Slashdot Mirror

Well, that's my point. The judicial branch isn't the one taking away your freedoms. That would be the legislative when laws are passed, and the executive when the NSA gets your phone call history. The judicial branch are the ones who can override them by declaring it unconstitutional. Whether they agree with the legislative and executive is besides the point. Without them, the interpretations of those currently elected are the only ones that count, and there's nobody checking their decisions.

Now, if you don't agree with how they interpret the constitution, that's the people's fault. They're not directly elected, but if you elect Bush, you should expect him to nominate justices which will be extreme moral conservatives and more likely to uphold the rule of big government "for the sake of security" over individual liberties in their judgements.

Which brings us to who is really at fault for our declining freedoms. Democracy is great, but it requires people to work to keep government in check. Or at least stay out of the way. Every election we see all these ads telling people to "get out and vote." It annoys the hell out of me. If you voted for Bush because you agree with what he's doing and what he plans to do, I have no problem with that. That's your choice as an American citizen, and your opinion isn't less valid than mine. If you haven't done your research, but you feel like you should go out to the polls to make sure your Christian candidate keeps those godless liberals away from power, but you have no idea what you're Christian candidate has been up to, you're screwing the voters who actually keep informed (and vice-versa if you decided you're a Bush-hater and will vote for "anyone but Bush", but can't tell me why you dislike him). I can't claim to always take the time to be informed about every aspects of politics, but when I haven't researched all the candidates for a position, I don't vote for that position.

But they're run by godless liberals. Most conservatives would rather die than to support such an "evil" organization.

Lets face it the last several years the country has been clouded by a culture of stupidity. And it is no wonder that children's ability to understand sciance is good at young age but drops off sharply at high school because high school is where children are exposed to the 'adult' culture and politics.

Lets face it everyone knows how stupidity penetrated politics, I dont have to spell it out. But from there it spread out and went everywhere. All of a sudden anyone remotely intelligent on TV was deemed to be part of the "old liberal media" even if they were not liberal at all.

Every one on television and in popular culture was pressured to show and give credit to the point of view of stupidity and complete idiocy or they risked being labeled part of the old liberal media. Half wits that specialized in entertaining complete uneducated idiots (like the various radio talk show hosts) were elevated to respected status. Don't get me started on bill oreilly.

And the most offensive thing is that stupidity invaded popular culture under the disguise of religion. Every complete moron that went on TV perpetuating some lowest common denominator 'theory' awlays said that he was taking directions from jesus himself and therefore one could not use logical arguments against him because that made one a godless liberal elitist that disrespects ordinary americans. As if believing in God gave everyone the right ... no, the duty and repsonsibility of being as stupid as possible.

One wonders how we never saw an intelligent promoter of Christianity on TV. I know they exist, because I have read their writings, but for some reason when you turn on your television set all you see is some half wit foaming at the mouth bible thumping neo fascist.

And dont get me started about popular culture. We worship dumb bimbos that act like sluts but assure everyone that they are good christians. Oh and where we once had comics that made us think now we have ... larry the cable guy.

Its not even only stupidity ... it is mediocrity at every level of culture ... just like the comedians are not very funny, the younger actors are not especially good at acting, the movie directors suck at directing, the newscasters do no serious journalism, the popular writers cant write very well, the policy makers make terrible foreign policy etc. Mediocrity is being worshipped and talent, intelligence, etc. are being punished.

Meanwhile university professors are eyed with a lot of suspicion, there are organizations being started for the purpose of spying on proffessors and reporting the "dangerous ones", think-tanks have sprung up so that no journalist ever has to ask the opinion of a university proffessor if they need an "expert".

Some kids are born smarter and some arent. But in order to learn one need not only be smart one need to want to learn. When stupidity is being worshipped and intelligent or otherwise talented people are simply embarassed of their talent, then fewer and fewer kids will want to learn.

If it hasn't been said already it needs to be.

The places in the third world these laptops are destined for have far greater problems than access to computers, cheap or otherwise. Clean water, ample food, adequate shelter, basic medicines and rudimentary health care, physical security and relief from sometimes severe forms of oppression and exploitation are all greater needs by orders of magitude IF outside influence and interference can ever be justified, warranted or desired.

At times we look at the third world or even the second and ponder the pleasantness of a simpler lifestyle. By the same token we look at the mega living complexes build in the far east for example, those skyscrapers in their multitudes souring hundreds of floors, each one a self contained city where people can live within it and never need leave in their lifetime. Manufactured human habitat of concrete and steel, completely designed and managed for the maximum efficiency and productivity of human labor.

Merely the latest fashion in high technology oppression and exploitation? Perhaps the only natural grass a child born in that environment may ever see is on display in the lobby and viewable for three tokens? Never to climb a tree or jump in a puddle? That the "natural" environment becomes a well supervised McDonalds plasic playland found disbursed on every third floor? Where the old and the sick are elevatored to the basement incinerator for mechanized disposal at the actuarial end of their lives? Better?

I understand this is the opposite extreme, perhaps slightly imbellished for effect but therein lays the underlying question. What is best for an indigneous people and who are we to decide? Is wrenching these people into the modern world doing them any favors? And if not, who is the beneficiary? Global Corporations? Does an Email account and an Ipod make peoples lives all that much improved or does it simply serve to placate a penetentary existance in a concrete jungle? So an African tribesman risks being gored by a Credit Card company instead of a Wildebeest? Which risk is greater? He knows the Wildebeest.

For however hardscrabble life can be found in many places you don't find the kind of depression and dispair that permeates our more modern, technologically advanced society where the value of human life has been reduced to a number on a paystub or ones asperations held within annual reviews perpetually on file and indexed. It would be hard to argue that the complexities of modern life is not in itself debilitating and it is likewise difficult to weigh the benefits of first world imposition.

The 'Hundred Dollar Laptop' is a design and manufacturing challenge that many have been caught up in. I myself find it an interesting subject even though I have serious doubts whether such a device should be implemented as envisioned. I think the vision is flawed and the motivation suspect. Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should and that it may be better to leave the indigneous people of the world well enough alone in their natural environs. They may be the only survivors of a species hell bent on self destruction.

In a way this is the Kwanzaa effect where Evangelical Christians found it abhorrent that godless savages where being left out of the joys of Christmas and so set about rectification with self righteous reverence in pious imposition. In result Evangelical Christians feel much better about themselves and the displaced reinactors of African culture twenty generations removed have another drum to beat. I doubt the indigneous savages much care.

What are you then? A fucking Godless atheist? I sure hope not.

Don't you fear not existing? Nothingness? Well something worse awaits you if you are a godless atheist.

Now if you converted to another religion, you might be ok. Not the one that caused 9/11 I hope.

But if we do that, lots of CEOs of various HMOs and insurance companies might not be able to afford a bigger yacht! That's unAmerican.

We have to let the market decide all these things. If it isn't profitable to treat someone with a horrible medical condition, then it just shouldn't be done. If we start helping people just because we "should", and there's no money in it, then we'll just be like those bastard godless Communists! Profit ueber alles!!! God bless America!!!

Remember, the more profit you make, using whatever means necessary, the more Jesus loves you.

What I do find somewhat uncomfortable is that you're always the "good guys" in America's Army, the enemy is always the terrorists no matter which side you're on.

You are aware who publishes America's Army, right?

I kinda bet that if Osama Bin Laden was in any position to make a FPS, the enemy would be "The Godless Infidels of the Great Satan" in every mission, too.

It's a godless killing machine without a soul!

jobs for everyone and no homeless...damned commie scum. Real patriots live on the streets.

WMD in Iran

They could intentionally rig their power plants to explode !!1111!!!one Fear the mass destruction...of Iran... Or are you referring to the WMDs the U.S. military would be bringing with it when it Liberates the Oppressed peoples of Iran, while bringing our Lord and Savior to the godless heathens?

"We're at war with terrorists" so it's ok to suspend your rights to make you safe.

According to bush, for every one american who died in the towers 10 Iraqis died. Where do they fit in with terrorism?
Suspending rights is going to kill more people than it saves. The limitations that have been placed on transportation restrict emergency travel, and the increased security has resulted in several fatal shootings of innocent citizens by post-9/11 counterterrorists. If the U.S. really gave a damn, it never would've created and/or supported: Al Qaeda (kills are in the thousands; originally created to fight the evil Commies), khmer rouge (kills in the 1-2 million range; originally supported to fight the evil Commies), Suharto's New Order (hundreds of thousands; originally created to fight the...you guessed it...evil Commies), and the list goes on. Whenever the U.S. attempts to "save" a group of people, the shit hits the fan and is sprayed back on em. And now it's trying to save America...

By definition, the universe is everything including any hypothetical god(s). To say one can't find meaning in the universe is to say that there is no meaning in anything because the universe is EVERYTHING.

My understanding is that philosophers talk about "possible worlds". And these "possible worlds" includes the universe.
When I refer to universe, I refer to that spacial/temporal realm in which we humans are confined. Anything that is outside of space and time (for example, I contend, numbers) is not contained purely within the universe. A timeless and spaceless creator would be outside the universe.
God, as defined as timeless and spaceless, is within a "possible world" but is outside our universe.

You're confusing issues of "What is The Truth?", as in the absolute truth for anyone, with issues of motivation "Why should I keep going?". I'm talking about the latter. A "reason for being" is a reason not to jump off the nearest cliff, not "the truth".

I knew you were talking about motivations. What I am saying is that ultimately a reason for not jumping of a cliff is no different for a reason to jump off the cliff. Ultimately, in a godless universe, these reasons are subjective, and can never truly satisfactoraly answer the question "why should I not jump?".
Sure, people have motivations and justifications for their reasons - but not good justifications. Just subjective ones that fail if put up to a different subjective standard.

Climb out of your denial and actually read the text of Genesis. ALL early Jews, Christians, prophets, etc. believed that Genesis was either entirely or mostly factual...
I hate to keep harping on this, but Christianity (and Judism and Islam) are based WHOLLY on Genesis. If Genesis is fictional, these religions are clearly nonsense. And Genesis is clearly fictional.

I never said that I believe Genesis is not fictional, I just said that any such debate is destined to go nowhere. Especially on a public forum like slashdot. I agree with you wholeheartedly that if Genesis is just an allegory for events that never occurred, that it loses all meaning.
You and I differ on a much more fundamental point - is there a God? We can discuss that without getting into the questions of whether the Christian God is the true God, or whether we should offer praise to Zeus instead. Let us first establish whether there is a God.

Though in the case of Christianity you don't have to infer this because, despite the best efforts of the church, we still have fragments of contemporary criticism of early Christians by Roman skeptics. And, funny enough, they say EXACTLY the same things skeptics of modern "prophets" do today.

I would very much like to read these documents, if you can recall what they are (esp. if you have weblinks).
Regarding motivations - Paul, and all the Apostles, had little to gain from Christianity. Paul lived out his days under house arrest, and other apostles met horrible deaths as Martyrs. If I was creating a new religion for fun and profit, I would hardly be willing to die for its cause. That to me says, at least, that Paul believed what he wrote.

Why do you consider a heretical 1st century Jew's opinions of morality and spirituality definitive? Do you follow 1st century medicine? When was the last time you got an exorcism for a toothache?

So, your argument here is that the knowledge of philosophers today is much greater than that of those in the past?
I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what you see. Obviously our understanding of medicine has changed - b

I was in my pre-teens, and I remember my mom listening to Rush Limbaugh 3/5, in car, at home, jogging, etc. The people she hangs out with were the people that called Clinton the worst president. The nauseating (sp?) joke of the years was Clinton pushing computers for bastard(!) children of black unwed (!) teenage (!!) mothers on welfare (oh the horror, the humanity!!!!). The recurring topic was "Clinton pushed welfare dumping ofour tax dollars into computer industry, which Perot made money on (Perot being the guy that 'stole' votes from the Republican candidate).

Lest you say such "kooks" were in the minoriy, recall that the Republicans actually took the House in 1994 (and kept it to this day).

The fact that you do not know what I am talking about just points out that you probably came from a liberal family and hung out in liberal circles, probably in New Yord or Boston or some such commie welfare Godless place ;-)

There really was a dichotomy (and still is) with the Blue State liberals just not recognizing how much anger and resentment and outright hate for the 'lub'rals' there actually is. If you don't believe me, I strongly suggest you listen to Hannity et al., where the 'callers' frequently used to say things like: "of course Johnny [W Lindh] betrayed America, his parents are college professors" and "that organization should be in Gitmo, after all they DID take mony from Soros (sp?)", and "MoveOn.Org got donations from Castro to sabotage US Elections"

I wish I could agree with you in saying that the Democrats are going to do any better. If things go as they usually do, we'll see a series of scathing inquiries (that will be rejected by the "backwash" as godless anti-bush witch hunting), and the GOP will revert to its 1990s strategy of playing the underdog, while controlling the legislative branch of government.

In about two years - maybe less - we'll figure out that yes, the Democrats are ALSO in the pockets of lobbyists, appointing their own yes-men, and that brand new Democratic president is using all those leftover executive powers to his own advantage.

The two parties in power now will never again be effective -or safe- government. Thomas Jefferson famously said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I think he was right.

and way to stick it to those Godless Commies

Yes, but why leave the 's' off of the word God?

I mean, if you are trying to stick it to the "Godless" about their lack of "God"... and you are trying to promote "freedom of religion"... then why not acknowledge that there are different religions with different gods...

And some religions with more that one god.

Hell, we could have even won the "we have more gods than you" cold war!

Short sighted bastards!!

The only problem with the Pledge is when the definition of "Liberty", "Justice" and, "All" changes.

Otherwise, it's a nifty piece of work (and way to stick it to those Godless Commies in the 50's Congress.../snark).

Personally, I'm a bit of a nihilist when it comes to this question. It's up to each of us to find our OWN reason for being.

Thought I'd start with the end. I hope you don't mind discussing this - I assume by your reply that you don't.
If there is no reason to being external to this universe, then all we have is subjectivity. And if all that remains is subjectivity, then nothing is of any value beyond how it relates to something else.
To say it's up to us to find our own reason for being is not really accurate. If the universe is all that there is, then the truth is that there is no reason for being.
People yearn to know why, and they ask the somewhat vague question of "what is the meaning of existence?" If you say it's up to us to find our own reason for being, then you are trying to give an answer to that appeal which doesn't really satisfy. You make it sound like there is an answer (within ourselves) when in fact you believe that there is no reason, there is no meaning.
Yet if there is a God, then we suddenly have grounds for a reason for being. Not only that, but that reason for being is external to us, and external to the universe itself. As a consequence, then, it is not up to us to find our own reason for being. That reason exists external to us.
Back to the beginning, literally...

Things which simply did not happen. This is a fantasy, or more properly, a myth. Genesis is a collection of myths, many of which have moral instructions, but myths just the same. The Garden of Eden did not exist. Adam and Eve did not exist. "Original sin" does not exist. These are simple facts, as much as Jews/Christians/Muslims might not like it to be so.

Rather than getting into a debate about origins, which is destined to go nowhere, there is a much more basic question here which can be answered - is there a God? If that can be satisfied, then most or all of the other points you are making (about our reason for being, about the nature of morality, etc) will be addressed.

The Christian fixation on guilt is simply a method of social control. By telling people they are worthless and "fallen", and that the only way to be happy/prosperous/immortal/etc. is through following THEM and doing what THEY say, you can control them.

Well, that's certainly one theory. Obviously if there is no God, then a case like that could be made. But another equally compelling argument is that we evolved to have a sense of an archetypal entity that doesn't really exist - and that social control was just a nice side effect.
Or perhaps we feel guilt naturally, and religion was designed to explain why we feel guilt, rather than being the cause. Or perhaps any number of other things that ultimately lack any meaning in a godless universe.
It's very hard to predict or justify any ulterior motives, that were unrecorded, of men long dead.
Guilt is a feeling we get when we know we have done something we ought not to have done. Do you have a problem with guilt? Or do you merely believe that Christians "cause" people to feel guilt about things of which they shouldn't?
Perhaps to help you understand the Christian "fixation" on guilt it would help you to consider the existence of our Maker. For example, I find a $20 note on the ground, and pick it up - and am asked 2 minutes later by someone if I happened to find their $20 note they dropped around the corner. I tell them no, and keep it.
If I compare my actions to those of others around me, I might consider it wrong, but not that bad. I may remember the time my friend did the same when he found $10. Or how another friend took home a computer mouse from work. I may still judge these actions as wrong (including my own), but I won't lose much sleep over it.
If, however, I lived in a society where everyone was always honest, then my actions would seem that much worse. I would have no friend with whom to co

Oh, you forget, the mindset on the right-wing side is that the ACLU are a bunch of godless commies who are out to destroy the US.

I'm sure the military would be interested in some applications too.

I see where you are going with this, but we have a problem. If you go to the (U.S.) Army with any sort of personal display technology, they will tell you it must meet two requirements:

1. Nothing shall remove the soldier's eye from the target.
2. Nothing shall require the soldier to remove his/her finger from the trigger.

This satisfies number 2 but runs into problems with number 1. We have now insterted something between the shooter's eye and the godless communist/fanatical terrorist that he/she is trying to rid the world of. Should the glasses break or get dirty (wars are not always fought in the most hygenic of conditions) then the soldier can no longer see his/her target, allowing it a chance to escape certian annihilation. Putting things between the eyes and the gunsight is never a good idea.

Perhaps for training and simulation, but for combat it is out of the question.

Another Spammer posing as an anonymous coward?

Claiming that Six Apart should take legal action against Blue Security because criminals were attacking Blue Security is absurd. It's like blaming the rape victim for getting raped.

All us Frog users have been desperate for news about our pals at Blue Sec. I appreciate the effort they took to get word out to us. The fact that the spammers then directed their attack towards SixApart shows just how desperate and belligerent they are. They are greedy godless bastards. And their actions shall undo themselves.

I have a feeling, judging by your tone, if me and you had a long conversation, we'd end up disagreeing severely and it would probably end in a fistfight

I would hope not. Nothing disheartens me more then to find people so set in their opinions that they are offended by the opinions of others. I grew up in a family where each family member had radically different political views that swung from godless libertarians and socialist to staunchly religious conservatives. It was never a problem because no one took offense at the opinions of the others and were willing to listen and concede when they realized they were in error. One of the things I miss the most about home is dinner time conversation that last until well after the food was cold. We could easily play devils advocate and argue from point of views we didn't agree with. Voices never got raised and discussions were always civil.

In the real world though, this acceptance of others opinions and willingness to discuss them seems close to nonexistent. People either become upset and angry at disagreement or simply claim stupidity and declare they have no opinion and no wish to think any further. The closest I have seen to a good political discussion outside of a few rare occasions in years is a group of like minded people with the exact same ideology arguing about the semantics of their ideology.

All of that said, judging by your tone I imagine we wouldn't end up in a fist fight and this was just a long winded rant.

...that's because they are godless heathens! ;-)