Slashdot Mirror

...

What we must do is guard against the use of technology through market logic where people become brands and all things spiritual become commoditized.

... with the advent (deliberate pun) of rock and roll Christian music.

My upbringing taught that religious music was a deliverance of gospel and the performer would have objected vehemently to any attention to self via admiration or applause because the gift was presented by God Himself.

Now it's a goddam industry.

Hey, you are correct, gun availability does matter: http://www.beliefnet.com/news/...

Think again.

Richard Dawkins would have torn this to shreds. What we have here is a non-believing atheist. As in they utilize the forms and language of religion without explicitly expecting belief in some sky god. Atheists don't have a problem with meaning, it's the believers that have a problem with people who don't believe. And no, it isn't possible to prove that pink unicorns don't live at the end of your garden. And there is no problem in explaining consciousness, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. I see where Deepak Chopra does an interview with Alva Noe. Sorry, but anyone who engages with any form of woo-ism is not worthy of serious consideration. To paraphrase, something is moral/immoral because the Sky God says so? Why is something moral/immoral, because the Sky God says so. How does believing in some Sky God give your morals any more validity - answer is -- it doesn't.

"Atheists, in so far as they are followers of Spock, have an explanatory burden that religionists don't carry — that of explaining how you get meaning and value out of particles"

This is dishonest bullshit, meaning doesn't reside in particles, and no self respecting atheist ever said so.

You dug up something from 1972? Wasn't Obama snorting coke in 1972? Wasn't Clinton NOT inhaling in 1972? Either way, HERE is another take on it.

And you are trying to hammer a minister on opposing gay marriage? Oh! The HORROR! What kind of prick does a minister have to be to believe and teach what the Bible says?!!?

Wait... Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act? Didn't Obama say that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman? Why are you not wishing for them to die horribly in a storm?

Try again.

Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Shinto faith.I'm most familiar with the Christian Science viewpoint:

The basic idea is that God made a body with its particular destiny, and it's not man's job to screw with that plan. Some followers believe this means God gave them knowledge, intelligence, and the ability to cure disease, and no matter what happens, it's because God allows it. Other followers believe this means God made a plan for every part of the body, and if someone acts against that natural plan, they're violating the plan.

I agree with GP: This is an issue between patients and their doctors. Personally, part of my overly-elaborate assisted-suicide (though I don't yet know who or what will assist or in what manner or at what time) plan is that if I'm ever in a situation where 4 out of 5 doctors randomly chosen say I'm beyond reasonable hope for recovery, start cutting out recoverable parts. I have no interest in using them again.

Sure, and that's the goal. This whole "cyberbullying" / "hate crime" meme is all about an attempt to off-limit certain types of speech. The fact that the subject killed himself makes this the perfect storm of a way to promote this idea. And the idea is: "You're not allowed to criticize certain people." Sexual orientation minorities are one of those protected classes that are to get this kind of special dispensation. Heterosexuals and fat people are fair game (as Michelle Obama's campaign has made clear), as are pretty much all white people, and old people, too (ageism is never criticized as hateful or bullying, for instance).

So in spite of the portrayal of anti-bullying (and especially "cyber bullying") campaigns as an effort to end reduce suffering of the young and adolescent, the rather obvious true goal is only to protect certain groups against criticism. Note that criticism of Christian beliefs, and those of Mormons, Catholics, and often even Jews is defended as legitimate and never considered "bullying", no matter how inflammatory and hurtful the rhetoric used against them.

Even politicians and law enforcement have started using the terms, claiming that they are being "bullied" by citizens simply for criticizing their public policy actions and decision, and initiating law suits to stop them. This latest movement, to conflate any criticism of government overreach with "anti-government" anarchists or even "paper terrorists".

This is a truly frightening development, that will lead inevitably to the erosion of free speech to such a degree that the only thing recognized as "free speech" will be a narrowly-defined set of "approved speech".

There's other ways "Christian" has been used. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who took the Christian Bible and cut out the sections dealing with miracles and the supernatural to create the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed Jesus was a great teacher, just not the "Son of God". Those who believe that have been considered Christians by some, though not all. Still another way was with Christian agnosticism.

Falcon

. I just saw the lame first paragraph and blew off the rest.

Fuck you too.

What's the problem with people defending their economic status?

It's not a problem per se, but people tend not to take the long view when it comes to economic policy.

Why are some people required to sacrifice their economic well being when other people are not?

See: progressive taxation. McCain's "hero", Teddy Roosevelt was one of the early proponents of progressive taxation in the U.S. We had a stable middle class and wages until 1981 when Reagan decimated the top tax brackets.

national debt that is almost the size of annual GDP

That debt and deficit problem we face now has been 30 years in the making. It was started by Reagan's tax cuts on the wealth in 1981. You'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your sudden concern as feigned.

Where the fuck were you deficit chicken-hawks during Reagan, Bush, and Bush II were in office?

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2003/09/The-Gospel-Of-Supply-Side-Jesus.aspx

http://prolifeaction.org/about/closed81.php http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=1965 http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2001/04/Priests-For-Life-Offers-50000-Reward-For-Clinic-Shooters.aspx http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10357

Our nation was founded using Christian principles and it worked really well.

No, in fact, it wasn't. Regarding the "Founding Fathers", many of the founders were Deists. Franklin doubted the divinity of Jesus. Jefferson composed his own edition of the Bible with all the miracle stories elided. Tom Paine wrote that "Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think."

As for the nation's founding documents, the Constitution states in Article VI that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Then there's Amendment I's guarantee against establishment of religion.

And the Treaty of Tripoli -- one of the first treaties negotiated by the United States, created during the Washington administration and signed by John Adams -- explicitly states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

The claim that the U.S. was founded on Christianity is, simply, wrong.

The attitude of religious institutions against gay marriage you express directly from the horses mouth: http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/06/how-women-will-be-hurt-by-gay-marriage.html

Sigh. There are rights and rights. There is nothing that says the rights that are entailed by being human and those that are entailed by being a citizen are identical.

You seem to fail at comprehension. But please point me to where Liberalism makes this distinction, because I have yet to see it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This document however says nothing about a right to privacy.

Rights are not granted by a piece of paper... which is exactly what that document says. Humans are "endowed by their Creator" with them. Also, please learn to fucking read "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Clearly indicates there rights which they did not mention.

Where as the Constitution which enumerates our rights only applies to citizens and does talk about something that could interpreted as a right to privacy.

No, the Consitution enumerates what the US government CANNOT DO. Again, it doesn't grant rights, it restricts government to ensure rights are not violated. It also says we have other rights which are left to the people (amendments 9 & 10). Also note that it says the government CANNOT DO certain things, period. For example, the fifth amendment says "No person shall be ..." It says "person," not "citizen."

Finally, if you actually DID read anything Jefferson wrote, you'd know nobody intended the bill of rights to be an enumeration of rights. Read his thoughts on the bill of rights in a letter between Jefferson and Maddison.

http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/59/Letter_from_Thomas_Jefferson_to_James_Madison_1.html

Oh, if you really want a right to privacy, much of it is defined in the fifth amendment as well.

Haven't seen Doubt, but I do recall that the Streep character was an extremely conservative nun, the sort of person who thinks of all change as evil. I don't think her attitudes were being held up as something to emulate

The problem with your argument is that you don't say how you think ballpoint pens cause bad penmanship. Without some hypothetical mechanism all you've got is just another post hoc argument. You could just as easily claim that the decline in penmanship was caused by the invention of TV, the construction of the Interstate Highway System, or fluoridation. That last one is probably very popular in some circles.

Here's a much simpler mechanism: when skills stop being valuable, people stop learning them. What's the value of handwriting? Well, if your business correspondence is handwritten, then you better make sure that whoever writes out the "fair copy" has really good handwriting. And indeed, there used to be professional scriveners whose sole job skill was extremely good penmanship.

But businesses stopped hiring scriveners after typewriters became common about 125 years ago. There are other uses for handwriting, but they've been gradually eaten away by technology. Nowadays, ability to hack out text on a QWERTY keyboard is a lot more valuable than good penmanship. And that's the skill people have.

Incidentally, a certain politician is considered to have pretty good penmanship, despite having grown up after the decline of the fountain pen. Judging from his autobiography, I suspect his achievement-oriented mother stood over him as he practiced it. Which is the only way you can get a kid to acquire such a skill.

And notice from the document that I link: the dude writes with a felt tip!!!

baby got barack

http://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html

Nope, it's what they're saying. When atheists complain about christian institutions getting funding in direct violation of the founding tenets of our country, the christians pop up and say they, and other religious groups, are being oppressed. But, when you acknowledge those other groups, the christians get pissed because you've now diminished them because they're not getting 100% of the spotlight.

"Jesus H. Christ, you're sock-monkeying that link all over the place. The answer clearly is, yes"

Jeez, excuse me, I thought this place had something to do with current technology. I guess Mad magazine is more appropriate. See CmdrTaco pictured here ..

The only problem with that statement is that it isn't true.

You don't even need to spell Alzheimer's correctly to Google your way to a reasonable and sympathetic discussion of Ronald Reagan's long decline, which began in the early 80s, and of which he was undoubtedly aware. People who knew people with Alzheimer's began speculating that he was suffering from this disease during his first term as president, and although it wasn't a discussion topic in the mainstream press, many citizens were aware of this possibility by about midway through his second term. As this article mentions, the condition remains difficult to diagnose today. Other articles I've seen indicate that a fully positive diagnosis isn't really possible without a brain biopsy (typically performed after the patient has died). Reagan's downward spiral

Look, anonymous coward, we don't exist to fill the enormous gaps in your knowledge of the world in which you live, nor to compensate for your laziness. It takes about 2 seconds for you to verify this for yourself. If you're going to snidely demand "references" whenever someone makes a statement that you are not directly familiar with, at least have the courtesy to do so using your login ID so the rest of us can filter you out.

Anonytard.

I guess you hypothesis is wrong so I will assume that you will change it.

he reality is that the ACLU doesn't come down on the right side all the time. A side effect of erring on the side of limiting discrimination and siding with the minority is that you sometimes end up being unpopular and sometimes end up being straight up wrong. The more important question is, are we talking about an organization that's more of a liability than a force for good? As I see it, on the good side you have times when the ACLU protects somebody who is being abused by the government, stands up for free speech, and gets due process for somebody who might otherwise been denied it. On the other hand, people are occasionally offended because they have to take down a religious trinket they've put up on the public dime. Frankly, while I'm usually annoyed and mildly offended at the use of my money being spent to rub my nose in other peoples' religion, I'm easygoing enough that I think a lawsuit is a bit over the top. On the other hand, if the symbolism of a particular group's idol being displayed by the government should be no big deal, why do they wet themselves with rage when they're asked to take it down?

I will agree that the ACLU is not an evil organization, but way too often, they stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Even more often, they gladly offend the majority in order to keep the minority from getting offended.

Here is an example. The ACLU fought to allow Wiccan symbols allowed on soldier's graves. That's a good thing. I don't care if a soldier wants a spaghetti monster on his grave! Whatever they want, that is what they shall have! However, the ACLU fought to have a war memorial covered with a tarp because it was in the shape of a cross. Was anyone really offended by this cross on a hill in the middle of the Mojave desert? Not that I can find. But, because it was in the shape of a cross, and it was on public land, the ACLU demanded that it be covered. Why? Who was offended? Did anyone care?

The ACLU has not given up its fight to also have the cross removed at the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California. The organization claims the display of the cross on federally-owned land violates the constitution.

Of course, the ACLU did the same thing in San Diego

How about a Katrina memorial along side the Mississippi River on private land and paid for by private funds?

The American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to plans for a memorial to the 129 residents of Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish who died in Hurricane Katrina, because it will include a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.

In a letter to parish officials, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said the plan violates separation of church and state because the memorial would be alongside a public waterway.

But the parish president says he sees nothing wrong with the memorial, which will be erected on private land near the Mississippi River's Gulf outlet and is being financed with donations.

What if I want to display a manger scene in my front yard that faces a public roadway? (whose front yard doesn't face a public roadway?) How about if I want to build a church next to a federal highway? What if I want to use a federal highway to get to church on Sunday morning? Isn't that using federal funds to support a religion?

Same story, another link.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. The ACLU is sticking their noses where it does not belong. No one in this Parish complained. Hell! No one complained at all with the exception of the ACLU.

Then there is the case where the ACLU

That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

God's giving of free will to humans gives us the capacity to rebel against Him. When we break His laws and/or deny His sovereignty, that is sin. As much as we like to have God portrayed as an all-loving being, He is also a just God. He has a righteous anger toward sin and evil, and like any judicial system, there is a price to be paid for wrongdoing.

In the Old Testament, God demanded sacrifices from the people of Israel, whether it was a certain percentage of crops, or animals, or whatever. Some sacrifices were specifically signs of fealty, while others were for atonement for the sins of the people. These were part of the ordinances that God relayed to Moses about how the newly-rescued Hebrew people were to behave. Using the prescribed rituals, the Israelites had a way for God to forgive their sins through the spilling of sacrificial blood on His altar. Of course, the lamb or goat or bull that was killed was not at fault; they hadn't committed the sins. However, God pronounced that those sacrifices were acceptable *substitutions* for the people themselves. And I believe He did that out of love for His creation.

Think about it another way. These people wandered through the desert for 40 years. Giving up any source of meat (or milk or fat or hides) was a huge deal. If one was truly penitent and wanted to have his transgressions against God forgiven, he'd faithfully do what was required. They had to trust in the covenant God made with them, that He would deliver them, both physically and spiritually, if they obeyed Him.

As told rolled on, and Israel got in and out of trouble, they reached a point where the letter of the Law had become more important than the spirit of the Law. (Sounds a lot like the world now, in fact.) Merely going through the motions to reach a state of spiritual cleanliness wasn't enough. They'd lost their intimate relationship with God. God knew that this approach to forgiveness wasn't working. Rather than leave them/us to languish in separation from Him, He decided that the time was right to come down Himself to deal with the matter once and for all.

I can't purport to explain how God took on human form, or how Jesus is part of the Trinity and yet is of the same essense as God. However, just as a sacrificial lamb at Passover had to be pure and unblemished, so did Jesus have to lead a sinless life in order to become a substitution sacrifice. And it wasn't simply that He went through a cruel and gruesome death to provide some sort of balance to the universe; His life and death obviated the need for continual earthly sacrifice to restore our connection with God by taking the punishments for sin onto Himself.

I probably still haven't provided much clarity as to how one person can pay for another person's evil. I can't say I had any insight into this idea until I became a parent. As my daughter has gotten older, I've become more aware of how our perception of God as a Father deals directly with His nature. If my daughter had a debt to be paid that would result in something horrible happening to her, I would pay that debt in her stead. Trying to draw parallels between human justice and Divine justice is difficult, and that may contribute to the confusion about this issue. However, the crux of what I would do to save my child, whether from some outside evil or from herself, and what lengths God would and did go to for us is love. This author put it much better than I could:

"God is not like an infinitely indulgent parent who never holds anyone accountable for sins. But since the dominant trait in the divine

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as we

I'm familiar with Bugs bunny and that's not what I'm talking about. My source is my Muslim coworker, it came up in conversation just last week. Regardless about two minutes of googling will reveal plenty of verifcation such as here, here, here, here, and here.

The cartoon depiction of angels on our shoulders did come to my mind when we were discussing it. The popular notion is not the same as in Islam since they are influencing your actions, not recording them. However Islam has been around for a long time, it may well be the source of that cartoon cliche.

Interestingly, a recent study found that conservatives donate far more to charities than liberals, so apparently conservatives have a larger "altruistic center" in their brains than liberals do.

So Paul knows what the "arsenokoite" term means. But does he also know what hypokrytos means? (sorry for the Greek spelling, this is not my first language).

And how does Ephesians 5:29 rhyme with 2 Corinthians 12:7 ? Even if we disagree about what that mysterious "thorn" actually is, there seems to be some contradiction between both verses, unless Paul considers himself to be nobody.

You are a fuckin' moron:

Gates has given away 22 billion. 1/3 of his fortune. That is less than the average American?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/34/story_3450_1.htm l

He has also stated his intention to give it all away. Probably close to your scenario of give away 99 billion save 1 billion for the heirs. Maybe you don't think its impressive but it is.

Gates is one of a multitude of power-hungry monopolists in the computer industry ... not unlike any other industry. At least he's redirecting that wealth to saving lives. He could just hoard it all like the Walton family.

but Christianity and evolution are.

Somebody better tell that to this guy: he seems to think that there's no incompatibility there.

Only a small minority of Christian religions believe there's any incompatibility between the two, and they tend to be a little bit loony overprotective about the literal wording of the Bible (why, I have no idea: it's not like the words have a unique, unambiguous meaning - and it's not like the people at the time even had the words to write down some of the concepts).

One being the idea that man is created in God's image

You think the idea of 'man being created in God's image' had anything to do with our physical bodies? You think our physical bodies mean diddly squat to God?

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, it might have to do with that whole soul thing?

Environmental Armageddon

I'd love to find a generic living will/directive that is focused on the choices Christ followers find hard to do. Anyone have a link?

I found this one after a quick google for Christian "living will". That should give you a good head start.

If it's true that it causes people to feel despair, that's tough. It's still the truth. The universe doesn't owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn't owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If it's true, it's true, and you'd better live with it.

Richard Dawkins

http://beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html

Whether God, aliens or some magical watchmaker had a hand in creating life is irrelevant. It is something that cannot be proved or disproved. At least not at this time. While there is no definative proof that we evolved from monkeys or fish or an ameoba, there is compelling evidence that shows that life grows and adapts. Putting God in the mix interferes with the seperation of church and state. There is no place for God in science unless we can prove that God exists, not just use it as an assumption. That doesn't mean that we can't have God as part of our lives and our beliefs. Even the late Pope John Paul II said evelution was more than just a hypothesis and the Vatican's astronomer opposes intelligent design as a science and says it doesn't belong in a classroom. The current Pope seems to agree with ID but if it were up to me, I wouldn't back one theory that supported on theological premise and poked holes in another more important one.

One must bear in mind that the Vatican doesn't even think that "Intellegent Design" has any place in a science classroom.

Check your facts. On Nov 9. the Pope said otherwise:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17875_1.h tml

Pfft. Clearly you're confusing real piety with the gospel of Supply Side Jesus.

(And it's "Reagan". Once is a typo; the second time, I gotta whip out my inverted-lowercase e adhesive badge.)

Real evolutionists get their morals from their biology textbooks.

I take it that you do not consider Richard Dawkins an "evolutionist" then? I am sure he'll be glad. It's a rather crappy and misguided neologism.:P

"There is no inconsistency in favouring Darwinism as an academic scientist while opposing it as a human being; any more than there is inconsistency in explaining cancer as an academic doctor while fighting it as a practising one."
- Richard Dawkins | Rebelling against our selfish genes

Damn I'm religious now. Check this survey out. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/173/story_17353_1.h tml?rnd=39#spiritrel 64% claim to be religious while 85% claim to be christian... My religion ain't a religion god damn it!

"A newly discovered fragment of the oldest surviving copy of the New Testament indicates that, as far as the Antichrist goes, theologians, scholars, heavy metal groups, and television evangelists have got the wrong number. Instead of 666, it's actually the far less ominous 616."

I've never seen anything about recycling a computer where I've ever lived.. We just throw them in the trash cans or set them beside them...

Many places don't have anything setup to recycle electronic/electrical equipment but it's something that should be done. Some of these have toxic substances such as PCBs used in the manufacture. CRTs for instance contain lead which if it ends up in a landfill can contaminate ground water while PCBs contaminate the atmosphere and bioaccumulates. Here's a couple of articles on PCBs. EPA, GE negotiations may delay dredging is about the cleanup of the Hudson River because of the PCBs GE released into it while this one, Contaminated Arctic only looks pristine From kelp to Inuit mothers' milk, all suffer from migration of industrial toxins , describes some effects PCBs have on Inuit women of the Artic who use no PCB. PCBs have also shown up in orcas especially the J, K, and L pods of Puget Sound. The demand for Coltan, columbite-tantalite, used in cellphones is responsible for the fighting and deaths in the Congo, Congo's Conflict: Heart of Darkness
With 30,000 deaths a month from violence and disease, Congo is the world's deadliest place.
Does anyone care?

I think you misunderstand the role of natural selection. Just because it's a theory that deconstructs some (or all) of Christianity and many other religions, doesn't mean it is a religion in itself, and does not mean it represents any sort of moral framework. A flaw in a story does not constitute an alternative story.

I typed in more than this, but then realised that Richard Dawkins says it much better than I could, in this short essay: Rebelling Against Our Selfish Genes "Humans must believe in evolution, but fight it. Through us, natural selection has blundered unwittingly into its own negation".

It's precisely "enforcing their religion on others" that leads secularists like me to want religion banished from schools. I'm very annoyed that I was indoctrinated with religion from the age of 4. I'm sure there are extremes and subversions of these secularizing efforts which we would agree have become absurd.

Dude, you're worshipping the wrong Messiah.

You need Supply Side Jesus.

The governor of Texas does not have any control over executions what-so-ever.

The Commandment is not "thou shalt not kill". It is "thou shalt do no murder". Killing is all well and good if the killee deserves it. Jesus himself riterated this commandment. He also spoke of restraint, as in "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword", so obviously it is not copasthetic for you to go stab the hell out of your neighbor for not returning your weedeater.

So, in all, there is no "glaring discrepancy", though you desperately would like there to be one.

In 1996, Andre told the BBC: "The Priory of Sion doesn't exist anymore. We were never involved in any activities of a political nature. It was four friends who came together to have fun. We called ourselves the Priory of Sion because there was a mountain by the same name close-by. I haven't seen Pierre Plantard in over 20 years and I don't know what he's up to but he always had a great imagination. I don't know why people try to make such a big thing out of nothing."

I could google more up, but I found these:
http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/flash.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/78/story_7843_1.htm l
http://www.lorenjavier.com/toychest/asian/simpsons .html
http://members.aol.com/Jovifan2/Apu.html

I don't mind being "out there" as you characterize it, as long as my opinion is supported by fact. Hence, a little research will show you that:

1) Mormonism is not rooted in Christianity. For further clarification, see this link.

2) You obfuscate the issue, by stating that "blacks were always allowed in the Church." The question was whether or not the Church discriminated against blacks. The Church obviously has a long history of discriminating against, and maligning, blacks. For further information, see this link. Don't be surprised at the racist and hateful statements LDS apostles (who speak for God) have made against blacks throughout history.

I stated that Joseph Smith (founder of the Church) introduced and practiced polyandry (multiple wives and husbands), not polygamy (multiple wives for a single husband). You state erroneously that "there were never multiple men to one woman." Yet eight (8) of the thirty three (33) marriages of Joseph Smith were of this type! I suggest you check this link for supporting facts.

Likewise, everything in the temple is not documented. In fact, Mormon literature teaches us that "some things in the temple are sacred, and not to be revealed to outsiders." For an overview, see this link. For an overview of how the ceremony has changed over time, you can go here.

To address your next statement... yes, there are some racist people everywhere. But that wasn't the issue, or in question. I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning this. The fact that Mormons have a dark history with black people (no pun intended) is not exculpated by other examples of racism, rampant or otherwise.

You also state that "at no time did the leadership ever say black people had the mark of Cain." Again, you are incorrect. Plenty of LDS prophets (who speak for God) have told us so, as you can see for yourself right here. For a history of the black man and Mormonism in general, you can go here.

So far, your contentions are without merit. If you have evidence to present that is contrary to my researched opinion, please feel free to cite your sources, as I have done. I'm always open to assimilating new facts, and learning new things.

Pascal's wager proposes that one should believe in god because you get all of the rewards if you're right and none of the penalties if you're wrong. Of course, Pascal's wager is flawed, in that it does not tell you which god you are supposed to believe in -- Zeus, Mithras, Allah, Jesus Christ, Osiris, Jupiter, mother earth, mother goose, or any number of other possibilities.

There's no reason why the ESRB couldn't have given Quake III: TA a similar -- or the same -- rating. The "animated" seems redundant since all games are animated. But with the increasing levels of detail and realism, the industry will have to do something to make it clearer what is and what isn't suitable for kids, and how graphic the visuals and levels of violence are, or else it will suffer a backlash. If the previews are an accurate reflection of the game, I have no idea what they're going to do when Doom III comes out.

Now that the new ESRB violence descriptors provide more detailed ratings (presumably to keep up with advancing graphics technology), this should help defang some of the critics who want to prevent mature-themed games from being made. It's still amazing that a parent won't let their kids see an R-rated or NC-17-rated movie but have no problem with buying them games that are intended for adults, and are clearly marked as such.

As for Lieberman and his supposed anti-violence stance, being the political opportunist (source) he is, he sees the writing on the wall. All Lieberman wants is big, fat campaign donations from the entertainment industry elite he disingenuously eschewed during the last election.

Now that domestic game revenues are comparable to -- or surpassing -- Hollywood, what better way to get the big games-industry dollars than by praising the very industry he railed against the last time around?