Slashdot Mirror

Not only did Hitler *not* base his ideas on Darwin or on the Theory of Natural Selection, but there is not even a single reference to Darwin in any of Hitler's writings. Even in the Nuremburg Trials, where they actually went through the personal libraries of Nazi leaders to find the origins of the ideas behind the Third Reich, none of Darwin's works were found, and there were no references to Darwin in any of the testimonies or transcripts whatsoever.

Even when Hitler made reference to anything resembling biological arguments for his racial ideas and policies, he clearly showed that his understanding (if you could even call it that) of the subject was psueodoscientific and Lamarckian, not Darwinian. And in numerous cases, Hitler's views on race and biology *directly contradicted* Darwin's Theory of Evolution in extremely basic and fundamental ways.

For example (from http://rationalrevolution.net/...):

-Hitler stated that "racial purity" was "God's Will". Darwin showed that there is no such thing as racial purity in the first place, and that secondly, races and species are not formed by God.

-Hitler said that segregation of species and races is a "rigid law" of nature. Darwin showed that there are no such rigid laws in nature.

-Hitler said that species only naturally mate with members of their same species. Darwin showed that many species naturally hybridize (in fact, research now shows that more than 10% of "species" hybridize in the wild).

-Hitler said that species are uniform in character. Darwin showed that there is a high degree of variation within species.

-Hitler advocated the use of race laws to favor only "Nordic" peoples. Darwin stated that no such laws should be made.

-Hitler despised sympathy and said that sympathy should not extend to all races. Darwin stated that sympathy was the highest moral value, that indeed sympathy was an important attribute for human success, and that we should extend our sympathy to all people.

-Clearly, Hitler's views reflected the traditional "pre-Darwinian" views of nature. Hitler viewed race as sacred, he viewed the Germans as "God's chosen people", and he justified racism, genocide, and eugenics through his sacred views. The sacredness of race is what made race worth fighting for to the Nazis.

And you should learn to look past appeals to authority and study the actual subjects of your interest. The giant flaming box at the top of the wiki page saying, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" should have been your first clue to dig a little deeper:

http://rationalrevolution.net/...

TLDR version: We've got Tacitus incorrectly parroting the Christian myth saying that "Christus" was crucified. We know he was just parroting what Christians told him or the authorities, and did not actually verify the tale, because "Christus" was not a correct name for Jesus, so the Roman archives wouldn't have his crucifixion recorded under that name, so he couldn't have verified the story. We also have an obviously inauthentic passage by Josephus. It may be forged, as THE ORIGINAL PROTESTANTS THOUGHT THE CATHOLICS DID, or it may be a mistakenly inserted marginal/interlinear note, which was a common form of transcription corruption.

And that's it. That's all that ties Jesus to history. To me it's not much better than nothing. And there are also positive arguments, not just negative ones, against Jesus's historicity, which I won't get into here. But Tacitus and the (inauthentic, but apologists argue only partially inauthentic) Josephus passage are just enough that, if you're an apologist, you can scrape together a fig leaf from it that other apologists might believe. I guess they have to. After all, their imaginary friend has to have been real, right?

Somehow you still manage to miss the point. Today with modern technology you can make exact copy. There is no such thing as exact translation on the other hand. I speak several foreign languages and I can easily think of several sentences in each that can not be translated into say English. You can write an entire page explaining the original, but the English speaker is still going to be robbed of something without actually learning the original language.

Yes, I see we are talking pass each other. I agree that translation to English one can miss out on the meaning. English has one word for love. Greek has 4 words for the English love (maybe more if you count the "I love pizza" definition). I have learned the meanings of those 4 words. I know that agape is the predominate love word of the Bible. That is why there are seminaries for ministers to learn Biblical Greek and Hebrew and there have been tons of theses over the centuries digging into the meaning of the texts. I don't know Greek so when I dig deep into a passage I read from several different translations and read commentaries on the passage. I believe I am getting the meaning of the text.

So, back to your point about "original" Greek text. You can claim the translation is 97% correct, what ever that means, but how correct is the Greek text the translation is based on? How removed from the actual first bible is it? When you actually take a look at that you will see that "original" Greek is actually centuries from the first copy ever written. And the first copy does not exist any more so nothing to compare it with.

The oldest complete Bible is roughly 300 years after the original texts, however there are 7 incomplete manuscripts before 200AD and 41 before 300AD. (It is from the answer in question 7.) The oldest fragment (from the Gospel of John) could be less that 30 years after the original writing. There are also the many writings of the Church Fathers that quote the scriptures. I would surmise that you would say this is not enough evidence to convince you that the New Testment we have today is not corrupt. Correct? If you say that, what you do is say that there is not enough evidence for any ancient document. The New Testament has by far the most and oldest (relative to the originals) manuscripts.

So having a 100% correct copy of corrupt oldest now available copy is a useless metric. Besides all that, we know bible is full allegory (compelling case can be made that entire Jesus myth is allegory taken literally and later embellished by trying to insert it into history. See for example http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm), so taking allegory literally is just idiotic.

This is where we really differ. You see the story of Jesus as a myth set in an historical setting. Correct? I see it as historical story, because it is in a historical setting and the known geography. And I guess that you would discount any miracles as impossible because they violate the laws of nature. Am I correct? Whereas I see the miracles of Jesus and him rising from the dead as God outside of this universe reaching into the universe to demonstrate his love and concern for us. This seems to me to be the big difference between us (if I am correct in what you believe).

Somehow you still manage to miss the point. Today with modern technology you can make exact copy. There is no such thing as exact translation on the other hand. I speak several foreign languages and I can easily think of several sentences in each that can not be translated into say English. You can write an entire page explaining the original, but the English speaker is still going to be robbed of something without actually learning the original language.

So, back to your point about "original" Greek text. You can claim the translation is 97% correct, what ever that means, but how correct is the Greek text the translation is based on? How removed from the actual first bible is it? When you actually take a look at that you will see that "original" Greek is actually centuries from the first copy ever written. And the first copy does not exist any more so nothing to compare it with.

So having a 100% correct copy of corrupt oldest now available copy is a useless metric. Besides all that, we know bible is full allegory (compelling case can be made that entire Jesus myth is allegory taken literally and later embellished by trying to insert it into history. See for example http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm), so taking allegory literally is just idiotic.

"Remember that the top N% pay FAR more in absolute tax dollars, as well as more in percentage of their income, than the bottom 100-N%, for pretty much any value of N."

I have spent many hours analyzing the IRS statistics, and while in absolute dollars the rich do pay more, the richest ($10M+/yr AGI) actually pay a lower percentage of their income than those in the next lower income brackets ($500k-$10M). When payroll taxes, sales taxes and other taxes are taken into account and a nominal allowance is made for necessary expenses ($7k/yr), with the tax rate is calculated on the remaining income, the US tax structure is quite regressive, with tax rates actually falling as a percentage of income until one gets above $200k, then remaining constant +/-1.1% of income before dropping about 2% for those in the $10M+ category. On the basis of percentage of income after covering $7k of living expenses, the total tax rate remains well above 50% for all returns below $30k AGI (a majority of all returns), and above a 2/3 share for those earning less than $17k (well over 1/4 of all returns).

The apparent unfairness of the fact that the rich pay more in absolute dollars is vitiated by the fact that they also have a wildly disproportionate share of income. Looking at federal income tax alone, the bottom 46.8% of returns have 10.6% of the income (AGI,2007), while the top 0.1% have 12.7%. (After all taxes about 11.8% bottom vs. 11% top.)

See: In Depth Analysis of American Income and Taxation for more insight.

I heard that some people still believed the Vietnam war propaganda, I just never heard anyone say it before. I could write pages here about how wrong you are but I have the feeling it is going to have to be simple. So here is a very very very simple explanation of why Vietnam was a fuckup, in the form of a very very very simple timeline.

Ho Chi Minh wrote a letter to US president Truman asking for help in their colonial independance war.

Diplomacy and foreign policy

US drops 6.7 million tons of explosives on Vietnam and its neighbours (its neighbours for god sake? Why?)

US realises that bombs are no match for a civilian population that will never give up, and pulls out.

How do you think American independence was won? What would you have done against Hitler's rise? Written him a sternly-worded letter?

Indian independence was won without war; some have argued that American independence could have been won similarly. I haven't analyzed the issue in depth, so I remain agnostic, but it should be noted that the Founding Fathers envisioned a nation without a standing army, defended by citizen militias. It is interesting that serving in an institution whose existence the Founders saw as anathema is considered a patriotic act these days.

Hitler would not have come to power without the stage being set by WWI. Against his rise I would have suggested 1) not having an age of colonialism and militarism that created a World War; 2) that failing, destroying the German economy and humiliating the German people at the end of the war; 3) that failing, not giving economic and political support to Hitler as he came to power, as in fact many Americans did; 4) that failing, boycotts, limited blockades, and a policy of isolating Germany as it became more militaristic; 5) that failing, as soon as German troops and tanks rolled into Poland, swift but restrained military response, surrounding Germany and the invaded territory, total and complete blockade.

When the time comes, how do you propose we secure our freedom (or the remnants of it) and our very survival?

I propose we cooperate with other human beings as much as we can, with an aim to make us all free and all survive. "Us vs. them" thinking is the root of the problem.

Yes, I know there are nutcases out there; I teach martial arts and self-defense classes, so not only do I believe there is a time to open up a can of whoop-ass, I teach people how to do it. But that option should be way down on the list, and most of our energy should be directed at finding ways to avoid having to open up that can.

The U.S. could cut is military budget in half and still outspend any other nation more than three-to-one. Our military spending is 46.5%, nearly half, of the world's total budget for destruction; China is in second place with 6.6%.

Meanwhile, all U.N. programs equal less than 2% of world military spending. If we put half of our current military budget to work on finding ways to feed, clothe, house, cure, and educate people around the world, we could outspend the U.N. 11-to-1 in promoting peace, security, and human welfare, while still maintaining military might that no other nation could challenge -- certainly much more than adequate for defending the nation.

That we choose not do do this, but instead run a military-industrial complex for the benefit of the investment and political classes, occasionally makes me question our survival potential as a species.

completely removing any mentioning of the end of the Vietnam war, the removal of troops, the fact that the US lost that war

Or even the much more important fact that Ho Chi Minh was America's #1 fan, repeatedly begged us to help him free his people from France so he could set Vietnam up as a model of the American system.
Here's a nice collection.

Only after we repeatedly told him to go fuck himself did he go to the USSR for help.

This demonstrates absolutely that the Vietnam War didn't have shit to do with stopping communism or any of the other lies that are spouted. It was a purely malicious act.

Capitalism may be the lesser evil, but I just feel like it's running out of control these days.

Really? People who are making your entertainment are having trouble, and you think capitalism is running out of control? No, this this and this are what capitalism looks like when it runs out of control.

There are problems with capitalism, but complaining about the problems with your entertainment getting made just spits on the long history of struggles for workers' rights that we've had, and in some places are still having. Please keep a sense of proportion.

Hey, do you mind if I ask you a tangential question since it seems like you know what you're talking about? A while back I ran across some discussion over whether Jesus was an actual historical figure or a mythical one. There's a Wikipedia article with a summary and a much longer article with some more detailed arguments, for instance. Have you heard of any of this, and if so, do you have an opinion on it? I've been hoping to find another point of view, but most of what I've run across is from Christians who seem more interested in defending their faith than anything else.

Maybe the later authors had access to the earlier material? Makes it easier to be consistent. This guy goes on about this idea for a while:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

I don't think that word means what you think it means. (Or rather what the word "races" meant at the time.)

Here is a rebuttal against accusations of Darwin being a racist.

Actually I don't know what he believed about non-white humans, but none of it would make him wrong about evolution.

you missed the whole point of my post...modern politics is too complicated for a one axis 'left' and 'right' classification, that's why I linked to the two axis political spectrum.

I saw that, and I don't think that it does a good job of explaining the realities either. I'm not considering it in some simplistic right/left thing as should be obvious by how I explained my position. You might have considered pointing out where you think my position is somehow ignoring the important distinctions rather than just claiming I'm making one dimensional points. I'm not. Either I didn't explain that clearly enough, or you didn't read clearly enough ;-)

For a detailed explanation (if you're interested and have the time) I find the position put forward on this site to be quite illuminating.

It also does a good job of demonstrating the flaws and omissions of the standard 2 axis spectrum and the Nolan chart as well as the simplistic one dimensional right/left.

Personally, I'm waiting for DaveV2.0 to show up, but here is a relatively serious argument against a historical Jesus:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

Blather about that article here:

http://www.reddit.com/info/1dnsg/comments

I respectfully dissagree with you.

It was, of course, necessary to establish him as an actual historical figure after Constantine I converted to christianism.

It'd be like arguing about vi and emacs--and I would say that vi is great and you are wrong for liking emacs

I might not have been all that polite, but you'll note that I didn't sink to the level of calling you an emacs user ;-)


But as for the direct evidence of miracles that I assume you are searching for, you probably aren't going to find much outside of the Bible. Why? Because everyone who first-hand witnessed the miracles and wrote about them now have them 'published' in the Bible, and they became believers. And I would have a hard time believing second-hand reports.

What eye witness accounts?!?
Mark isn't an eye witness account. The other gospels are just later rewritings of Mark. There are no eyewitness accounts in the bible.

Tacitus wasn't a contemporary, and the Josephus references have been pretty thoroughly debunked as either accidental or intentional alterations after the fact.
Why do no *contemporary* historians make any mention of earthquakes or the like. You know, the big things that people would have noticed?


Of course like any good scientist, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I am absolutely 100% correct about everything...because I can't prove 100% that I am correct. I can however say that my research points in a certain direction and has not been refuted. I am also more than willing to entertain any evidence you may have refuting Jesus and/or the Bible.

here is a great article addressing everything you talked about and more. The two follow up links at the bottom are also very good and exhaustively researched.

Yeah, actually, that's bang-on analysis.

Thanks.

You might find this (rather long) article interesting. It goes pretty in depth on the similarities nd differences between the left, the right and their mutual opposition to Liberalism (in the classical sense of the word).
I learned a lot from it.

That's what most people seem to think (if they're not Christian) just because it seems kind of the most reasonable: "Well, there's all this hullabaloo about this Jesus figure, but certainly those miracles didn't happen, so it probably all just got spun out of proportion."

But I've read one very interesting ~100 page essay arguing that actually the story of Jesus (e.g. Gospel of Mark, and the Q source), was written allegorically by Jews trying to teach a lesson through a story. It was an interesting read, if you're interested:

The Jesus Myth

Darwin isn't judged negatively because he believed in the superiority of white men either

There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.

Here's an article on the topic: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

Interesting bit from the article, Abraham Lincoln was a racist. He just thought that, while negros were inferior to whites, they weren't so inferior that they could be treated like property. A quote by Lincoln from a debate at the time:

I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. [...] I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.

Darby, you seem to think that you're the only rational or sane person on earth. You're wrong.

Not in any way shape or form. Your post was factually incorrect and obviously so at that. It demonstrated a complete lack of rationality. Just because you're wrong and I called you on it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is as well. Stand up for yourself and your own statements without making up nonsense like that.

Here we go again. Unless you specify exactly where my lie is, I will refrain from answering to your provocative and insulting "arguments".

I did specifically demonstrate a few lies. Perhaps reading comprehension is another of your flaws?

By the way, could you possibly think of any reason that an excerpt of an article on the matter by Berkeley professor of history Alice Whealey disappeared from the page a month ago? The specific excerpt states that the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus in his writings.

Well, if that happened and that is what it said, then I'd imagine that it was removed because it isn't true.
The single offhand mention of Jesus in Josephus writings is generally considered to have been added in long after the fact. Probably a marginal note that was added to the main text later. So, no, that doesn't constitute evidence of anything. Given that fact that there were earthquakes, mass murder of male babies, censuses and the like mentioned in the bible as well as various other major events which according to *every* historical record never happened, it seems pretty desperate for you to cling to a discredited offhand mention with no magical connotations.

Here's a well researched article which demonstrates the desperation of your silly belief.

One more thing: what's the evidence that supports that the FSM, whose existence you claim is supported by more evidence than Jesus', exists?

The chart, baby. Number of pirates versus average global temperatures. That is far more solid evidence than exists for your Jesus.

Anyone who asserts that this quote is true has no relation whatsoever to reason, science and, in the end, reality.

Just because the voices in your head told you so, or do you actually have anything to back up your delusions? Save yourself the trouble, I know you don't. If anyone had any they would have brought it up by now.

Even ardent atheists admit that Jesus is a historic person.

Even Newton believed in numerology and astrology. You really should take a basic logic class. It wouldn't be so trivial to debunk your fallacious arguments then.

You're wrong again, the propaganda you adhere to leads to a dead-end.

Right, the voices in your head told you I'm wrong ;-)
You might actually want to look up what propaganda is and pay attention to why you're the one fooled by it and repeating it.

Can I interpret this as you hating the Christians?

They declared war on liberty in America, so when attacked, I generally dislike the ones who attack me and my way of life. It's called common sense.

You apparently hate them for "lying", as you put it, that they observe and learn things about their life that you're unable to.

Buying into a silly fairy tale does not constitute "learning" in any way shape or form.

What seems obvious to you has numerous times proven completely false, illogical or merely fantasy.

When would that have been?

Base your assumptions, conclusions and line of thought on a solid basis, not your emotional urges, and you'll learn how the things that you regard as "fairy tales" and equivalent to logical exercises, like the FSM, are much more important than that.

That's so laughable coming from a person who's defending believing in idiotic fairy tales without one single scrap of evidence. You're the only one working from emotio

Did Jesus even ever teach?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_m yth_history.htm

Continuing the Great American tradition of testing new weaponry on the battle-field. I wonder how many people will be unintenionally harmed in this experiment, this time.

It's no wonder most humans are terrified of America right now.. and that includes many Americans themselves: they might agree however, that it's better than testing on your own people.

So I should be down with anything I agree with(this is a reasonable interpretation of both 'verifiable' historical statements and 'ring true with human experience)?

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_m yth_history.htm

The writings of Flavius Josephus mention Jesus. There are several versions of these scripts, and some have been edited to contain things such as "He was the Messiah". Latest research was able to identify what was modified, and the conclusion was that Jesus and his followers are mentioned, but not that he was described as the Messiah by Flavius Josephus.

Not so.

Depending on how charitable the expert is, the Josephus document's mention of Jesus was either added later maliciously, or as an error in transcription.
It fits neither the style, nor the flow of the document.

but from what I learned so far, the account of Flavius Josephus seems pretty authentic.

Here's some more to learn then ;-)

I think one can reasonably debate whether the religious loons have co-opted the Republican party or whether they're simply unbearably annoying and loud enough to get a lot of media coverage.

It can be debated, but it's pretty clear that the Republican party was co-opted by the religious loons some time ago.
The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the Goldwater Republicans. The Republicans were completely unelectable without that contingent and so invited them in to the destruction of their old platform (where they really even bought into it in the first place.
There is very little difference between Reagan's administration and Bush's. We have a president publicly pushing religious agendas while engaging in extremist police state tactics at home and a foreign policy driven by largely overblown threats. Heck, it's the same exact people doctoring the intelligence.
Heck, even the torture and death camps aren't new. Bush has yet to get anywhere near Reagan's level on that respect yet.

Economically we have the same exact failed policy of cutting taxes while borrowing massive amounts of money at interest and using them to "address" the said massively overblown threats. We have the same exact result: massive increase in the size of the government and its power over the people. So much so that it's been pushing 30 years since you could even argue that the Republicans like small government. They hate small government even more than the Democrats do.

So anybody who actually does believe in small government and fiscal responsibility who considers themselves a Republican is just pissing up the rope that's being used to strangle them. Neither corporate power nor the religious extremists can get their goals without massively overpowered government, so that is not what the Republican party will do.

Heck, just look at the immigration debate. It's been the only real divide in the Republican party for some time. Corporate power is on the side of letting them all in to drive down wages. The isolationist/protectionist/what have you Republicans want to keep them all out. What do we get? More government spending on a worthless wall to appease those who are stupid enough to believe it's effective. Want to put a bet on which side will ultimately "win" that debate?

This article does a good job of laying out the deep divides in the Republican party although it's scope is broader.

I find generally that "follow the money" and "actions speak louder than words" to be much better ways of getting to the heart of an issue than listening to empty rhetoric spouted by politicians.

It's not so much the policy platforms that are shaped by either extreme, it's the completely unwarranted media coverage that the extremes on both side receive. That presents a distorted picture, and fuels each side's opposition to label their entire opposition as a lump with the extremes they loathe.

Except from my perspective, they *are* both entirely driven by extremes. Both parties are big powerful oppressive government parties. Neither party supports me, the individual. The Libertarian Party is the only party that does more than just make speeches about it in order to sucker in the more credulous who blindly believe what politicians say, but even they are driven largely by "religious" type beliefs.

First, there is a difference between a bad analogy and a lie- or even a mistake and a lie. Equating the two is rude.

Right.
What you did was tell a lie. I called you on it and you gave a half ass retraction and still failed to provide anything to back it up as requested and even repeated the lie slightly modified.
That's a lie. Sorry you have troubles with honesty, but that ain't my fault and I will not lie about that fact regardless of whether you find brutal honesty rude.

Thirdly, if you know 10% as much as you think you do, you would realize that most historians believe Jesus was a real individual, and they aren't idiots.

Care to provide any proof for your "most"?
Care to provide your best estimate as to how much historian's views on the issue are skewed by the massive systematic campaign of document destruction and heretic burning by the Church over the centuries?

My best estimate? A lot.

This is mostly because we have many second hand accounts (people who met people who claimed to have met Jesus). Luke, for instance, claims to have met hundreds of such people (though he never saw Jesus himself).

So, like I said. Not one single piece of credible historical evidence. Nothing but hearsay.
Who was the author of Luke? Nobody knows. So how you consider his her or their "claims" either relevant or credible is beyond me.

Paul is also supposed to have known Peter and James, who did know him.

Never heard this one, but it's another contradiction given that Paul claimed to have learned everything he knew about Jesus directly from his hallucinations. Add in the fact that Paul always spoke of Jesus as coming in the future, it's pretty bizarre that he could have met (fictional) people who actually knew Jesus. You'd figure he'd have mentioned it.

I find your article well researched, like I said- It's got much more of a factual basis than the DaVinci Code, for instance.

Well, you might find this one interesting then if just for humor value. When I went looking for the link I noticed that it's not listed on the articles page any longer. Presumably it's been superceded by the original article under discussion as the material is similar.

However, it's asking people to accept a theory that seems much less plausible than most mainstream theories. Yes, it's possible- but I don't buy it.

And a magical invisible fairy is what you consider plausible?!?


P.S. Saying Josephus is the only source worth anything, and it's obviously (fake/ accidental addition), therefore no other sources are worth anything, is called a circular argument. We all know Josephus's text isn't considered reliable enough, that doesn't invalidate everything else.


It's not a circular argument.
Josephus was the only source left that was considered actual historical evidence. With that discredited, there are none remaining.
Direct logical statement.
Nothing circular.


P.S.S. You can believe whatever you want- and find evidence to support your own worldview. I'm just trying to warn you that no one else has to believe you. Furthermore, while you might be intelligent (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) being insulting won't win you any debates. It will just get other fanatics riled up, and the occasional eccentric that likes conversations with fanatics interested.

I'm aware nobody even has to read a word I say (well barring a few that slip in as they're scrolling past although that's more "tough to avoid" than "have to".) let alone believe any of it.
Calling things what they are is not being insulting. It's being honest. Brutally honest if you prefer, but honest nonetheless.
There is no way to win a debate on religious issues. You can't reason somebody out of a position that reason didn't get them into and there's no reason involved in religious beliefs. I just like poking them with sticks from time to time to see them get all riled up over their little fantasy worlds ;-)

How long ago was the birth of Christ?

Error: NAN
There never was such a person. Not even to the people alive at that time.

Apparently you are so smart you don't need to check the definition of "right wing" before you declare that your opinion is the definition

That's an entirely worthless definition you linked to.
I already gave you the definition that I am using, and unlike yous it's actually useful for discussion.


Instead of using your false statements and opinions as proof, maybe you can cite an example showing your definition of "right wing". Specifically your assertion that it is a person that inherently believes they are better than another. I have yet to see you cite a single source.

I gave many examples illustrating exactly how the definition applies.
Here is a good article running through the various similarities and differences.

Further more, these are really pretty simple concepts which I've explained to you several times. The fact that you keep spouting the same nonsense without a grasp of the definition of "right wing" even though the dictionary clearly states this definition does say a lot about you, none of it good, that is my opinion, not a fact like you would claim.

Like I said, the definition that you gave is completely worthless in any sort of discussion, and doesn't address anything in terms of what sort of behavior or actions are associated with such a stance.
It also creates a fasle dichotomy by casting the political spectrum as a "left/right" divide when it's more complicated than that. Specifically It completely ignores the whole idea of Liberalism which is what the left and the right are both violently opposed to.


Actually I was stating that the Democrats have not changed over the last generation, say 50 years. Proof as indicated by continually promoting racist policies like affirmitive action and keeping former KKK members like Robert Byrd in there ranks. You fail to acknowledge either fact or cite any facts disproving said points other than your eloquent opinions like:

And you completely fail to acknowledge the simple basic fact that was pointed out to you many times that the vast majority of the blatant racists left the Democratic party en masse and went to the Republicans when the Democrats started standing up for civil rights. Whether or not there is one hanger on you can point to is irrelevant.
The fact that you continually try to hold up one bad example to stand up against millions shows for far outside reason you're going with this.


Actually sir, that is your opinion, not a fact. Oh and here are your other "facts"


No, it is a fact that you are a deeply ignorant person. You have proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt by continually repeating nonsense after several people have already pointed out exaclty where and how *you* screwed up.
Had you just been wrong once, then you would have been ignorant of that point and had you acted with integrity and stopped repeating idiotic nonsense you would have shown yourself to be a reasonable person.
As it is, you have shown yourself to be a deeply ignorant person just as I said.
It's a fact, not an opinion.


I could possibly be convinced of this if you would provide maybe some numbers, some links, anything will do, other than your baseless claims and opinion... At least qualify your statement with "One of the most corrupt" so you don't look dumb when someone else proves your opinion wrong with REAL proof other than an opinion.

Well, if you're that out of touch with reality nad current events then there is no way to have any sort of a rational discussion with you. Just look at how many of your scum are in prison, on trial, or under investigation right now.
These aren't difficult concepts, Sparky.
The fact that you're afraid to deal with reality as it is is the only thing holding you back from being a decent citizen.

Perhaps you are, I will not speculate your an idiot or ignorant like you so aptly like to

In the late '40s through late '60s the US military tested chemical weapons on its own people without their knowledge. I read about clean up efforts from some of these secret tests just a few years ago in a local rag (that's newspaper, if you don't know the idiom), so I dug around google for at least one reference.

The last time I know of that the US ASKED for volunteers, they were doing nuclear testing with citizens well within the danger zone to see the effects of nuclear weapons on people just outside the immediate blast radius (probably because PETA was protesting the use of animals - jk).

The phrase "separation of church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson, though it is used as a handy reference to the First Amendment. Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin also used the phrase.

It's interesting to note that the phrase you quoted "Laws of Nature" is actually capitalized in the Declaration of Independence.

The reference to "Laws of Nature" is an even more direct reference to Deism, because the deistic belief was that some supreme being created the universe and the laws of nature and the rest of what progressed from that point on followed the laws of nature. Most Deists did not believe in divine intervention or supernatural occurrences, and they definitely did not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Mention of the Laws of Nature would have been an extremely obvious reference to Deism in 1776. It was progressive at the time, and depressingly, is once again.

I seems that you were taught the same crap I was growing up. :) Good luck waking up from it, but once you do you'll find the whole of existence will be more beautiful and less terrifying.

Grumble....
by "this" above, I meant this

Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.

The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.

The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.

Let me guess, you think that because the Repugs are spending like drunken sailors that they're "left"?!?
Seriously, wake up.
The right and the left *both* stand for big oppressive government and always have by definition. The only difference is what they want to use the power of government against the people in order to accomplish.

The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".

Nowhere in the makeup of either the left or the right does freedom, liberty, small government fiscal responsibility or anything of the sort even exist. Those are the things that they are *both* absolutely opposed to.

Here is an article that lays it out very clearly.

If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.

Some weird stuff has happened in this country over the last 10 years, the strangest of them all is that the Republican Party now is entirely controlled by a gang of socialist thugs. I don't know how that happened, but the Republican party is now the party that stands for big government spending:

How on earth did the Repulican party become a socialist institution?

Well, in the first place, it's not socialism, it's fascism.
It's been longer than 10 years. It really started going into overdrive with Reagan, but the roots go back to WW2. Most people forget that the wealthy elite, industrialists and the like (i.e. the Republican base) were tremendous supporters of the european fascists. It was only the American left (when we had one) that supported going to war against them. Most Americans were isolationist and didn't want to get involved either way. Heck, our current president's grandfather actively supported Germany against his own country. He narrowly avoided treason prosecution. It's nice to have friends in high places.

After WW2, an unholy alliance was created between Christians and Republicans for the first time in history due to the threat of the "godless communists". The rural Christians have continually voted against theior own stated "moral values" since this time. That's why you see them frothing at the mouth about sex on TV and gays being presented in a positive light even though those are inevitable consequences of hyper capitalism which is what they keep voting for. Tie that in with the fact that rural America has never dealt with the negative effects of capitalism until recently as they have lived under a form of socialism for a hundred years where the people in the cities are forced to subsidise their way of life.

Since Reagan with all the crimes of his administration including arming terrorists, creating torture schools and aiding the international cocaine trade, it's gone into high gear.

Someone needs to write a book about this transformation.

Not a book, but a couple of long, well researched articles are right here:

First a primer on what fascism is and how it came about in Europe

Then an analysis of the rise of fascism in America.

There are a lot of other very well reearched articles on that site as well ranging over a variety of topics.

Some weird stuff has happened in this country over the last 10 years, the strangest of them all is that the Republican Party now is entirely controlled by a gang of socialist thugs. I don't know how that happened, but the Republican party is now the party that stands for big government spending:

How on earth did the Repulican party become a socialist institution?

Well, in the first place, it's not socialism, it's fascism.
It's been longer than 10 years. It really started going into overdrive with Reagan, but the roots go back to WW2. Most people forget that the wealthy elite, industrialists and the like (i.e. the Republican base) were tremendous supporters of the european fascists. It was only the American left (when we had one) that supported going to war against them. Most Americans were isolationist and didn't want to get involved either way. Heck, our current president's grandfather actively supported Germany against his own country. He narrowly avoided treason prosecution. It's nice to have friends in high places.

After WW2, an unholy alliance was created between Christians and Republicans for the first time in history due to the threat of the "godless communists". The rural Christians have continually voted against theior own stated "moral values" since this time. That's why you see them frothing at the mouth about sex on TV and gays being presented in a positive light even though those are inevitable consequences of hyper capitalism which is what they keep voting for. Tie that in with the fact that rural America has never dealt with the negative effects of capitalism until recently as they have lived under a form of socialism for a hundred years where the people in the cities are forced to subsidise their way of life.

Since Reagan with all the crimes of his administration including arming terrorists, creating torture schools and aiding the international cocaine trade, it's gone into high gear.

Someone needs to write a book about this transformation.

Not a book, but a couple of long, well researched articles are right here:

First a primer on what fascism is and how it came about in Europe

Then an analysis of the rise of fascism in America.

There are a lot of other very well reearched articles on that site as well ranging over a variety of topics.

Go to Wikipedia. Read about Common Law. Learn.

Yes, and English common law sprang full fledged out of the ground on the 8th day.
Idiot.

How about you read and learn

Nazism was not "Christian," and you won't be able to find any evidence of that (aside from some website run by such as yourself, making yet more undocumented claims to that effect).

You mean no evidence other than every single relevant fact? Are you off your meds, or do you just know nothing whatsoever about the subject and just felt like lying?
Extremist religiousness is a critical part of fascism. Christianity just happened to be the common religion chosen by the Italian and German fascists just as it has been chosen by the current fascist administration of America.

some examples pulled from this website which I do not run and which lists numerous sources for the facts that prove you to be either hideously ignorant or a liar:

In 1929 Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty with Pope Pius XI. This established Catholicism as the official religion of the State, gave the Pope increased political powers, gave papal sovereignty to Vatican City, ensured that the Catholic religion would be taught in all schools, compensated the Pope with $90 million for the loss of papal property since 1870, and cemented broad Catholic support for Mussolini.

In Hitler's 1920 NSDAP 25 point agenda, point number 24:

        We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence and do not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

        The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

What was ultimately important in Germany was a belief in God, whatever form that belief took, as this 1937 article on education, Educational Principles of the New Germany; What Schools and Parents Need to Know About the Goals of National Socialist Education, states:

        Life comes from God and returns to God. All life and all races follow God's ordinances. No people and no race can ignore them. We want the German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and between God and the live of the people and the fatherland. The National Socialist state will promote such a deeply religious educational system. We want parents to support and strengthen this by honesty and by good example.

There are so many other examples that it is extremely hard to believe that you could have done any research whatsoever into the subject before spouting that ignorant nonsense. Try actually using your brain once in a while, it'll make the world a better place for everybody.

Funniest and most telling response to my sig EVAR

Be a patriot: Murder a Republican.

Ah. The legendary tolerance of the left. Nice.

Ah. The legendary lack of humor of the right. Nice.


Ah, the old, tired, but oh so inevitable demonstration of the deep seated fundamental flaw in the groundbreaking and for the most part brilliantly designed plan of the original American patriots provided for you entertainment by the foul spawn of that one tragic mistake.

To me, the saddest part of the whole thing is that while the Founding Fathers made, in our country, the jewel on the crown of Liberalism; we are now saddled with two delusional factions who are both involved in a no holds barred, no trick too dirty, no evil too bad to accept bribes to implement war on the very philosophy upon which we were once upon a time the crown jewel of.

To you shitbag ignorant as fuck RepugnatDouchebags: I'm talking Classical Liberalism. "We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal". The evil shit you're always screeching about, you know.

To you asshat DemoRepugnants: I'm talking Classical Liberalism. "We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal". The shit you're always trying to coopt.

The left and the right are defined by their opposition to individual freedom and historical American Values you idiotic ACs.

The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.

I find the picture developed here (referred to by the author as the "Rational Spectrum") to be much more illuminating than the standard left/right scale or even the Nolan Chart or Political Compass.

My problem with the Libertarian Party is that they seem to me to be much more gung ho about ripping out the safety net before fixing the problems that it (poorly) addresses.

My wife (British, pretty loony lefty on some topics) and I were watching (on TV) a presentation by the Cato institute about the disparity of wages between men and women. Their point was that there really isn't much of one if everything is taken into account. We were discussing it and she pretty much totally agreed with what the presenter had to say. Her face dropped when I told her who Cato is ;-)

Of course when we were watching the Katrina aftermath and how quickly "civilization" deteriorated afterwards. She turned to me and said, "That shotgun I said I'd never live in the same house as....just don't let me see it."

It is patently wrong to state that religion plays no part in the laws of our country. The fundamental basis for our law is common law which gets its entire philosophical outlook from the Judeo-Christian ethic.

No, it is, however, patently wrong to state idiotic lies that you heard from some kook without actually looking into the issue.
Here is a long detailed well researched and well documented essay on this topic.
Do your god damned duty as a citizen and make an attempt to know what the fuck you are talking about.

Ridiculous examples are meant to illustrate a point.

The point that you are too fucking stupid to be able to tell the difference between two healthy, happy consenting adults and bestiality?
Yes, you proved your point.

It's not your constitution. There is no bigotry in it, and there wouldn't be even if there was a marriage amendment. Hopefully it never comes to that, because this is ultimately a states' rights issue.

In point of fact, it is my constitution. That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that it is yours as well.
In fact there is bigotry in it. Try reading it rather than spouting nonsense you hear from some shitbag with an agenda.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

Slaves are not even a full human. Indians aren't even human at all.

It's right there.

Thankfully, we have progressed over time to actually try to live up to the ideals that were set for us and so amended it to *remove* bigotry from it.
That's why people like you make me sick. You are trying to reverse the course of progress.

And damn. If an amendment based entirely on bigotry was put into the constitution then there would be no bigotry in it.?!?
Wow, you might want to take a basic logic class.

Hopefully it never comes to that, because this is ultimately a states' rights issue.

If you and those like you would just grow the fuck up and quit thinking your idiotic baseless immorality should be shoved down people's throats then it would not even be an issue.
Tell that state's rights business to the dipshits who voted for Bush.
I'm sickened by the fact that so many states decided to turn against our ideals, but outside of my own state it isn't my business. Too bad the bigots pushing this immoral shit are too cowardly to deal with that.

The fact that it is going beyond that is what pushes my button.
Freedom means *everybody* gets to be free. It takes courage to live that way. We have a legion of cowards assaulting it.

Wow, that clarified it for me. Good examples of how.

Exactly. There is no justification for it. I'm glad we agree. What is the issue then?

Oh yeah, they appear to be pushing pretty hard from where I'm standing. They're pushing an assumed right to marriage on everyone else who doesn't agree. They're pushing the morality of "If you don't like what I'm doing, you must be a religious hatemonger bigot discriminator cock man oppressor."

No assumption necessary. *all* rights are presumed from the start. Why don't you go read the constitution rather than spouting idiotic nonsense?

Provide some reason that they *don't* have it. Exactly.
Rights aren't specifically granted. You have every right provided you don't infringe those of others. In specific cases but only when extreme need is demonstrated some can be explicitly excluded, but that is *always* a dangerous course to go down.
Why the fuck do you think that there is a desire for fucking constitutional amendment?!?

It's not a question of "if you don't like what I'm doing"
It's a question

Always find the political compass to be much more useful, separating the left and right into an economic and a social scale, so that hitler and stalin can occupy the same position on the political scale, but are fairly far apart economically.

I like this one quite a bit. It improves IMO on the political compass.

Scroll about 2/3 down the page if you don't feel like reading the (fairly long) article and just want to see the picture.

Hitler was an occultist. You need to watch more PBS specials.

Do we even know if Hitler actually killed anybody himself?
I'm certainly not trying to exonerate him in any way, but he wasn't in the camps tossing people into gas chambers.

The Nazi regime was wholeheartedly, explicitly, and aggressively Christian. Feel free to disagree that it was "real" Christianity, whatever that means, but they most certainly talked the talk.
The entire holocaust was following a script laid out by Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism.

Linky

You need to look at more than PBS specials, and realise that one man acting alone could not have done that.

The whole society was culpable, which the German people realised and have done a lot of work to address since. Some would argue they went overboard on free speech issues related to that, but it's not an argument I'm prepared for.

"Take the Nazi out of Amerika" bit. That just tells me you're bright but you don't have the first clue about real Nazis. If you really understood them then you wouldn't even think about drawing that comparison.

You are so wrong on so many levels.
You clearly do not understand the Nazis at all if you do not know for a fact that we are the intellectual heirs of the Nazis.
You are probably just focusing on the holocaust, which while horrible, isn't what is under discussion here.

So, I will make an attempt to enlighten you to the actual facts of the matter. I'm not too hopeful that you will be able to actually look at the facts with an open mind given your knee jerk response to the OP who has every single relevant historical fact backing him up while you have no facts at all, but I feel compelled to try anyhow.

Prior to our entry into world war 2, the vast majority of American industrialists were tremendous supporters of Hitler. They loved him and wanted very much to remake America in his image. These are people like Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Prescott Bush (the current president's grandfather). Prescott Bush went so far as to commit treason by dealing with the Nazis while we were at war with them he was such a die hard supporter of Naziism.

It was only the extreme leftists (which America once had) who were against Hitler. These were Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists for the most part.
Now, once the attack on Pearl Harbor was engineered, we were at war with the Nazis, so most people couldn't be so vocal in their support although many like our president's grandfather were willing to betray their country to support the Nazis.

Once the war was over, we brought many of the Nazis back to America. Many of them were scientists and the like, but many of them were in intelligence and served as the basis of the fledgling CIA. Which surprise surprise George Bush senior was the head of for a while.

Now look at the people that our current president has surrounded himself with.
The fact is that the core of his administration studied with Leo Strauss who is one of the number one proponents of Nazi philosophy. These are the people that this president has chosen to surround himself with.

So, the simple fact is that there are Nazis in America and they are at the highest levels of our government.

None of this means we are going to start firing up the gas chambers to kill a bunch of Jews. That is irrelevant to the discussion and was only tangential to Nazi philosophy. Now their philsophy does require pushing blind, ignorant, hatred which the right in America has been doing with a passion for the last 30 years, but that is merely due to the fact that their success depends upon getting people to vote directly against their own best interests.

Here is an article discussing what fascism and Nazi philosophy actually is.

Here is one demonstrating the parallels in America.

I encourage you to read these, so that you can actually understand what it is that is being discussed and hopefully add something to the discussion rather than discounting basic facts in a knee jerk manner because you don't even understand what people are saying.

"Take the Nazi out of Amerika" bit. That just tells me you're bright but you don't have the first clue about real Nazis. If you really understood them then you wouldn't even think about drawing that comparison.

You are so wrong on so many levels.
You clearly do not understand the Nazis at all if you do not know for a fact that we are the intellectual heirs of the Nazis.
You are probably just focusing on the holocaust, which while horrible, isn't what is under discussion here.

So, I will make an attempt to enlighten you to the actual facts of the matter. I'm not too hopeful that you will be able to actually look at the facts with an open mind given your knee jerk response to the OP who has every single relevant historical fact backing him up while you have no facts at all, but I feel compelled to try anyhow.

Prior to our entry into world war 2, the vast majority of American industrialists were tremendous supporters of Hitler. They loved him and wanted very much to remake America in his image. These are people like Henry Ford, Charles Lindberg, William Randolph Hearst, and Prescott Bush (the current president's grandfather). Prescott Bush went so far as to commit treason by dealing with the Nazis while we were at war with them he was such a die hard supporter of Naziism.

It was only the extreme leftists (which America once had) who were against Hitler. These were Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists for the most part.
Now, once the attack on Pearl Harbor was engineered, we were at war with the Nazis, so most people couldn't be so vocal in their support although many like our president's grandfather were willing to betray their country to support the Nazis.

Once the war was over, we brought many of the Nazis back to America. Many of them were scientists and the like, but many of them were in intelligence and served as the basis of the fledgling CIA. Which surprise surprise George Bush senior was the head of for a while.

Now look at the people that our current president has surrounded himself with.
The fact is that the core of his administration studied with Leo Strauss who is one of the number one proponents of Nazi philosophy. These are the people that this president has chosen to surround himself with.

So, the simple fact is that there are Nazis in America and they are at the highest levels of our government.

None of this means we are going to start firing up the gas chambers to kill a bunch of Jews. That is irrelevant to the discussion and was only tangential to Nazi philosophy. Now their philsophy does require pushing blind, ignorant, hatred which the right in America has been doing with a passion for the last 30 years, but that is merely due to the fact that their success depends upon getting people to vote directly against their own best interests.

Here is an article discussing what fascism and Nazi philosophy actually is.

Here is one demonstrating the parallels in America.

I encourage you to read these, so that you can actually understand what it is that is being discussed and hopefully add something to the discussion rather than discounting basic facts in a knee jerk manner because you don't even understand what people are saying.

I'm not alluding to anything.

read this

Then read this

Seriously, if you can say something like:
"In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism."

then you really don't understand the issue.

The things you mentioned are the means by which fascists established themselves here rather than as in Europe by direct election/revolution.
It in no way makes it reverse fascism.

If you actually knew anything about it you would know that fascism was created for the express purpose of being "reverse communism" or at least being sold as such.

So your claim is that the US government is currently communist?!?

That's more than a little bit silly.

I'm not alluding to anything.

read this

Then read this

Seriously, if you can say something like:
"In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism."

then you really don't understand the issue.

The things you mentioned are the means by which fascists established themselves here rather than as in Europe by direct election/revolution.
It in no way makes it reverse fascism.

If you actually knew anything about it you would know that fascism was created for the express purpose of being "reverse communism" or at least being sold as such.

So your claim is that the US government is currently communist?!?

That's more than a little bit silly.

Give me a break. The X-Files has more plausible conspiracy theories than you do.

It's a conspiracy theory that you're too stupid to use google?

Here's a more complete article with plenty of references.

Knock yourself out, but you're just making yourself look silly by trying to deny basic historical facts.

Christian-Judism has always had a strong influence on America the influence is less and les each year.

This wasn't really true up until WW2. Then with the threat of the "godless communists", for the first time the wealthy elite (Republican Party) managed to ally themselves with the religious Americans. This relationship has proven very profitable for the wealthy elite, but hasn't really done crap for the religious people since they have allied themselves with the party whose goals are the diametric opposite of their own. Here is a really nice analysis of why this is true..

It's sad, but it's hardly the first time that religious people have willingly been duped and used against their own beliefs.

Do you think the ten commandants were recently put up in court houses?

In fact, I do. Because they were. Largely as a promotional item for the movie of the same name.
Same site, different essay.

Take any shred of religion out of the government, but don't tell me our forefathers or constitution says it should be that way.

It is really quite explicit about that.
Anybody who actually believes in their religion would be far more adamant about keeping that seperation strong than somebody who merely knows it's a good idea. Their religion can *only* be corrupted by any merger between the state and religion.

For examples, please see the entirety of human history.

Christian-Judism has always had a strong influence on America the influence is less and les each year.

This wasn't really true up until WW2. Then with the threat of the "godless communists", for the first time the wealthy elite (Republican Party) managed to ally themselves with the religious Americans. This relationship has proven very profitable for the wealthy elite, but hasn't really done crap for the religious people since they have allied themselves with the party whose goals are the diametric opposite of their own. Here is a really nice analysis of why this is true..

It's sad, but it's hardly the first time that religious people have willingly been duped and used against their own beliefs.

Do you think the ten commandants were recently put up in court houses?

In fact, I do. Because they were. Largely as a promotional item for the movie of the same name.
Same site, different essay.

Take any shred of religion out of the government, but don't tell me our forefathers or constitution says it should be that way.

It is really quite explicit about that.
Anybody who actually believes in their religion would be far more adamant about keeping that seperation strong than somebody who merely knows it's a good idea. Their religion can *only* be corrupted by any merger between the state and religion.

For examples, please see the entirety of human history.

[It is sad that American Companies have decided ...]... that the dollar is more important than freedom or principles.

"The euro area's GDP was only 60% the size of America's in 2001. If current exchange rates are sustained [circa December 2003], it swells to around 80%. If the economies of Britain, Sweden and Denmark are added to the euro area, the European Union now has a slightly larger economy than that of the United States."
Source

"On November 6th of 2000 Iraq became the first country to receive all of its oil export payments in euros instead of American dollars. This switch was estimated to cost Iraq $270 million dollars, but Iraq had since actually come out on top due to the rise in the value of the euro, which was actually probably influenced by Iraq's decision to use the euro as its foreign exchange currency."
Source

"the US ... installed its own authority to rule the country and as soon as Iraqi oil became available to sell on the world market, it was announced that payment would be in dollars only."
Source