Slashdot Mirror

There goes three years of catholic school out the window!

Presumably pre-1996 years.

Well, it was a retraction of that example. I'm not going to retract my more general claim, because it is not incorrect. And you are already well aware that statistically speaking, it is almost certainly true.

Maybe that was a bad retraction, and maybe you're not retracting your more general claim even though it's absurdly incorrect, and maybe you're accusing me of being "well aware" that your more general claim is "almost certainly true" even though I've been emphatically denying your absurd claim.

... All currently known life forms have structures based on DNA or RNA. This is a fact. Creationists argue that because we know of no actual examples of the evolution of DNA or RNA from simpler molecules, then DNA (or RNA at least) were created and did not evolve. NOTE: I do NOT claim it is evidence of creation, only that it is evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a creationist's arguments. (By the way: the claim of the existence of organisms that use arsenic rather than phosphorus has not been substantiated.) Now, let's be clear: I also did not and do not claim that this argument is sound. I am simply saying that it is not an inherently silly argument, it is based on genuine observable evidence, and I am not aware of counter-evidence. (Though I do not deny that some may exist. The very same evidence might be interpreted as supporting the argument for evolution, for all I know, but I am not sure how at this time.) Therefore I have found a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument.

No, you haven't, and you obviously didn't read the link I just gave you:

It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases– a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. This is why I was confused when Brett mentioned Message Theory. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.

Your second example was actually bad too, because it shows evolution is falsifiable science while creationism is just religion. Try again.

The Vatican's actually been somewhat ahead on noticing that particular issue and moving to other ones. I still don't agree with their other views, but I do think they were much better than the evangelical Protestants on realizing that opposing science was not an agenda that was going to be on the right side of history.

They used to rail against Copernicus and Darwin, but they've apologized for that and dropped the anti-science agitation, moving towards a cautiously pro-science position. That happened gradually over a few decades, but was cemented in 1996 with the Pope's unambiguously pro-evolution speech, "truth cannot contradict truth". His basic argument is that, if Catholic teaching is true (as he obviously believes), and if modern science is also a way of discovering truth about the world (as is increasingly obvious to everyone but religious fundamentalists), then setting up an opposition between Catholicism and science is internally incoherent. Instead, he argues, the job of the Church is to understand modern science and integrate it into its teachings, rather than oppose it.

Of course, we could add to this the circumstantial evidence that you'll be hard pressed to find a quote where any church official says "Genesis is false, its just a metaphor...look to science to answer questions about the nature of the Earth"

Is Saint Augustine a high ranking enough Church official to you?

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

That was written around 400 AD, by the way. If it ain't good enough, how about a Pope?

"Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven."

Catholics are creationists only in a sense that they believe, no matter what the precise arrangement that led to the present day of affairs - Big Bang, evolution etc - it was all originally planned by God and executed according to that divine plan. Because this is not a falsifiable hypothesis, it is, of course, not science - but it also does not in any way contradicts science, unlike evangelical creationism.

It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago. In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?

Why do you say Catholics in particular? When was the last time you heard of a Catholic group/organization pushing the creation story as science? Most of the "Catholics" I hear about in the news, push moral agendas contrary to Church teachings (i.e. trying to change or ignore moral teachings on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and marriage) or push for women's ordination.

The few times I hear a Catholic group or organization speak about science is when they are discussing the merits of NFP, the arguments against embryonic stem cell research, or the medical affects of contraception. Usually they are defending the Church's teachings on these matters which is absolutely in line with statements made by the Pope who Catholics consider to be the Vicar of Christ (not representative for God).

It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago.
In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?

Catholics are Christians.
But not all Christians are Catholic.

HUGE difference.

It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago.
In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?

In very simple terms:

All Catholics are Christian, not all Christians are Catholic.
Christian = belief that Jesus is the savior and the son of God.
Catholic = The above plus Pope and friends.

Thus, most Catholics I know accept evolution. It is the fundamentalists (who don't care what the pope says) that have problems with evolution.

It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago.
In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.

For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm

How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?

Hm, here's another, working link (either some random fluke with the first... or the fastest Slashdot effect I've seen)

Pretty much everything she says goes against what you say here. I'm quite sure that she has helped some people, but according to herself, the way she does it is very twisted. Some choice quotes from her address at the National Prayer Breakfast:

One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition. And I told her, I say, "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus--a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you." And she joined her hands together and said, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me."

Here you can see somebody who is obviously not on painkillers, and won't be, because the pain is the "kiss of Jesus" and evidently a good thing. I'm sure she'll provide a bed, and water and maybe some food, while leaving this person to die in pain while speaking about how beautiful all that is. Obviously there can't be any talk of euthanasia either. This lady would have been much better off with a normal social worker.

I had the most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said: "Mother Teresa, there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something." So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children - their eyes shining with hunger. I don't know if you have ever seen hunger. But I have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her: "Where did you go? What did you do?" And she gave me a very simple answer: "They are hungry also." What struck me was that she knew - and who are they? A Muslim family - and she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing.

Note the latest part. She's intentionally withholding food, not because she doesn't have more, or can't afford it, or anything like that. No, it's because apparently for her the image of hungry people sharing some food is beautiful. She seems to be more interested in marvelling at that "beauty" and making a point about sharing than in really helping people.

We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together.

Outright admission that the religion is the priority.

Her own writings show that what she seeks is not to really help people. It's to sort of immerse herself in their misery.

Catholic Charities -- conservative in a religious and social sense (not necessarily economically conservative) is extremely generous and funded by donations. EWTN is a conservative radio station (religiously, socially and for many shows economically) and is largely funded by donations. There is some division when it comes to Catholics, though: some seem economically conservative and others seem almost socialistic but none have advocated socialism as a governmental system or socialist policies for government because all governments that tend toward communism or socialism are anti-religious (Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba...).

The US Chamber of Commerce is partly funded by donations and fiscally conservative.

I would say that I am conservative in all three distinct ways given by AdamThor, above, and I tend to give a relatively large percentage of my income to charity; I know many others like me who give both time and money.

With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.

Cute, but nonsensical. The person you were responding to was right- fundamentalists are trying hard to convince everyone that evolutionary science and creationism are on the same level. They've invented talking points like "intelligent design" and "strengths and weaknesses" to confuse the general public into agreeing with your statement.

But they're wrong. Evolution is falsifiable science, and has nothing to do with theology. For example, many Christians accept the theory of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."

Evolution is theologically neutral. Anyone who feels that their faith is threatened by evolution either doesn't understand evolution, or doesn't understand that science is about verifying falsifiable, naturalistic models of reality. Science doesn't attempt to reveal "truth" in a religious sense, it's simply trying to describe the most phenomena with the fewest postulates.

I don't know about "50 years", or how deeply this counts as documentation, but there's a decent run-down here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Contemporary_Christian_considerations

The "money quotes" are from Pope John Paul II -

The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe.

... pointing out that the Pope does not consider it to be taken literally;

Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer.

... pointing out that it was written for an audience, not an 'absolute truth';

The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God.

... pointing out that its purpose is to put forward the 'Christian'/monotheistic view, as opposed to the views of other religions, such as the contempary polytheistic religion of the Romans, and again not altogether incompatible with science.

The full discourse from the pontiff is linked on Wikipedia, but it's here for your convenience: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2COSM.HTM

HTH.

Really, since there is no possible rationale by which any effort at all expended replying to you can be rationally cost-justified, I'll be brief.

Meaning, you can't imagine a single reason to justify replying? So why did you reply? And, if this is BRIEF?!?!? I'd love to try to make sense of the "long form"...

As far as pajamas, here's a typical rendition of "god" in the Judeo-Christian world. http://www.ewtn.com/series/2006/fall2006/Finding_God.jpg If you don't think these are pajamas, perhaps a bathrobe is better?

In the whole "evolution vs ID" argument, there's a sincere failing - the lack of evidence of ID. In short, I defy you to show any. I have no doubt that you'll have plenty of 'evidence' of things that 'cannot be evolved', which serves as an excellent proof of ignorance and/or lack of understanding, but proves nothing. There is no actual evidence that I've ever seen or heard (and I've looked!) which actually supports ID.

But that cannot be discussed sanely with most. The argument logic almost always follows this path: "Evolution is all wrong because $someMinorReason. Therefore, my god created the world in a week, a few thousand years ago". Perhaps this is a straw man scenario in your specific case, but you haven't argued these assumptions, so I doubt it.

My question to you is thus rephrased: Show me what evidence supports the idea that your god (whatever his/her/its) actually created the world, and NOT the FSM. The fact that some guys died because they thought "God did it" is not evidence of your god's creation, it's only evidence of their convictions. The idea that a book heavily laden with predictions happened to hit a few is not evidence of your god's creation, only that people can make predictions with varying levels of accuracy. (And yes, you do have to consider the failed predictions: try reading your horoscope in your local newspaper. You'll find that they often do a fairly good job describing your life, providing just enough detail for you to consider it a match. Try another birthday, and you'll find similar results. This is not a useful prediction of anything.)

If you accept that the whole world can be created in a week by an omnipotent being just a few thousand years ago, despite overwhelming amounts of evidence that indicate otherwise, why not just accept that it might have been the tooth fairy or the FSM or an angry centipede did it?

Since you apparently accept the idea of your omnipotent god faking the overwhelming amounts of evidence in support of evolution, why not accept the idea that a pasta-based life form faked any evidence in support of your (ahem) bathrobe-cladded god? Is it really any more fanciful?

You can't have it both ways!

In short, I accept the trials of reproducibility and peer review. I accept the idea that the universe follows clear, consistent, and understandable laws that don't change because a tooth fairy, a guy in white clothes (pyjamas?), or a worm in a flying chariot decides it to be so when it supports your pet theory. Sorry you consider this concept "intellectual dishonesty". Most of us would call this "Science". Just don't pretend that your biblical references are scientific and/or qualifiable as evidence, because it merely displays your intellectual laziness.

Pope John Paul: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

He didn't use the word "metaphor" but "hell is not a place, it is a state of being" sure sounds to me like the traditional idea of hell as a place where the devil tortures you into eternity is a metaphor.

I'm going for the many people that seem to suffer this disorder in aggrigate, so that they might wake up from the long nightmare of perceived suffering and be able to see real injustice and dillemas in other cultures

Oh, I'm quite aware of injustice throughout the world such as the San, Bushmen, of southern and western Africa. Because of diamond mining interests the San are being forced off their ancestral homelands in Botswana among other countries. Meanwhile some like De Beers, who also brought South Africa apartheid, are making out like bandits. Cellphones in the west causes conflict and fighting in the Congo over coltan. Elsewhere "Burmese villagers sued oil company Unocal for human rights violations." Back in Africa, oil is fueling Conflict in the Niger Delta.

>And to those who think that the hate speech would evolve into squashing all free speech are offering up a red herring.

So very untrue. You bring up Canada as an example. Well then...

You should read up on how Canada's hate speech and obscenity (both of them, since the court cases based on either are very intertwined) laws came to be and the people they have affected. You would be very surprised as to the impetus for the such laws (Feminism) and that the law has effectively banned portions of the bible from public display. But it gets much better than that, Canada's courts so very well exemplify the slippery slope of hate speech laws:

R. v. Keegstra, regarding a teacher in a public school teaching hate to students.
Leads to R. v. Butler, regarding obscene item sales,
Which becomes R. v. Krymowski, a case where a small group of neo-nazis protesting Gypsies are put on trial for it.

Within only two decades we go from only prosecuting truly terrible crimes (Trying to teach students to hate) to prosecuting someone for selling bootlicking videos, to prosecuting protesters.

But wait, it gets even crazier here:

Scott Brockie, a printer, chose to refuse business from a pro-homosexual group as it would violate his religion to print their publication. He was subsequently prosecuted for this.

Wait -- banning the bible, banning the right to refuse service, banning porn toys isn't enough insanity for you?

Did you know that Canada's version of Al-Jazeera (which was banned for YEARS in this country, as by the request of the B'nai Brith due to "hate speech") requires censors sit on a hot button all day to delete anything offensive? Seriously. This was only done to prevent another protest to laws that effectively ban paying viewers from the viewing of foreign for-profit TV stations in Canada that won't register with the CRTC (and, therefore, be liable under hate speech and obscenity laws).

Our hate speech laws ban more than just Ernst Zundel, you know.

Boards of Canada summed it up pretty well:

"Now that the show is over, and we have jointly exercised our constitutional rights, we would like to leave you with one very important thought: Some time in the future, you may have the opportunity to serve as a juror in a so-called obscenity case. It would be wise to remember that the same people who would stop you from viewing an adult film may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a TV programme. If you can be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you can be told what to say or think. Defend your constitutionally-protected rights. No one else will do it for you. Thank you."

Freedom of speech is an essential liberty. Stop trading it for peace of mind!

If the US had hate crime laws, the CBC would be illegal there by now. Sometimes I the US did have the same laws--it would create the equivalent of a Berlin Wall for media trade between us, since that would also require you to refuse to play more than 65% foreign content on your radio stations. (A bit off topic, but any limit on speech is just a nice way of saying "censorship").

Where will Canada be in 20 more years with laws lik

It sounds like there are two things going on here. First, if she is fully aware of the properties of St John's Wort, and she's engaging in willful sexual relations (not rape), then yes, all three conditions are met. On a side note, many contraceptives are abortafacient. So what options are left for the well-informed? The most successful method of avoiding a pregnancy is using Natural Family Planning... there are no pills, medical procedures, or devices. It's not the rythm method, and is based on taking the woman's basal temperature (resting temperature), and checking mucus signs. It has the highest success rate (greater than 98%) with no harmful side effects. Planned Parenthood even admits to this success rate on they website!

The other issue is called the Principal of Double Effect (PODE). To quote the link below,
"The principal of double effect states that it is morally acceptable to do
something that has an evil result provided that three conditions are
fulfilled:

          1. the action that you are doing must, itself, be morally good
          or at least morally neutral;

          2. you must not directly intend the evil result; and

          3. there must be no other alternatives."

PODE can be read in more depth here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/KEVORKIA.TXT

319 (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Quick translation:

You are exempt from the broad scope of 319 (2) if your speech meets the following criteria:

(a) Your hatred is provably true (how much hatred have you found ever is?)
(b) doesn't really apply anymore, see this (the actual ad was a stick picture of two men holding hands under the international "no" symbol beside a copy of whatever verse of the bible bans gayness). The charge has stuck despite 319 (b) rebuttals.
(c) yeah, because we know how many times people have gone to jail from a DEBATE CLUB for ANYTHING.
(d) isn't hate speech at all, it should be a criminal offence to pollute the criminal code like this.

So, tell me, what of sections (a) - (d) allow the Klu Klux Klan or Black Panthers to march down the street in a non-violent protest against blacks/whites? None of them.

You know why I'm so serious about stopping your myth?

I've actually tried to have someone convicted under 319 (2). It's a long story, but the short of it was that I would have been successful, according to the judge, at at least brining the person to trial if it weren't for the length of time between the party bothering to bring the case to court and it happening (It was past the 8 months that Canada had, a few years earlier, basically allowed case law to set). Had that not been the case the judge would have been very happy to implore the crown (in another jurisdiction, the judge did not feel a local courtroom was the right venue) to prosecute.

The specifics of the case were that the person's landlord called him a terrorist. That being hate speech is because he is muslim. End of story. No threats of violence, nothing of the sort. Just someone being a loudmouth jerk in public because they didn't want a deadbeat (*) muslim living in one of their apartments. Note that in no way does shouting such an epithet at someone protect you from 319 (3).

Now, again, I beg of you NOT to risk jail time for other Canadians over this. You are dead wrong and I advise you to either speak to a lawyer to confirm what I have said or rather simply ask a court if you can read their specially annotated c

Basic ethics 101 is somewhat beyond the scope or capability of a Slashdot thread. Suffice to say that carving one's body parts out of desperation for money is not generally counted amongst enlightened activities in civilised societies.

Sounds like a "democratic" mob enslaving the productive to me, you know, "the few"?

Next thing, at the apex of hypocrisy, you are going to count yourself amongst the "productive".

Of which I was in well in excess of 100% of the contributor toward anything I received. Funny how everyone else is the poor "taxpayer" except the one paying the most taxes!

Your fibs are getting so thick that I am losing track, when did that tax paying start? At 18 at the earliest. When did you leave? At 23? 25? Lets hear how that "in excess of 100%" was possible.

I took 10 kids off the street and put them in school last month in Rwanda.

Whcih you flew on your flying carpet to the Tax Free Land where Rivers Run of Milk and Honey. Or something of the sort. Just for your information, your chest beating combined with incessant fibbing and complete lack of moral fiber rendered your credibility somewhat, slightly south of zero.

spending so much to eradicate Malaria?

Many possible reasons. Pangs of guilt. Tax breaks. Ego and legacy building, i.e. see Rockefeller, Carnegie and Vanderbilt. And possibly the wee fact that his unjstified hoarding of all that wealth, in all likelyhood was, in some part, responsible for the governments not having any to spend on that. One might ask just how much, say, Rwanda's impoverished government paid to Microsoft. Just a thought.

You have a twisted view of the world, where everyone who succeeds is presumed to have exploited someone else.

That is untrue. But success and gigiantic wealth are not one and the same. Gigiantic wealth and hoarding money "success" do not make. There is another, much more important ingredient in success. One that makes this woman more successful then Bill Gates will ever be, by far, and that coming from an atheist should tell you something. Tommy Douglas was a very successful man. Conrad Black was not. You see a pattern? Can you tell that ingredient?

Ya know, perhaps I should fire my lawn care people, dismiss my housekeeper, and give the money used to pay them to the government. They'd surely be better off without the money they earn with the "social services" they'd get instead, right?

In a sane society, you would be cutting your own lawn (or having neighbourhood kids do it for pocket money) and these people would be doing some meaningful work somewhere else, where they can get quaint things like retirement benefits, which I am sure you will not provide to any of them (nor they can afford to save for them), the great phillantorpist that you are.

Technically, not just a hat for El Popo:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/zucchetto.htm

Actually, I hate to say it, but America is one of the least charitable nations on this planet, unless you count loans (with or without interest) as "charity", which I don't. To be clear, I mean least chartiable per capita, and of the wealthy nations. While it's true that the US gives the most in foreign aid as a total figure, we give much less per person than the citizens of most of the other rich nations, even though we are near the top of the list in per person income. (Since we also pay relatively little in taxes, it makes you wonder what we're doing with all our money, and whether we're really spending it wisely -- but that's a different subject.)

I'm not sure if this link is viewable by non-subscribers but, in short, it shows that the US gives about 0.16% of GDP as foreign aid. France gives about 2.5 times as much, per capita, as the US (about 0.41%) and some European countries, like the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark are giving over 0.7% of their GDP -- almost 3.8 times as much as the US.

These are government figures that do not reflect private giving. Although I admit it is only anecdotal evidence, after having lived for six years in the Netherlands, I would bet good money of my own that private giving exceeds American figures by similar margins (if you don't count the money Americans give to their churches or similar close-to-home charities). People there are exposed to many more opportunities to give to charity there, and seem to do so.

Then again, the article in The Economist mentions the variety of opinion on what works and what doesn't in foreign aid, and it's clear that some poorly-directed aid goes to dictators and terrorists. Nevertheless, those who think America is a great giver (and especially those of the Christian persuasion) should consider the story of the widow's mite.

Why is it that liberal is being demonized by people who claim to worship Jesus Christ who was perhaps the biggest most passive liberal who ever lived. He was so passive that he let himself be killed. Most liberals today arent nearly that liberal.

I do not believe in the existence of God, but I do know the theory quite well. You misunderstand what Jesus supposedly did. Let me quote the current Pope, Ratzinger himself, who is supposed to be a very good theologist:

Jesus did not act as a liberal reformer recommending and himself presenting a more understanding interpretation of the law. In Jesus' exchange with the Jewish authorities of his time, we are not dealing with a confrontation between a liberal reformer and an ossified traditionalist hierarchy.

Such a view, though common, fundamentally misunderstands the conflict of the New Testament and does justice neither to Jesus nor to Israel.

Rather Jesus opened up the law quite theologically conscious of, and claiming to be, acting as Son, with the authority of God himself, in innermost unity with God, the Father. Only God himself could fundamentally reinterpret the law and manifest that its broadening transformation and conservation is its actually intended meaning.

Jesus' interpretation of the law makes sense only if it is interpretation with divine authority, if God interprets himself. The quarrel between Jesus and the Jewish authorities of his time is finally not a matter of this or that particular infringement of the law but rather of Jesus' claim to act "ex auctoritate divina," indeed, to be this "auctoritas" himself. "I and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30).

Jesus is the legislator himself who is crucified by his loyal subjects because he violates the law. Jesus is not a liberal, and the Pharisees are not conservatives.

It is of course possible to read the New Testament as a progressive-conservative conflict, if you reject the idea that Jesus acts ex auctoritate divina.

Simply put, the Pope had made statements over his life that if not complete endoresments of evolution, were hardely condemnations of it.

Although it's open to interpretation, I'd say that this is a tacit admission that evolution is correct.

Sangloth
I'd appreciate any comment witb a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

> In other words, they look at the data after something has happened searching for a "spike" that will almost certainly be there.

To give an illustration of one aspect of the problem you mention:

At the EGG Story page, scroll down and look at the plots labeled "Cumulative Deviation (Random Walk)", "New Years, 1998", "Pope in Holy Land". In these plots the smooth curve represents the 95% confidence bound on how far the deviation can be expected to go by pure chance. (I'm assuming their calculations are correct.)

Notice that in all cases the curve and the data plot both start at t=0, y=0, which I will call the "zero point" for the plot. Now consider the effect of the specific choice of t=0. Look at the first plot mentioned above, the "Cumulative Deviation (Random Walk)" plot, and notice that the data drops down to y=0 just a bit before t=300. Suppose you scrolled the data leftward until your zero point was at that point just before t=300; I pick this point because it has the same y as the original zero point, so nothing changes on the y axis: the boundary curve doesn't change at all, but the data is shifted leftward.

Hey! This random walk now has a sudden upward trend at t=0 (formerly t=~300), and the deviation rides above the boundary line for about 100 time steps. But wait - there's more! We can do the same think if we pick the plot's original t=700 or so, though with a slightly less impressive jump above the boundary line. Or we can get a really nice peak if we move our zero point to t=600 or so, and re-zero the data on the y axis so that the new zero point has x=0, y=0.

I can create three "significant" indicators in their example 10-minute random walk simply by cherry-picking the starting point.

How many do you think I could create if I had a free rein to pick anwhere in the previous four days of data?

NO ONE (credible) even among the religious community is pushing against abortions for the life of the mother. Even before Roe Vs. Wade that was legal.

Talk about intellectually dishonest! The bill passed by the House and the Senate, then signed by Bush, made no mention of the health of the mother - that's why it was struck down. So, are you saying that none of these people are credible?

Politicians and religious leaders get around your little conundrum by insisting "partial birth" (or even abortion itself) is never necessary to save the life of the mother!

Does the "gag rule" that bans charities from talking about abortions have an exception for the health of the mother?

Heck, the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban doesn't even have an exception if the fetus is dead. That's one of the reasons the fetus is brought out intact, so the doctor can check for birth defects and tell the grieving parents how likely it is that their next child will die in utero.

Nobody's using "abortion as birth control" in the third freaking trimester!

Even your history is misleading - if you check a Catholic chronology of abortion in the US (not a particularly pro-choice outfit), you'll see that it wasn't until 1967 that the AMA endorsed exceptions in abortion law for the health of the mother, rape, incest, etc. Before 1967 still counts as "pre-Roe".

It is not God's fault that people turn away from Him and do evil. Nor is it a fault of God that He tolerates evil.

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?targ et=FAQ_Canon_Law.asp&source=vexperts/question.asp

So let me ask you... would you rather have the total dollars or nothing?

Do what you like. But at least stop calling yourselves a Christian country if you think it's the absolute amount, rather than the relative amount that matters most.

I stopped considering myself a Christian a long time ago, but that doesn't stop me being offended by hypocrisy.

Oh, and by the way, the US pledges lots, but frequently doesn't deliver.

In China, "superstition" and "cult propaganda" = religion, especially the Catholic Church, which != Patriotic Catholic Church

Should we also pray for Patrick? What are your thoughts on that aspect or method of helping someone?

From what I've been taught and come to believe:

The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy is an especially powerful prayer that can be offered to God for the sake of those who are sick and dying. [Note: Jesus == "The Divine Mercy"]

This prayer, in a moral sense, takes on special power when prayed in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Here is a directory for Catholic Churches and Chapels that have set times for or perpetual adoration of Jesus Christ really and bodily present in the Eucharist.

Here is a nice audio recording (RealAudio) that can be used to learn this prayer in song/chant form. Most people simply recite, rather than sing it.

There is also a popular "praise and worship" style sung-version of this prayer. Here is a sample recording; you can buy the full-recording on CD.

I have prayed this chaplet many times for sick, dying, despairing, addicted, and/or lonely family members, friends and strangers. Try it! The mercy of God is awesome!

Learn more about Saint Faustinaand The Divine Mercy Devotion, thanks to the Marians of the Immaculate Conception.

Last year, the Honolulu Diocese assembled a tribunal to examine an O'ahu woman's story that her cancer was cured after she traveled to Moloka'i to pray at Damien's grave.

The patient and her family members were among those who testified before the tribunal. Also testifying was Dr. Walter Y.M. Chang, a Honolulu physician - and non-Catholic - who wrote about the spontaneous regression of the woman's cancer in the October 2000 issue of Hawai'i Medical Journal.

Chang wrote that a malignant tumor had developed in the patient's lung in September 1998 and then disappeared without the aid of therapy. The spontaneous regression of this type of cancer may be the first case report of its kind, the scientific paper said. Other doctors who treated the woman also testified.

How generous: give some money away AFTER you have ruthlessly and greedily made more than you could possibly actually use yourself.

I prefer Jesus' view of what constitutes generosity to yours.

Perhaps in Europe everything is opposite (well, having been there, it'd come as no surprise to me if this was true :-) ), but I do know one thing: There's a great deal of broadcasters in North America who lack any form of commercials.

Some of them are paid directly by people who subscribe to the programming, for example, HBO, and FSTV. Some of them broadcast for free and have absolutely no charge attached to them, for example, PBS, and, to some degree (if you live outside of Ontario) TV Ontario. FSTV also has a station without commercials.

Commercial free stations such as TV Ontario, PBS, FSTV, and the various religious stations regularly broadcast content which a great many would find objectionable if they didn't keep their TV sets glued to stations they actually enjoy. In fact, in spite of the fact the BBC forces a license upon people in the UK for their content, PBS manages to give away many of the exact same programs developed by the BBC themselves, and has continued to do so for years. Also, I am certain that the content broadcast on FSTV is FAR more objectionable to many than just about ANY other station I know of, especially the BBC.

Why it is that there are more commercial free programs being broadcast that I can pick up in North America for free than there are in the UK under forced licencing will always remain an unsolveable enigmah to me.

Here's an article that discusses the book and some of the factual errors in it:

Dismantling The Da Vinci Code

An article pointing out the various factual errors in "The Da Vinci Code can be found here.

Hard to believe no one can seem to Google here on Slashdot. Pathetic that "registered" \.'ers would rely on we Anonymous Cowards.

The 'clearinghouse' for Abortion/Breast Cancer concerns appears to be this site.

I'm -not- a Christian, but not all that childhood indoctrination was wasted, there's a parable about the "Widow's mite" that seems relevant to this discussion. Of course you can't buy your way into heaven, no such place, but any fool with too much money will end up doing philanthropy eventually. Philanthropy on a budget, now that's cool.

Jamie worked on XEmacs didn't he, so for the purposes of this comment, he's done his philanthropy up-front in my opinion.

• Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, He just fainted. There was an article from the JAMA that analyzes the medical aspects of the Roman practice of crucifixion. It's not for those with a weak stomach! After reading this, I think you'll agree that it's pretty far-fetched to believe that someone could survive a crucifixion. But, if you still think He DID survive, He had to have enough strength to push aside the huge boulder from the mouth of the tomb. Of course, he'd first have to unwrap himself from the linen and massive amounts of spices and ointments which was the customary treatments for corpses at the time.
• His disciples snuck in and stole the body. This assumes that they either snuck by the Roman guards, or killed them. If the accounts of the Gospels are to be believed, the Roman guards came and reported that the body was gone from the tomb, so that leaves us with the first one. But under Roman law, dereliction of duty (e.g. falling asleep on the post) was punishable by death! Then there's the whole aspect of the martyrdom of the apostles. It requires some heavy mental gymnastics to allow that these men went around boldly preaching a truth that they KNEW to be a lie! Not an acceptable explanation.