of hunting, but rather what went on inbetween the hunts. Money and goods in those societies was mainly used intra-societaly and was a means of sharing culture. I think cultural shifts occur when an individual starts with himself, and starts to live another way. If it is a desireable way, then it will catch on. So I set my own goals, and my career is only a means to the end. The end being a satisfying life.

I also believe that because we use money in almost every interaction that we have with people, we almost become each a society unto ourselves and that, to me, seems very lonely.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Life really does revolve around money. Here's my thought on this issue. Money has become a part of our culture that we use (and I think I am going to make up a word right now) inter-societaly meaning that: we use money as not only a means of exchanging goods among ourselves in our, but it is also a measure of somebody's worth. We are taught that the most important thing in life is having a good job. The most important thing to the hunter/gatherers was not the act of hunting, but rather what went on inbetween the hunts. Money and goods in those societies was mainly used intra-societaly and was a means of sharing culture. I think cultural shifts occur when an individual starts with himself, and starts to live another way. If it is a desireable way, then it will catch on. So I set my own goals, and my career is only a means to the end. The end being a satisfying life.

I also believe that because we use money in almost every interaction that we have with people, we almost become each a society unto ourselves and that, to me, seems very lonely.

Probably too late to do anything about that now. In old societies 'long' before the advent of moneys, the strongest and the wisest ruled. Crude and evil people were easy to eliminate. Since the advent of money, a crude, physically weak and vile person can acquire wealth and buy himself into power where he can oppress the wise and physically strong. And he/they will do whatever they can to keep the status quo otherwise they go back to the bottom of the food chain.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:


Probably too late to do anything about that now. In old societies 'long' before the advent of moneys, the strongest and the wisest ruled. Crude and evil people were easy to eliminate. Since the advent of money, a crude, physically weak and vile person can acquire wealth and buy himself into power where he can oppress the wise and physically strong. And he/they will do whatever they can to keep the status quo otherwise they go back to the bottom of the food chain.

Which brings up a good point for a new thread (which I am not going to start) : Are we as a species still affected by natural selection?

I don't think we are. No longer do we have to hunt for ourselves and the genepool is not exactly becoming refined.

Humans removed themselves from God's plan when they (metaphorically) ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Because when we did that, we started to think that we could control what lives and what dies on this Earth, and that even the world and universe were designed for us. Very selfish, very foolish.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Which brings up a good point for a new thread (which I am not going to start) : Are we as a species still affected by natural selection?

Natural selection still applies for the major part when people choose each other because of physical and mental attributes that they would like to pass on to their children. It has however ceased to apply in some cases ever since males and females have found other things that they find attractive - religion, money or nation. The three cardinal evils according to the Book of Cecil 3:40.

And because of that deficiencies are probably popping up in the human gene stream which have given rose to such plebs as Bush to come to power.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
[...] Money has become a part of our culture that we use [...]

IMHO, however, today's society could well live without money and, at the same time, enormously improve the quality and quantity of goods, etc. if people were ethically motivated, and, thus, felt that a culture of gift would be more "modern" and adequate to satisfy an increasingly global society's interests and requirements: this, of course is communism, but in the libertarian form. The problem, as always, is that if there isn't an ethical "quantum leap" - first at a local, then at a worldwide level, - there's little to hope about such a (r)evolution: that's why new, more intelligent forms of political action (both on the individual and social level) would be a very Good Thing� - instead of the "usual", widely ineffective demonstrations.

Anyone has any thoughts on how things such as the economy, etc. could be radically changed in a new (and non-violent, of course) manner...? Could there be some form of "New Enlightenment" or "New Renaissance" that happened not only at an elite level, but as a form of new, more direct democracy in replacement of "neo-liberism"...?

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Sven G:


IMHO, however, today's society could well live without money and, at the same time, enormously improve the quality and quantity of goods, etc. if people were ethically motivated, and, thus, felt that a culture of gift would be more "modern" and adequate to satisfy an increasingly global society's interests and requirements: this, of course is communism, but in the libertarian form. The problem, as always, is that if there isn't an ethical "quantum leap" - first at a local, then at a worldwide level, - there's little to hope about such a (r)evolution: that's why new, more intelligent forms of political action (both on the individual and social level) would be a very Good Thing� - instead of the "usual", widely ineffective demonstrations.

Anyone has any thoughts on how things such as the economy, etc. could be radically changed in a new (and non-violent, of course) manner...? Could there be some form of "New Enlightenment" or "New Renaissance" that happened not only at an elite level, but as a form of new, more direct democracy in replacement of "neo-liberism"...?

I agree completely that our culture could exist without money. I like the idea of the "culture of gift". A good example of a communist society would be the Native North Americans before the Europeans came over. Not only did they live within a flexible cultural organization (meaning they weren't restricted to work and money transfer to improve their lives), they also lived in harmony with nature. They, along with most other tribal societies, are "leavers". Leavers is a term coined by Daniel Quinn, in his book Ishmael. I recommend it.

I'm not sure what will happen in the coming decades, but I don't think we can go on much longer in the fashion that we are now.

I'm going to paraphrase an analogy from "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. Essentially, he compared civlization to building an airplane. How do you build an airplane if you've never done that before? Well, you build a contraption and push it off a cliff. And how do you know you are flying if you've never flown before? The answer is, you don't know. As long as you are in the air, you believe you are flying.

Our civliization is essentially a faulty airplane that we have pushed off of a cliff. We are in the air, falling at an accelerated rate, and we think that we are flying. We won't know that we made a mistake until we hit the ground. It is innevitable. We as a culture of takers, completely disregard the notion that we are a part of the ecosystem. We try to dominate it and control it. And because we disregard these ideas, we are doomed to fail, the same way an airplane that doesn't adhere to the laws of thermodynamicis is doomed to crash.

Daniel Quinn says it much more eloquently, and also goes on to interpret Biblical stories such as The Fall and the story of Cane and Abel. I recommend "Ishmael" a lot.

I think the revolution of our economy, and in the end our whole culture as well, will follow the ideas of Marx. The poor working class is becoming greater and greater while the minority control essentially all of the wealth. It's quite disturbing IMO. When the middle class is gone, the Proletariat will bring an uprising.

It is my hope that the revolution will be based on enlightenment and a culture-wide changing of values, rather than a violent revolution. While violence is certainly a good way of bringing about change, the end result is always as bad as before. There is no need to doom ourselves to making the same mistakes. As an individual, making the same mistake twice always cheezes me off

[Hawkeye_a]

I belive that religious 'laws' are encorportaed into religion as and when people that 'administer' them see fit. Religious laws and regualtions are not (and probably should not be) hard facts, but open to some kind of 'growth' and evolution.

Having said that not all religious laws have any particular purpose to serve society, but many do in my opinion. For example, issues of stealing, murder, adultery, etc..... I belive that those rules were and still are in motion for a certain purpose. (Just because i abide by most of these laws dosent necessarily mean that i believe in a God/(s) )

And since religion has such an impact on society in general, it does not come as a big surprise that religion also plays a role in politics. It is not debatable as to whether this is right or wrong, it just works that way, the way your nervous system works with your digestive system to keep you alive

To discard religon entirely would be foolish, because certain basic 'laws' are the building blocks of modern society and civilizations. To question religion is only natural, but when one tends to break some of the 'laws' that have governed and served society for ages is folly. Lets take the most blatant one (imo) .... adultery (includes premaritial sex and divorces, etc).... The psychological impact of this is enormous, you have your own kids involved, your relitves, your partners relitaves, and more recently added to the mix STDs. You have people splitting up because they dont 'feel' right. Vows are broken and the basic element of society seizes to exist.... which is whats going on now-a-days. so what happens then ? same thing that happend towards the end of every empire/civilization on earth which thought they could control their own destiny with their own rules. No religion is perfect, just as 'science' is not 'perfect'..... human error will always be there in both of these. Proving that the sun is at the center of the solar system does nothing to enhance/stabilize/improve human relations (imo).

The sexual revolution was a blunder, last year i real a time magine artice, where parents from the 60s and 70s spoke out and the title was ... ' this is what we faught for.'.... teenage pregnancies, permiscuous children, STDs, etc.... there is a reason religion was and still is rather strict in this one aspect of life.

The 'right-wing' American is not the only segment of the world that is being questioned here. this 'culture' that America has perpuated has spread it's selp to every corner of the earth, you have every major world religion in retreat right now.... is this good/bad ? i have no idea.

I usually identify myself as a 'leftist' here in America, but that's just cause i share political views with the so-called-lefties, as far as religion or spiritual sides of me go... it's preety much undecided.... ive lived among the 4 major world religions..... Christian, Muslim, Judaism and Hinduism ..... and i am officially a Catholic, but ive managed to take what i felt right from all four to define myself.

Cheers.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Hawkeye, thanks for your contribution. It was well said.

Your theory sounds good on paper, but for it to be applicable, you must make certain assumptions first, that I don't think you should make.

Ex. the assumption that man is essentially a murderer/criminal and that without religion, we would degenerate into a violent, crime filled society.

--truth be told, we already are a society plagued by crime and violence, and I don't think religion plays any part in setting a set of values or morals. On the contrary, I think religion serves as a means to classify deviant behaviour for the purposes of control. I am not inclined to murder or crime, as I'm sure is true for most or all on the forum, and this is because man is normally a social, peaceful animal.

Ex. the assumption that without religion, we would not be as advanced a society as we are today.

-- I don't believe this is correct because religion has done more to hinder the process of discovery.

Ex. the assumption that man was meant to live his life the way religion teaches, ie, marriage, refraining from sex before marriage, living with one life partner, etc.

-- There is no unwritten law that says a man is supposed to live with only one wife ( I am in no way advocating polygamy ). But I think it's dangerous to assume that the normal way of life is the only way to live. Without question, there is no change. Perhaps we could live in a society where men and women did not marry and did not have 2.3 children.

w/ regards to your comments about the sexual revolution, I believe that it was not a blunder. I think what the problems of teen pregnancy and sex stem from is a lack of proper parenting and the use of television (sexual and violent in nature) as an opiate for the masses. Also, the widespread use of abortion as a form of birthcontrol has made our children think that unprotected sex is ok at a young age, which it is not. There is a lack of proper education. Anything that is said by a teacher in a sex. ed. class is countered 100 fold by the messages on television and in other media (music especialy).

w/ regards to STD's, it is quite clear that disease in general is natures way of cleansing the genepool. They are unavoidable, even with the advent of more and more genetic technology, we will always be succeptable to diseases. The answer to that problem lies in proper health care and a better understanding of our immune system.

I'm really starting to like this thread. Everyone is contributing great stuff. Thanks guys.

[OreoCookie]

The major religions in their current form are outdated, because the people that �shape' it (e. g. the Pope) are far too slow to keep pace with all other developments.
It was this Pope that has officially concluded that Earth really is a sphere and that Earth is revolving around our Sun.

The attitude towards homosexuality and racism is still from the last millenium.

Personally, I can't find any religion that I feel comfortable with. I have given up looking for it and instead I believe in my �personal' rules and guidelines for life (e. g. I believe in the good in people).

The major religions were �invented' to help the people cope with things that weren't understood back then. �Lack of scientific knowledge' and the need to explain things came together and so religion was called upon to answer those questions.
The �books' (Bible, Koran, Thora, ...) were written more than 2,000 years ago. Many of those �dogmas' were in fact useful rules designed to protect the people. �No sex before marriage' back than meant �no sex before you are fourteen'. Some faithful are trying to take the words serious, instead of the meaning.

Another example of a rule that now is obsolete is that the Koran forbids Muslims to eat pork. Historically this is due to the fact that pork meat spoils much faster than other types of meat. Now we have refrigerators and (usually) don't have to worry about this stuff.

I those days, I don't believe there will be a new religion, because science answers a lot of our questions. We are too rational to believe in �ceremonies'.

Unfortunately, I don't see most religions catching up with society. But many faithful have adapted and live a life in sync with society (which is a good thing).
I respect everyone that firmly believes in something, as long as (s)he is not forcing it onto others.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The major religions in their current form are outdated, because the people that �shape' it (e. g. the Pope) are far too slow to keep pace with all other developments.
It was this Pope that has officially concluded that Earth really is a sphere and that Earth is revolving around our Sun.

The attitude towards homosexuality and racism is still from the last millenium.

Personally, I can't find any religion that I feel comfortable with. I have given up looking for it and instead I believe in my �personal' rules and guidelines for life (e. g. I believe in the good in people).
<snip>

Unfortunately, I don't see most religions catching up with society. But many faithful have adapted and live a life in sync with society (which is a good thing).
I respect everyone that firmly believes in something, as long as (s)he is not forcing it onto others.

This interests me, why is it that religions were invented? Isn't it possible that there is some objective truth out there that some religion points to? Yes, I've been through college (two times now) and I'm still an objectivist

Why is it that you have to find some truth that fits you? It seems to me that life/reality/truth just is, and in the real world we have to adjust to it. For instance, a hurricane is headin towards my house, two in as many weeks. This is reality, I can chose to not like this reality and stay here at my own peril or I can recognize it for what it is and prepare and/or evacuate. Either way, the fact that the hurricane is coming isn't effected by my reaction to that fact. It seems to me that if this is true in the physical rhelm that it may be true in the meta-physical/spiritual world also. Just a thought.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
The Bible teaches that God covered Adam and Eve with clothing and made them feel ashamed of nakedness, and this has led us to a society that is shameful of nudity, and is generally sexually repressed.

Um, no, that's not what the Bible teaches.

If you go back and look at Genesis 3:7, you'll find that God wasn't the first to come up with the concept of clothing; that was Adam and Eve's idea.

Furthermore, skip ahead to Genesis 3:11, where we get the infamous "Who told you that you were naked?" quote from God. What does this mean? Does it mean that Adam and Eve were naked all this time and just didn't know about it... or does it mean that the very concept of nakedness didn't exist?

Let's look at this another way. I'll use a chihuahua as an example. Dogs don't wear clothes, and chihuahuas don't even have fur. Do they care? Not from any indication ever noted by humanity. Indeed, if you try putting those little doggie sweaters and such on them, they don't seem to like it very much. But if they're not wearing one of these sweaters, do we call them naked? No. More than likely, it's exceedingly rare that you even think of the fact that they aren't wearing clothes, if you ever do at all.

My point in this? I say Adam and Eve didn't know they were naked because they weren't naked. They didn't wear clothes, but the very concept of being naked just didn't exist. So why'd it come about? I don't know. I have some ideas on that, but no need to elaborate here.

Christianity taught for centuries that the universe revolved around the Earth, and Man was the centre of that universe. They hindered the discoveries of science by propaganda and pressure tactics. Many scientists were imprisoned for life.

Watch it. Christianity did not do this. The Catholic Church did, of course, but to my knowledge, none of the other branches -and there were other branches, even then- did this. You've mistaken a single abusive sect for the entire religion.

It does, however, illustrate the fact that religion is very dangerous when it gets a taste of political power. Because in the hands of an abusive leadership, Really Bad Things begin to happen.

The religious right in America has no other recourse than to restrict civil liberties and manipulate the laws so that they can remain in total control. When most people did not question the scripture, the Church did not need to proactively control the population. Everyone paid their tithes, and also remained poor and mentally unhappy, while the Church and monarchy remained extremely wealthy.

One: I'd say that what you're saying is simply a different means of enacting control. Certainly if what you've said -that religion exists only to control people- is true, then proactive measures would have been taken in the past. And indeed, some sects did this. This is just an adaptation, a different way of doing the same old thing. Not to lessen or cheapen the danger, mind you; I'm simply trying to point out its nature.

But religion has remained a strong influence and it is my belief that they would disregard the constitution if it meant they could control the population. For what, you ask? Money, money, and more money.

All well and good, for those religions with strong hierarchical power structures (Catholicism, LDS, and so forth). What about those where the authority is more decentralized? By their nature, less money comes in, and even if this were not true, it couldn't be shuttled around to a single beneficiary.

We are in a very turbulent time, and we have seen indications that the current president (Bush) and his administration will restrict civil liberties.

Ah, but is this necessarily religious in nature? Some of it seems to be (e.g. Ashcroft and the infamous statue), but not all of it. That's the rub; religion isn't a common thread. Something else must be, but I don't claim to know what.

Fear is being propogated by the media and the government and there is a sad distortion of the facts.

The media doesn't have much interest in controlling people, per se. They just report whatever gets them the best ratings, and fear sells pretty darn well right now (why? I'll get to that momentarily). Unfortunately, this leaves them -just as with religion- wide open to abuse.

And why does fear sell right now? I'd say it goes to 9/11. The fact is, there's no real threat. What happened was terrible, but it was statistically a freak occurrence. And deep down, most people know this. But they're getting these messages -from the government and from this "society" that you hold so dear- that they should be scared, that the terrorists could strike again at any minute. And so, subconsciously, they gravitate toward frightening things, because it satisfies this urge to be afraid.

And indeed, who are the people least likely to be taken in by this? Two groups, actually. The ones who genuinely are afraid of the terrorists, and the ones who genuinely see no reason to fear. What the government is trying to do is grab the people who are "on the fence", so to speak, and pull them to the side of cowardice, where they'll give up any freedom for the illusion of safety. And likewise, the civil libertarians are also trying to grab the undecideds, pulling them towards a side which seems riskier but -they claim- really isn't. You can probably tell from my wording that I've chosen my side. I'm not afraid of the terrorists, simply because I've realized that I don't have to be afraid of them. Indeed, fearing them would be pointless, given that I have no control over their actions anyway and cannot gain that control without sacrificing everything which makes my own life worth living. Once I made that leap, the fear went away pretty darn fast. Not instantaneously, of course; fear doesn't just evaporate on the spot. But quickly, anyway.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Thanks Millenium. That was a great post.

I have a little speculation w/ regards to the story of Adam and Eve, and why they started to dress themselves. In the story, they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which granted them god-like knowledge. In the story of the Fall, in the Bible, it really comes across to me that as soon as Adam and Eve realized the differences between good and evil, they covered up, feeling ashamed of being naked. In essence, that means that nakedness is evil. That is why I made the statement that the Bible teaches shame of nudity. Of course, clothing didn't appear at the same time as the Christian church. It appeared way before that, and I suspect it was environmental conditions that made us dress. That and cultural reasons as well. So in retrospect the statements I made about Adam and Eve's clothing being the beginning of a shameful stance on "nakedness" were not well thought out.

I still stand by my statement that the church represses sexuality. Only in the last century have women been looked at as equals.

About the Catholic church, the Christian denominations and the process of science, I think the Catholic church was responsible for supressing the discoveries because Catholicism was the main religion in Italy and the surrounding areas where those discoveries were happening. I can only speculate that the Christian denominations would do the same if they were in a position of power in those countries. I mean, they still teach creationism and the lunatic idea that colored races are "sub-humans".

The reason I make the speculation that the religious right in America has a motive for political influence is because they still contribute loads of money to the Republican party. They have their own political agendas and IMO they would like to alter some laws in America. Frankly, I think the religious right, and the Republican party are taking us back 50 years.

[off topic] I am still shocked that the Bush admin would suggest that they would hinder the weapons inspections in Iraq. I have never heard so much double talk in my life.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
[off topic] I am still shocked that the Bush admin would suggest that they would hinder the weapons inspections in Iraq. I have never heard so much double talk in my life.

[equally off topic aside] It's because of the strings that place the vast "presidential sites" off-limits. Bush said he would veto anything based on the 1998 agreement as not being full and unrestricted inspections. He's just sticking by his word.

Think of it this way: how effective would a drug bust be if people could say to the police "yes, officer. You are welcome to check my entire house, but not the basement." Where would you expect to find the drugs under that kind of an agreement? And what would be the point of searching the rest of the house?

Personally, I can't see why anyone would be so gullible as to fall for a trick like that. Inspections have to be real, or they are worthless and a sham. [/equally off-topic aside]

[On topic] The power and influence of the religious right in American politics is vastly overstated. What power they ever had peaked several years ago. A small example of this is Bush's appointment of an openly gay Ambassador last year. Groups like the Family Research Council frothed, but Bush just ignored them. Another example is Ashcroft's prosecution of the murder of two lesbians in in the Shenandoah Valley as a hate crime. Religious conservatives were furious that "their man" would do that. But Ashcroft said in confirmation that he would enforce the law as it stands, and he delivered on that promise in that case.

By and large, the culture wars of the 1990s are over. Part of the reason for this is that while they may contribute money to the Republican Party that doesn't give them leverage if they don't feel they have any alternative but to support the Republican Party. The alternative would be to vote Democratic, but that's not a very realistic alternative to most religious conservatives.

On the other hand, from the point of view of Republicans, too obvious pandering to the religious right just loses them support among moderates and independents. And since they don't really have to pander in order to get religious right support, smart Republicans can have their cake and eat it too.

You should look at what religious right organizations have been saying themselves as opposed to what liberals say about them. Read the National Review, for example. Many stalwarts of the religious right feel quite frustrated. Most of their agenda is unfulfilled, and it doesn't look like is going to be fulfilled any time soon. What they mainly get from the Republican Party is lip service.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Thanks Millenium. That was a great post.

I have a little speculation w/ regards to the story of Adam and Eve, and why they started to dress themselves. In the story, they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which granted them god-like knowledge. In the story of the Fall, in the Bible, it really comes across to me that as soon as Adam and Eve realized the differences between good and evil, they covered up, feeling ashamed of being naked. In essence, that means that nakedness is evil. That is why I made the statement that the Bible teaches shame of nudity. Of course, clothing didn't appear at the same time as the Christian church. It appeared way before that, and I suspect it was environmental conditions that made us dress. That and cultural reasons as well. So in retrospect the statements I made about Adam and Eve's clothing being the beginning of a shameful stance on "nakedness" were not well thought out.

I have to diagree with this. Look at God's reaction the "who told youyou were naked" thing. If nakedness were evil then it would have come between the communion God and Adam had in the garden, therefore the problem has to be something else. Mil's post did a much better job of explaining this than mine had. Also if you look at this "god-like" knowledge they experienced here, what they got was not what they wanted. They now knew the difference between right and wrong, and taken in conjunction with the whole Bible I think you can say the reason they were ashamed was because, for the first time, they recognised their "uncleanliness" before God. Read Isaiah 6 for a good example of this.

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I still stand by my statement that the church represses sexuality. Only in the last century have women been looked at as equals.

Can't argue to much here, but you have draw the line between what some churches do and what the scriptures preach. The Bible has a separate but equal view of men and women. Their roles are to be different, but neither is to lord over the other. This causes lots of problem in the area of ministry, what is the proper rold for a woman in ministry kinds of things. This isn't really sexuality which is a whole other matter.

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I mean, they still teach creationism and the lunatic idea that colored races are "sub-humans".

Who teaches that colored races are sub-human? I know of no denomination that does this today. Like I said before, you can take any verse or two out of context and argue any point you wish, and if the culture is predisposed to a certain point of view it will be accepted as truth, if the whole of scripture rebukes it or not. A good example is America in the mid-1800s. The book of philemon was used to justify slavery... In the culture in which the book was writen slavery just was, the book has little to do with slavery and much to do with our duty towards God.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


I have to diagree with this. Look at God's reaction the "who told youyou were naked" thing. If nakedness were evil then it would have come between the communion God and Adam had in the garden, therefore the problem has to be something else. Mil's post did a much better job of explaining this than mine had. Also if you look at this "god-like" knowledge they experienced here, what they got was not what they wanted. They now knew the difference between right and wrong, and taken in conjunction with the whole Bible I think you can say the reason they were ashamed was because, for the first time, they recognised their "uncleanliness" before God. Read Isaiah 6 for a good example of this.



Can't argue to much here, but you have draw the line between what some churches do and what the scriptures preach. The Bible has a separate but equal view of men and women. Their roles are to be different, but neither is to lord over the other. This causes lots of problem in the area of ministry, what is the proper rold for a woman in ministry kinds of things. This isn't really sexuality which is a whole other matter.



Who teaches that colored races are sub-human? I know of no denomination that does this today. Like I said before, you can take any verse or two out of context and argue any point you wish, and if the culture is predisposed to a certain point of view it will be accepted as truth, if the whole of scripture rebukes it or not. A good example is America in the mid-1800s. The book of philemon was used to justify slavery... In the culture in which the book was writen slavery just was, the book has little to do with slavery and much to do with our duty towards God.

I will certainly concede to the fact that what the scriptures teach and what the churches preach are sometimes very different. I didn't start the thread to question the moral, ethical, or spiritual validity of the Bible or any other holy book. Rather, I wanted to explore the topic of the churches role in the world's power structure from yesterday to tomorrow. I think it's going rather well. I've learned a few things and I'm happy with the civil discourse going on

One other side topic to add on to this whole debate is this. The media today is so pervasive that every action taken by the church and gov't eg. censoring television or pushing for anti-euthenasia (sp?) laws is heavily scrutinized. And easily the opinions about one party and any "sinister motives" can be swayed on way or another.

Do you think that, because the media is so omnipresent, we as people have become too quick at analyzing events and actions?

My feeling is this. I'll catch a glimpse of something on the news about Bush pushing for war with Iraq, or presenting some bill to limit the amount of privacy on the internet, and I will quite quickly form an opinion about his intentions. I'm sure most people do this.

I'm ranting now.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Wow I need a strong coffee. I started an idea and quit right in the middle of it

What was I saying about the media again? Uhhh, as fast as we are as a culture, we really should take the time and put in the effort to research and form opinions and values based on world events. If we don't, then the people who produce biased, subjective journalism will have no trouble persuading us to believe one thing or another (ex, that we should be afraid of terrorists and relinquish civil rights).

Also, just because one channel is the biggest, doesn't mean it is the best. In fact, I think CNN is one of the worst for pandering and propogating a fear mentality.

[Chuckmcd]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Wow I need a strong coffee. I started an idea and quit right in the middle of it

What was I saying about the media again? Uhhh, as fast as we are as a culture, we really should take the time and put in the effort to research and form opinions and values based on world events. If we don't, then the people who produce biased, subjective journalism will have no trouble persuading us to believe one thing or another (ex, that we should be afraid of terrorists and relinquish civil rights).

Also, just because one channel is the biggest, doesn't mean it is the best. In fact, I think CNN is one of the worst for pandering and propogating a fear mentality.

I agree, I think we all have our ideas of prople, our perception of their intentions if you will, that clouds our judgement. For instance, Bill Clinton could stand up and say somehting that I would normally 100% agree with, but I'd question it becuase Bill Clinton said it.

I think more discussion like this is needed. I don't think your opinions are right, but the more we can talk about them and openly exchange viewpoints the more I can respect your point of view, and I would think the inverse would be true as well.

[iNub]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:

I think the revolution of our economy, and in the end our whole culture as well, will follow the ideas of Marx. The poor working class is becoming greater and greater while the minority control essentially all of the wealth. It's quite disturbing IMO. When the middle class is gone, the Proletariat will bring an uprising.

I say that all the time to rich people that think they're better than me. Basically, "there's more of us than there are of you." History has shown that when a small number of people tries to control a large number of people through oppression, it fails. Invariably.

[Hinson]

Sorry for the long post, but...

A lot has been posted in reply to the original comments, but I wanted to add these points of analysis myself:

First, in addition to missing the real point of nudity in the case of Adam and Eve (which has already been discussed here), in general you're doing too much scapegoating of Christianity (and other religions by extension). For example, human nature alone can easily result in a maturing society rejecting overt public nudity, holding promiscuity as generally undesirable, etc. Further, while there have been a variety of conflicts between certain scientific theories and Christian traditions over the years, you fall into the common trap of ignoring the significant positive influences Christianity has had on the whole of science throughout history. Oh, and while many ill-conceived viewpoints are indeed advanced when the tool of science is turned into an almost mystical faith in science, I don't believe the sexual revolution was extensively based in scientific discovery, but anyway...

In the end, your world-view seems to hold that Christianity (and other religions) are human inventions and fairy tales that don't matter, and you let that blind you, IMHO, into blaming the teachings themselves for certain wrongs people have done, while you ignore any positive aspects of religion. This prejudice also lends itself nicely to your conclusion that religion is not needed and therefore will fade from society as a form of authority.

You also talk about America as if it were founded to reject religious authority. One of the most potent strengths of America is that it was founded on religiously based ideals involving personal, Creator-given, innate human rights (though we obviously didn't live up to those ideals from the beginning and still don't fully live up to them today). It rejected the notation that God gave power directly to a King by birth to rule over individuals and embraced the idea that God gave power to the individual via inalienable rights, and that individuals then needed to lend power to a government whose job was to justly protect all those rights. The separation of church and stated, as it is called, was meant, IMHO, to make that basic concept of God the only religious-like concept that government should unequivocally endorse. All other matters of religion were to be left to the free-willed individual.

As for the idea that the religious right hungers for power, I see that as another biased viewpoint. I find much more convincing evidence that it is the (often anti-religious) left in America that want's to undermine the ideology of individual freedom by using government to push its societal morality on all tax payers. Most (not all, but most) arguments about the right trying to undermine personal freedom are DIRECTLY related to questions of how to justly protect that freedom (e.g., are most abortions injustice takings of human life? How much and when can government reasonably pry into your privacy to provide broad protection of all other forms of freedom? When does the right to free association so unjustly conflict with the rights of others to live their own free-willed lives that government must step in and intervene? etc.) These kinds of points can be debated by two sides who each legitimately claim to be principally concerned with individual freedom.

However, look at the discussions in this thread about the desire to see a more leftist, communist society emerge. This is not a society that can come about by human nature, but rather some group would have to choose to force its personal concept of utopia on others. The real problem with such a concept is that it simply ignores human nature. When capitalism works best its because someone receives "capitol" in return for doing something that serves the needs and desires of others in society. At it's best, its based on concepts that are instinctively attractive to our human nature AND that directly lend themselves to a working society: merit, earning something in proportion to what you do, expecting responsibility, etc. In practice, of course, the idealistic points are often twisted (also by human nature), but with proper laws the problems can often be kept in check. Not so, I claim, with communism. It just takes a few people to go against the utopian idea, not pull their weight, use the system, etc., and human nature quickly leads to a downfall of the utopia unless a strong, central power is in place to continue to force its own utopian morality on others.

Ultimately, the leftist utopia places personal freedom as a secondary consideration--freedom is embraced only within the confines of the leftist societal morality. With the rightist utopia, as I see it, personal freedom is more paramount, and limits to that freedom do not generally arise from a governmental authority forcing some ideology on others. Unjust violations of freedom could arise if the government fails to act against the use of one party's freedom to unjustly exploit another party; or it could arise in pockets when one group in society (by the free-willed choices of its members) chooses to disassociate itself with some other, smaller group with whom they disagree.

There are plenty of points I'm only glossing over, so I hope I haven't been too confusing in those last couple of paragraphs, but in the end I simply find that the left tends to laud the concept of "personal freedom" only when it advances their real underlying socialistic and/or communistic foundations. Also, and somewhat as a result, the left tends to see freedom not so much as an innate property of humanity, but as something that must be provided to you by society and that is often only achieved by redistribution of resources. On the right, the concept of personal, innate freedom seems to be a much more foundational principle, and if cases arise where I believe an argument on the right ultimately undermines the principle of personal freedom, it is more often a special case where there is simply real disagreement on how to justly protect personal freedom.

Finally, you note the need for laws to change over time. I point out that, for America, our most basic strength is that while our laws can change, they are supposed to ALWAYS be based on a pre-established underlining ideology. While we have thankfully expanded who we cover in that ideology over the years (becoming truer to its real meaning, IMHO), the ideology itself has not changed and should not change. That ideology is what defines America, and changing it, IMHO, would truly make us a different, non-American country.


-Jay

[itai195]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Our civliization is essentially a faulty airplane that we have pushed off of a cliff. We are in the air, falling at an accelerated rate, and we think that we are flying. We won't know that we made a mistake until we hit the ground. It is innevitable. We as a culture of takers, completely disregard the notion that we are a part of the ecosystem. We try to dominate it and control it. And because we disregard these ideas, we are doomed to fail, the same way an airplane that doesn't adhere to the laws of thermodynamicis is doomed to crash.

This is really nothing more than an attempt at reinventing cynicism. A human political institution is doomed to failure? Is that supposed to be a novel idea?

I mean no offense, but there are a few half-truths being told here. Example? The Native Americans are being held up as a 'good example.' What happened to their society? It failed. So how can it be suggested that we should espouse a model already known to fail? Every human institution is going to fail at some point, this is almost too obvious to be worth mentioning. It's noble to try and improve upon our own civilization, but it's also important to be humble and realize that, eventually, every practical solution has a flaw of some sort.

That said, yes, "Ishmael" is a really, really good book

Though I myself am not a religious person, I also find he attack on religion to be a bit one-sided... Religion, like all hegemonic ideologies (INCLUDING SCIENCE), of course seeks control and power... But it had its good side -- it creates communities, it gives people hope, and it (in some incarnations at least) advocates the virtues of human nature. On the other hand, Science, despite its technological achievements, has done little to help the human condition -- it has alienated people and created the most devastating wars in history. Science run rampant has created weapons of mass destruction. Like religion, Science has also excluded those who disagreed with it -- look at astrologists for example. Science has been unable to incorporate those who don't support its methods. If you don't think the way Science expects you to, you're shunned (see "A Feeling for the Organism" by Evelyn Keller for an example).

The solution to this is to not tie ourselves to just one ideology. They're all fighting for our minds and they all have some good things to offer, but to say one is right and another is wrong is tantamount to letting yourself be controlled by that ideology.

Moving on...

I think the revolution of our economy, and in the end our whole culture as well, will follow the ideas of Marx. The poor working class is becoming greater and greater while the minority control essentially all of the wealth. It's quite disturbing IMO. When the middle class is gone, the Proletariat will bring an uprising.

There's a couple points here. I was under the impression that the middle class has been growing in the US for the better part of a century, you must be seeing different numbers than I am. The point about the Proletariat contradicts a major point from Orwell's 1984. The Proletariat will never revolt, they are far too removed from the society's power structure and the government is far too good at appeasing them when a crisis arises (see Piven and Cloward's "Regulating the Poor"). One of the things that should be noted is that, by and large, most people in the United States are quite content despite all of the disparities that you and others have pointed out. This is one of the key aspects of "1984" as well (or "Brave New World" for that matter). It is, after all, essential to have the majority of society distracted by a superficial sense of happiness in order to put the wool over their eyes...

All of this boils down to one thing for me. I think calling for social or economic change isn't really the cure to this problem. Well regulated capitalism really is the most effective economic model IMHO because it achieves the best balance between the cooperative and competitive aspects of human nature. What we have in the US today is not well-regulated capitalism, we need to enter another progressive age like in the early 20th century. In order to achieve this, we have to tinker with some of the mechanisms of our political system. Americans just aren't represented very well by our government anymore -- this has far too many causes to go into here -- and something needs to be done about it. It's quite ironic that the nation purporting to support the spread of democracy throughout the world also has the most apathetic voting base, most archaic electoral systems, and least representative party system amongst the world's democracies. We're making it much too easy for autocratic leaders like Bush to do whatever they want. The tough part of this is getting people to care about something they don't care about anymore, especially when the few who do care have a vested interest in keeping everyone else in the dark.... If that makes any sense.

Ah well, this is much too long and it is much to late for me to tell if what I've said is coherent at all. Good night!

[L'enfanTerrible]

Well said itai and Hinson.

Couple things to clear up. I never said that all human political institutions are doomed to failure. I said our present society is doomed to failure. I'm not making a generalisation about all of humanity. I'm making a direct reference to our society. I do believe it is on the wrong track, a path to destruction. Take for example, the WWF study recently completed on human consumption on natural resources. It states that by 2050, our population will be forced to move to other planets if we keep up the same rate of consumption. IMO that won't be possible, so we better have the Soylent Green factories ready. The analogy of the faulty airplane does work.

Also, you made the point, itai, that the native North American's society failed? That is absolutely false. Their societies were very strong and prosperous until Europeans conquered this continent and forced them out of the balance that they achieved and into reserves.

As for science being responsible for war, science can be held no more accountable than religion for causing war. Greed, oppression...these are all a mindframe of the leaders who rule the society that we live in today. The people in power can get away with anything, because they make the laws.

itai:

I was under the impression that the middle class has been growing in the US for the better part of a century, you must be seeing different numbers than I am. The point about the Proletariat contradicts a major point from Orwell's 1984. The Proletariat will never revolt, they are far too removed from the society's power structure and the government is far too good at appeasing them when a crisis arises (see Piven and Cloward's "Regulating the Poor").

The middle class has certainly grown, but I believe the signs point to a growing distance, economically, between the rich and the poor in North America. Middle class itself is determined by two factors, I think: how much money you make in relation to the uber-rich and the dirt-poor, and also: how many people there are who earn roughly the same as you. How many earn more...how many earn less.

The disparigy (sp?) exists and becomes larger when the amount of people earning the same amount that you do becomes very great, and the amount of money that the uber-rich have increases compared to your own income.

In other words (if this isn't very clear) the middle class wont disappear by slipping below the poverty line. Rather poverty line will rise to a bit higher level, and the amount of people above that line will become very small. In other words a small minority controlling almost all of the wealth. I am really unclear about what will happen, I am no expert.

One of the things that should be noted is that, by and large, most people in the United States are quite content despite all of the disparities that you and others have pointed out. This is one of the key aspects of "1984" as well (or "Brave New World" for that matter). It is, after all, essential to have the majority of society distracted by a superficial sense of happiness in order to put the wool over their eyes...

I, for one, do not believe that most people are happy. It's becoming harder to raise children, as well as more expensive. Divorce rates are very high. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with our society. The hard part is figuring out how to make it better. In Brave New World, the population relied on drugs to keep them happy: "Soma", which I think is MDMA. In Orwell's "1984", the people were not happy either.

After all this disagreement, I will end by saying that I agree with your take on the next level of economic development. Regulated capitalism is what is needed right now.

After this long thread, I think two points about society that I like the most are the idea of regulated capitalism, and the idea SvenG mentioned of a "culture of gift". Everyone must contribute to the betterment of society, and everyone must have what they need. We should work because we get enjoyment out of it. And often in today's world, this is impossible.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Chuckmcd:


This interests me, why is it that religions were invented? Isn't it possible that there is some objective truth out there that some religion points to? Yes, I've been through college (two times now) and I'm still an objectivist

Why is it that you have to find some truth that fits you? It seems to me that life/reality/truth just is, and in the real world we have to adjust to it. For instance, a hurricane is headin towards my house, two in as many weeks. This is reality, I can chose to not like this reality and stay here at my own peril or I can recognize it for what it is and prepare and/or evacuate. Either way, the fact that the hurricane is coming isn't effected by my reaction to that fact. It seems to me that if this is true in the physical rhelm that it may be true in the meta-physical/spiritual world also. Just a thought.

Religions were invented to explain things to people and to coordinate life in a community.

The �dogmas' and �rules' are nowadays replaced by laws that are much more flexible and useful (in the sense that it would be pretty hard for a country to justify taxes based on scriptures).
Many other things can nowadays be explained by science, no more �witchcraft' is needed to cure you from various diseases.

That's one reason why religion doesn't participate so much in our daily life anymore.
Don't get me wrong, there are still many people that are very religious and I respect that very much (as long as they don't force their faith onto other people).

But for the majority, there is simply (in our case) a Christian background even though I am not even baptized.

Another point why religion is of less importance nowadays is that I evolves far too slow in many areas (rights of women, homosexuality, abortion, ...). Most of the faithful Christians I know personally have �adapted' their faith so that it is �compatible' with the problematic issues.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Thanks Millenium. That was a great post.

...

I still stand by my statement that the church represses sexuality. Only in the last century have women been looked at as equals.

Ditto, great post.

Women are still not equal when most flavors of religions are concerned. Women are not allowed to become priests when they are Catholic, etc.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by iNub:
I say that all the time to rich people that think they're better than me. Basically, "there's more of us than there are of you." History has shown that when a small number of people tries to control a large number of people through oppression, it fails. Invariably.

The most important part of �capitalism' is a healthy middle class. I'm from there, but it's increasingly tougher. Less and less people (in Germany) can afford a house. Something that was common in the past (my grandparent's generation).
If the system is out of balance, it will break.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:


The most important part of �capitalism' is a healthy middle class. I'm from there, but it's increasingly tougher. Less and less people (in Germany) can afford a house. Something that was common in the past (my grandparent's generation).
If the system is out of balance, it will break.

Here in Canada, the cost of living is beginning to sky rocket. And I live in the province with the lowest minimum wage. I can't afford to drive a car, because the insurance rates are ludicrous. It would cost around 3 thousand dollars a year to insure a vehicle. The cost of owning a house is also very high. I should move to Australia or something

One good thing about my country is the low cost of education and health care, but IMO the curriculum (sp?) through high school is not up to par and the status of health care is diminishing. I have even heard talk of an Alberta separatist movement if Ottawa ratifies the Kyoto Accord. More and more I'm starting to see that my country is backwards

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:


The most important part of �capitalism' is a healthy middle class. I'm from there, but it's increasingly tougher. Less and less people (in Germany) can afford a house. Something that was common in the past (my grandparent's generation).
If the system is out of balance, it will break.

That's interesting. Overall, the percentage of people who own their own homes in the US has slightly gone up in the last 20 years. But this indicates a troubling trend where younger people are having a slightly harder time owning their own homes, while older people are having a slightly easier time.

I think this is likely to get worse as the baby boomer generation goes into retirement. The extent to which policy is driven in this country to suit that generation at the expense of other generations is a little sad. It's seen, for example, in the way Social Security is a tremendously bad deal for anyone under about 40, but a good deal for babyboomers and above. Any attempt at reform gets blocked by powerful lobbies like the AARP and their friends in a certain party.

Anyway, I don't yet own my own home. Hopefully I will in the next year or so. I'm getting very tired of renting.

[Sven G]

About the so-called "human nature"...

... Are we sure that a "human nature" even exists? This is not so sure, after all, from a philosophical and sociological point of view. For example - as for what I know best (others will contribute their opinions, hopefully), - in "classic" libertarian thought "human nature" is always considered as essentially good, and, at least, perfectible: a radically different approach from, for example, the Catholic religion, where things are quite different (sin, etc.)! The "modern"/post-modern libertarian philosophy, OTOH, tends to reject the concept of "human nature": this is most evident in the so-called post-structuralism. Probably, we could discuss endlessly if there is a "human nature" or not - and, maybe, arrive at no definitive conclusions! What we *could* do, in any case, is to see *how* things can be changed towards more freedom, happiness and (heresy?!) pleasure for everyone on this planet and beyond...

Is capitalism - even with a "human" face - really the best possible solution for our post-modern society? Personally, I doubt that, as capitalism, by its very "nature" (!), seems to be doomed to an "expand or perish" ideology: so, if we are to remain and live in harmony together on this Earth (not by this excluding the exploration of space, of course), clearly capitalism isn't a good option (see also the WWF report - which could be an exaggeration, but, anyway, gives an idea of how things could become in a not too distant future).

Can capitalism be "reformed away", perhaps? Even this seems to be problematic, as the current political system doesn't, obviously, lend itself to reducing its "power structures". Anyway, a good temporary solution could be some sort of "citizenship income": a minimum wage that everyone, being a citizen, is entitled to (somehow a "natural right"); this could probably (fortunately, I'm not an economist!) temporarily solve the most heavy poverty problems. But then, what should happen?

Probably, the Marxian "revolution by the proletariat" approach is no longer so valid, anymore, as we are not in the 19th century, but in a much more complex society. Personally, I'm quite much in line with the post-structuralist methodology: that is, we (people of all "classes" and extractions) should try to expand our local - and global - areas of autonomy (or TAZ, Temporary Autonomous Zones, as they can also be called) in a decentralized, network-like manner (see the Internet, for example, which by its very nature is such a form of organization). Gradually, the areas of substantial freedom and self-management would expand (often also simultaneously in different places), eventually covering a network of local and global regions. Of course, for each "piece" of decentralization acquired, the centralist state/capital loses some momentum: so, effectively, it would be a constant "drain of energy" from the state to the regions. Eventually, the federative, decentralized concept would gain so much "energy" that it would become the prevalent one: so a (r)evolution (revolutionary evolution, or revolutionary reform) would have become reality, in a perfectly non-violent manner!

Of course, such a process requires some much deeper ethical values than today's: this is the most difficult thing, probably! But, definitely, not impossible, IMHO...

P.S.: One might think that the big emphasis on "federalism" advocated by, for example, many European regions and states is something similar to what previously exposed: well... partially, maybe, but this rather reductive concept of "federalism" (or "devolution") seems to be - at least by now - nothing else than a "segmentation" of the nation-states into smaller units - which isn't exactly a libertarian (in the European meaning) approach, as the structures of power tend to remain unaltered. The "Europe of regions" - instead of the "Europe of states" - still seems to be a rather distant goal...

[L'enfanTerrible]

SvenG, could you recommend any books/authors or other readings? Your points are making a lot of sense to me.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
SvenG, could you recommend any books/authors or other readings? Your points are making a lot of sense to me.

Well... the most relevant for what I said before is this one; there's also an interview with the author (an university professor) here.

And here is an interesting "practical" article I just found about citizen's income.

As most of my readings have been in Italian (in particular, the excellent books from the small editor El�uthera ), please give me some time to find some good English equivalents: I'll try to do it as soon as I have the time!

[thunderous_funker]

Some very interesting viewpoints.


I agree with the orignal premise that American culture is unsustainable in it's current form.

The role of religion in society is important, but there must be a distinction between the private and public realms. In the discourse to establish public policy, religion is a Converstation Stopper (here i'm borrowing from Rorty). In my mind, there must be a trade off. To allow for individual religious freedom, it is necessary for the public discourse to be secular.

Historically, capitalism that is regulated by responsive, healthy democracies have been very successful at balancing the liberal ideal of minimization of cruelty and the conservative ideal of protection of individual liberty.

Since 1979, the disparity between rich and poor in the US has increased more than any nearly every other modernized nation. There is a real socio-economic crisis on the horizon that must be addressed. Inequality is unsustainable without violence.

The post-structuralist concept is very interesting. I'm uncertain how it will support massive populations or massive immigration, however. At first look, it appears to be nothing more than the idea of Gated Communities writ large. I don't see how it can work without the Gate which brings us back to--Inequality is unsustainable without violence.

Redistribution of wealth is difficult to do wisely, Social Security does it unwisely, IMO. Why redistribute from the young to the old? Why not provide a Social Security account to 18 year olds so they can attend college or trade schools and then contribute to the economy in a meaningful way, for example? Just a radical thought

Perhaps it's actually the redistribution of technology that is needed. Current Intellectual property laws are perhaps the greatest tool for maintaining inequality yet devised.

[itai195]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Also, you made the point, itai, that the native North American's society failed? That is absolutely false. Their societies were very strong and prosperous until Europeans conquered this continent and forced them out of the balance that they achieved and into reserves.

Very good points! I just have one thing to add to this one. As big of a fan as I also am of Native American culture, I don't see how it can't be said that it failed in the long term. Shouldn't part of the criteria for success involve a culture's ability to withstand external challenges? Conflicts with other groups/cultures is part of the game. The Native Americans simply had the luxury that they lived in relative isolation for centuries.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by itai195:
Shouldn't part of the criteria for success involve a culture's ability to withstand external challenges? Conflicts with other groups/cultures is part of the game.

maybe. but only in as much as these conflicts are absolutely NECCESSARY (for either parties survival).

europeans did not come to the americas to ensure their survival. so this conflict was imo not part of "the game" (depending on your definition of it).

until then, many aspects of native american culture showed a lot more promise of living a balanced and stable existence, than that of the european nations.

unfortunately, we will never have the possibility of conducting an experiment, where it will show which culture would have survived longer (and in a more healthy manner) if they had never met.

[Sven G]

... Some more links on the web regarding new forms of economy and society:

ParEcon (Participatory Economics) and the very interesting Z Net (Z Magazine), in particular the debates between different views of libertarian-like (r)evolutionary thought; the Institute for Social Ecology (libertarian municipalism, envisaged especially by Murray Bookchin) is also interesting, especially regarding the equilibrium between (wo)mankind and nature.

And, as what I exposed in relation to post-structuralism and (r)evolutionary changes is essentially a synthesis between the most relevant aspects of the (post-)modern and classic visions of libertarian thought, it could be interesting to read something by Errico Malatesta, who was, probably, the last "classical" anarchist, and who "synthesized" the libertarian thought of the 19th and first half of the 20th century, effectively anticipating the post-modern approach to reality.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
*snip*
Redistribution of wealth is difficult to do wisely, Social Security does it unwisely, IMO. Why redistribute from the young to the old? Why not provide a Social Security account to 18 year olds so they can attend college or trade schools and then contribute to the economy in a meaningful way, for example? Just a radical thought

I like this comment a lot. Your other ones too. A society that takes care of their elderly, not just hands them a social security check is, IMO, the ideal. Take for example, again, North American native societies. The elderly are the most revered and respected part of the society. In our society, however, we put them away, and give them enough "welfare" to survive. I would like to point out that educational grants and loans are very common in our society. But the burden is left always on the parents or the kids themselves to support them until they can get a decent career started. I think there should be a program to help young adults get housing with other young adults while they are going to school (like a year round residence, but not as crappy) and also help kids pay for vehicles.

Originally posted by itai195:

Shouldn't part of the criteria for success involve a culture's ability to withstand external challenges? Conflicts with other groups/cultures is part of the game.

Good point, but the two societies in conflict in this situation are of different natures. The native Americans are a leaver society. They naturally came to a balance with the environment. IMO this is because they worshipped and respected the Earth. They didn't worship a false deity and they didn't succumb to the illusion that the Earth is theirs for the taking.

This voids the "game" because war is meant as a survival mechanism, and like Deekay said, the Europeans came over to this continent because they saw an opportunity to expand.

Our culture is more appealing, but it will crumble when the Earth no longer can sustain it's development. Thats why the native americans culture is better.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
Very good points! I just have one thing to add to this one. As big of a fan as I also am of Native American culture, I don't see how it can't be said that it failed in the long term. Shouldn't part of the criteria for success involve a culture's ability to withstand external challenges? Conflicts with other groups/cultures is part of the game. The Native Americans simply had the luxury that they lived in relative isolation for centuries.

I'm not sure if you really mean this. The implications of your statement are that Military might signifies a superior society. If that's the case, modern America is the pinacle of human culture and the topic at hand is moot.

The devastion of NA culture from economic and cultural interaction didn't really happen until AFTER they were forcibly humiliated, driven from their homes, watched their habitat destroyed, and fenced in. The NA culture after military defeat is not the NA culture before it. Then begins the calculated program of "modernizing" that further eroded NA culture by converting it to European/White culture. Even today there are programs aimed at overtly enticing Native Americans away from their heritage.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's interesting. Overall, the percentage of people who own their own homes in the US has slightly gone up in the last 20 years. But this indicates a troubling trend where younger people are having a slightly harder time owning their own homes, while older people are having a slightly easier time.

I think this is likely to get worse as the baby boomer generation goes into retirement. The extent to which policy is driven in this country to suit that generation at the expense of other generations is a little sad. It's seen, for example, in the way Social Security is a tremendously bad deal for anyone under about 40, but a good deal for babyboomers and above. Any attempt at reform gets blocked by powerful lobbies like the AARP and their friends in a certain party.

Anyway, I don't yet own my own home. Hopefully I will in the next year or so. I'm getting very tired of renting.

That is why I wrote in Germany (in parenthesis though). You will have trouble finding a small house in and around Munich for less than �500,000. Ouch.