Slashdot Mirror

Weren't Vietnam and Korea wars against the "Godless Communists"? If you consider that for many westerners (North Americans...OK, US citizens) their true religion is Capitalism, then those wars *are* religious wars. That great unseen power which controls everything (you know, the market (Adam Smith's Invisible Hand...with a third we'd have a trinity)) had to smite a system which denied its power.

Doesn't exactly inspire and encourage like the Kennedy declaration did, does it?

I'd say the Kennedy speech at Rice is just about the most romanticized, misremembered speech I can think of. Much more about godless communists, only sort of about the moon, in the sense of 'hmm, space exploration... now _there's_ a plausible new reason for spouting more cold war rhetoric'.

"Hostile misuse of space"? "A hostile flag of conquest"? "Weapons of mass destruction"? "New terrifying theater of war"? That's inspiring and encouraging?

I'm no fan of Bush or his various bureaucrats, but whatever anyone's said about this, it's definitely more inspiring than 'we've got to go to the moon to beat the terrorists!'

Don't I have a right to use Linux and preach pro-American capitalism and against offshoring of our jobs?

No, you don't. Offshoring is good for America, so if you're against it you must be a godless, freedom- hating, puppy-beating communist.

OK, I'll bite.

I'm a liberal, a really big pinko, borderline-anarcho liberal. Why exactly should I be thrilled that the only organizations with the clout, resources, and stakeable reputation to conduct investigative journalism are going to vanish? Why should I be giddy that in 10 years all news will be conducted through semi-anonymous I-said-you-said stumping? Blogs only break new stories when something leaks from one of the big boys, or falls flat in front of them. Investigative Journalism (at least before that term just meant a segment of local news with audio levels set a bit higher) takes a lot of man-hours and organization. Perhaps blogs can evolve into something capable of a Woodward and Bernstein type investigation, but I'm not seeing anything like that yet.

I'm not saying that private newsmedia is adequately doing its job today. The behavior of the media since the "merger mania" of the early 80s has been an utter disgrace, and we now have a system in which ratings are valued far above exposing the truth (or even above that old evil of 'having an editorial position') However the problem needs to be properly fixed, not just given up on and replaced with something that doesn't require the public to do all that hard work of expecting better.

I'm a godless commie so shouldn't I just be listening to NPR and eating my granola? Sure, you get more news (as in, they inform you of more events that are happening in the world) from an hour of NPR than a full day of CNN, but I'm not dumb enough to view having the only valid source of news being the one that comes from the government at all acceptable.

I don't read blogs. I'm already assaulted with enough people claiming their talking ABOUT the news is news itself. I want facts. I'm a grown man, and I can think about those facts all by myself.

Uh, mac zealots aren't the ones saying that. We all think that OSX is too wonderful for the unwashed masses, and that every piece of hardware the Apple sells us is an bargain priced altar to our Lord Steve Jobs. The mere thought of a filthy, unworthy whitebox PC running the divine OS of Kings makes us cringe in horror, fearful of apocalypse brought upon us all for desecrating all that is insanely great.

It's those godless heathen business analysts and some of those smelly free software yuppies that are spouting off this OSX on everyday PC's blasphemy.

I sure do love that Apple Koolaide.

That should keep me safe for a few days.

"Some people get turned off by evangelists they disagree with, almost everyone gets turned off by zealots they disagree with."

My observation seems to contradict yours. Whether it's an evangelist or a zealot they only seem to help their cause and not hurt it. Look at how much people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have helped the republican party. These people have called their "enemies" traitors, terrorists, evil, and painted them as un american, godless communists. As a result the republicans control all three branches of govt.

In the tech world take a look at Bill Gates, Ballmer, McNealy, Ellison etc. They have all resorted to calling their enemies communists, cancer, evil, hippies, wimps, babies etc.

I need not go into the kind of language used by the Bush Administration do I?

Empirically painting your enemies in the worst possible light, using the most severe language and hyperbole has been wildly successful in helping political parties, governments, and businesses succeed. If anything the proponents of open source, linux and apple need to ratchet up their rhetoric. Yes it really does work and indeed my be the only thing that works anymore.

I'm really not familiar with that usage of the word "Christian", what exactly was he saying there? I know "Catholic" can mean all embracing or universal, but have never heard of another usage for "Christian" except the religion. He's not really saying "Since we're Christians we aren't interested in making cars for bugs" right? That doesn't make any sense. So what's it mean?

Christians have often used the adjective "christian" to mean "good", in much the same way that Americans use the term "American". The sentence: "That's not very christian of you" meant "That's not very nice of you"; just as "That's un-American!" means "That's bad!".

Christianity through the Dark Ages can be viewed as essentially the classical orwellian nightmare : replace "Big Brother" with "God", Newspeak with church dogma, and MiniTrue with the Inquisition, and you'll get the idea. "God is evil" was about as convincing as "Big Brother is ungood". There was no way to say "good" and "atheist" at the same time, because back then, the word "atheist" roughly meant, in 1950s terms, "Godless souless baby-eating commie monster".

Language use outlives history by a long measure. Few people now remember why the ancient Greeks disliked the people of Crete; but we still use the term "ignorant Cretin". Similarly, prior to even a generation or two ago, saying someone or something was "unChristian" meant they were a bad person, and the word "Christian" just meant "good".

So, Feynmann is still using the entrenched cultural reference of the adjective "Christian"; he's claiming that building dust mites tiny little cars to drive is a bit nicer (more "Christian") that we really care to be.
--
AC

God is the only Truth, people. And until our constitution is amended to set this in stone, we will ALL be under threat of the whims of the unethical, godless special interest groups. This simply CANNOT BE ALLOWED.

It's freedom fries you stinking godless hippie terrorist.

large number of people have not actually spent time reading the Bible and listening to what it says

One of the funniest things I've ever seen on the subject of "Godless Christians" is film of a bunch of fundamentalists disrupting a Russian Orthodox Easter parade by running in to the middle of the procession and shouting out "turn to Jesus!". I wonder why they didn't notice all those crosses and icons of Mary and Jesus?

lol that's right, we must give up all privacy in order to PROTECT THE CHILDREN and save the Fatherla... er, Homeland from those godless heathen Ay-rab terrorists!!!

There is *one* thing he's right about. Phrases like this made me think of it: "The worst part is that it is self afflicted [sic]. The more structured and democratic of these collaborating groups give themselves guidelines and this is where things can go wrong."

A big point in favor of Linux that many advocates stress is that Linux is not owned by a company and can't be bought or sold or taken away. Leaving aside how realistic that may be, even if we accept that it is a 'democracy', Linux can be corrupted and ruined by the malicious impulses or stupidity of the 'opinion makers' and the 'followers'.

In other words, Drepper is unfit for his position on technical grounds (constant breakage) and on social grounds (constant flames) and on political grounds (he would corrupt the democracy of open source and turn it into a fascist uniformity bent on world domination). Based on his own comments, that last is unfortunately no hyperbole.

Linux and open source users do need to beware of their own prevalent attitudes or risk ruining the thing they claim to support. And giving Drepper any more influence or authority would be an example of that. This is *not* the kind of person who should be maintaining such a critical component. Those godless AIX users are trying to put flouride in the water and take his manly essence.

If this seems 'ad hominem', it's because it is - it's specifically my point. But it applies to everyone - if technical excellence and freedom are really what we're about, we have to pursue technical excellence and freedom. We cannot cut corners because it's too hard and 'force people to be free' because it's 'in their best interests'.

"...we are better off without people like him in the open source world."

In a sense my whole post is in agreement with this but I'd modify it to say 'without people like him *shaping policy* in the open source world'. He serves as an excellent cautionary example and, as such, has his use in the open source world.

How does that make them socialist at all?

Using state power to push a social agenda that limits freedom is a socialist impulse. It doesn't matter whether it comes from the right (fascism) or left (communism), both rely on the state to push their own view of what is "for the common good".

So you make this comment "fucking socialists" and guys and gals like me think, "What? Must be a troll."

The comment is my opinion. I've seen plenty of references to people who support 'evolution' as 'godless' but have refrained from taking offense because they are expressing their views. If they go further and suggest replacing biology and geology texts with the Bible, now they have moved from personal opinion into the realm of public policy. At that point, I take exception and speak out against their views.

Take a look at the posts of my critics. Not a single one provided a postive defense of socialism. Instead they spent a great deal of time and energy attacking me personally (which is hilarious due to the fact they do not *know* me personally), and attempting to redefine what *I* think.

I for one welcome our Theocratic overlords. Strict, totalitarian control will eliminate the need for social services such as welfare. Charities will no doubt be abolished as helping those whom God has punished is an affront to his divine plan. If God wasn't mad at them, they wouldn't be destitute, now would they?

Don't forget the end of abortion and sex ed classes. We can't have sinful things like that being tossed around in school, now can we?

And who can raise an honest objection to the death penalty being applied to Post dealers and life in prison for drug users? We're cleaning the refuse off the streets after all!

As Ann Coulter said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

And this voting thing, come ON, how humanist is that? The government exists by divine mandate, not ours. Trying to govern ourselves is presumptuous and an affront to God. I'm glad they've got this whole voting thing ironed out with the electronic voting machines. This way, the godless, pagan humanists can still feel like they're in control, while God's chosen leaders maintain their leadership positions.

I mean, come ON. Can you imagine what would have happened if George W. had been defeated in 2004? I shudder to think what the consequences would have been.

First of all there are no "missing statutes". Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 51 Section 1111 - Murder. It's right there in black and white. So you two are arguing over a myth. You should have caught that, you cannot prosecute anyone for any crime without citing the exact law that was violated. If the law doesn't exist then there can be no convicion, and there obviously cannot be any specified sentence even if there were a conviction. You do not get to "make up" laws and convict people simply because you "know" that they did something wrong and you certainly do not get to just "make up" a penalty for it.

Second, there has been a lot of revisionism trying to paint the Founding Fathers as Christian and the United States as a "Christian Nation". While most of the Founding Fathers were certainly religious and often made statements confirming that fact, in most cases it is absolutely comical to call them 'Christian', or to claim they were founding a Christian government or Christianty-based government. Go down the list of commonly known Founding Fathers and most were Deists.

Deist is "One who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation". That the Ten Commandments are not from God and *could-not-be* from God. People that reject the divinity of any scripture and reject any divinity of Jesus.

Thomas Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the Bible to strip out all miracles and divinity and recast Jesus as a philospher, as an ordinary man. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Quincy Adams, all Deists. George Washington attended Chuch fairly often, but he refused to ever take Communion (at first walking out on the service when Communion began, and when the reverend complained about the scene that caused Washington then stopped attending any time Communion would be served), he actively refused to answer any public question for or against any belief in Christianty, his friends labeled him a Deist, and even the Reverend at the Church he attended said that Washington was NOT a Christian but rather a Deist.

And then there's James Madison - the "Father of the Constitution". Madison was Episcopalian, but he was perhaps the most vocal Founding Father for a "perfect separation between Chuch and State", and he was most emphatic against any "irrational sources of authority in the American Republic". We wrote "mysteries belong to religion, not to government; to the ways of the Almighty, not to the works of man. And in religion itself there is nothing mysterious to its author; the mystery lies in the dimness of the human sight. So in the institutions of man let there be no mystery" - that government is a "work of man" and not to allow any "mystery" (religion) into the government. He writes of a fictional opponent of our Constitution attacking it as lacking the "light of faith" and an " accomplice of atheism ". He is himself tags our constitution as an 'accomplice of atheism'. Madison answers that that is the position of a blasphemer of the freedom of religion, an idolater of tyranny, someone who wishes to persecute others.

Separation of Church and State, the 'godless constitiution', it is to ensure our freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means freedom from the force of government being used against us for any religious purpose. That the authority and purpose of governent have no grounding in religion at all. That there is no other way to truely ensure our religious freedom.

John Adams put it best: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present li

Heck, more people die of AIDS everyday then during 9/11. But I guess nobody cares about that.

No, of course not. AIDS is for teh gheys and the poor African countries, why should we Americans give a shit about them?

Those subhuman Muslim extremists from Iraqistan hate freedom, and America stands for freedom. The events that transpired on 9/11 serve as a reminder that those godless heathens are fueled by blind hatred, so by golly, let's just blindly hate them right back!

Seriously though, several posts in this thread have reignited my e'er-dwindling hope for humanity. I know there are people whose eyes are open, I just don't know why they remain so immobile. It's time we accept that the system does not work, and that change must come from the outside (*note to Carnivore: I am not endorsing terrorism*).

We need to open people's eyes-- to remind them that there are better ways to live than our current state of existence. Poverty and suffering, or ignorance and complacency is unacceptable.

Damnit, now I'm all riled up.


note: I know Carnivore is a (supposedly) defunct EMAIL scanner.

" Why the FUCK would the FBI (who's purpose is to prevent communism) even get involved in copyright infringement?"

I'll assume you're not trolling:

Because if you do enough of it, it's a crime. This falls under federal law.

I'll go ahead and answer some other Slashdot noob copyright infringement questions while I'm here:

Why is the government enforcing this law? Aren't there be terrorists to catch?

No, really. What's it to them?

Spend some time out of the US and you'll learn that intellectual property is one of the US's biggest exports. The revenue earned (and taxes paid) by US-based citizens and companies through the distribution of intellectual property -- whether it's music, movies, books, or software -- is absolutely enormous, and whether we like it or not, it's a significant reason that we in the US enjoy the quality of life that we do. Like original sin, we are all stained by the shame of enforcing the rights of copyright holders.

Enough with this borgouis capitalistic intellectual property nonsense. This country is ruined by greed! Except for the part where I download music and movies for free instead of paying for them... I wouldn't consider that greed. But I digress. Isn't there a sane place where people don't pay no never mind to intellectual property?

There sure are -- try the (somewhat short) list of countries that aren't signatories to the Berne Convention. Iran and Iraq are among them, as well as a few African nations and dirt-poor tropical islands. They are largely places that the typical US citizen would not want to live. Revenue sources like the taxes that Microsoft pays tend to go toward things like infrastructure here in the US -- clean running water and the like.

Isn't this a victimless crime? Owners and creators of movies, books and music are all rich beyond my wildest imagination. I see this pointed out on Slashdot all the time, and so it must be true.

You have taken the first vital step toward sanitizing the act of ignoring others' rights. This trick is pretty common. For example, it worked well in the 18th century when "manifest destiny" dictated that we grab all the land. It became immensely easier to do this once we started thinking of Indians as godless, drunken, flea-infested savages who stole our horses and raped our women.

So what's your point?

If you'd rather download that song or that film rather than pay for it, go ahead and do it -- just don't try to make it a social cause. At best, you're being wise with your dollar. You're not a hero, you're not advancing a social cause, and this is not the Montgomery freedom march.

Seeing as the 'godless heathens' have a statistically lower birth rate than those in 'Jesusland', it ought to balance out.

The casualties that occur among the 'heathens' due to the malignant teratomas that develop from ESCT will further tilt the balance toward the fundies.

Sucks, don't it? Here's an idea, let's figure out how to use noncontroversial ADULT stem cells before we have to wade in the ESCT pool, mm'kay?

If natural selection really works(and I think it does) then people with moral misgivings about this technology will refuse to accept medical help from stem cells and will have a higher mortality rate than godless heathens.