The thing is, any widely-held belief (whether or not it's supported by fact) can be used as the justification for all sorts of nefarious deeds. Think violent protesters claiming to support environmentalism, for example, or "gay rights" supporters vandalizing churches and physically attacking religious people. (I'm not trying to claim that the majority is violent, merely that ideals are often used as the basis for violence.)
Banning religion would not solve the actual problem - people can be violent. The motives they assign to that violence are largely irrelevant... if we want people to stop being violent, we should teach them not to be violent, we shouldn't ban the things they choose to blame.
Again, banning the things violent people claim as motives will not solve the problem.
many religions place an emphasis on this life. Christianity and Islam are morbid exceptions.
On the contrary; Christianity places extreme importance on this life. According to Christian teachings, this life is the only time in which we can exercise faith and obedience, be baptized, and so on - things without which we cannot be saved.
Christ's teachings tell us that this life is of the utmost importance in determining whether we return to live in God's presence. It's absurd to claim Christianity is a "morbid exception" when clearly Christianity places great important on this life.
According to mainstream Christian teachings, the only thing in this life that determines where you end up in the next life is whether you accept Christ as your savior.
... unless you bother reading the new testament, which explicitly states that "faith without works is dead". Merely claiming "I accept Christ" is not enough; you have to demonstrate it by living your life as Christ taught you should.
So yes, people who believe words alone are enough are teaching something immoral (and hypocritical), but it's unfair to judge Christ's teachings by something Christ never taught.
otherwise they wouldn't attempt to use their views of morality as the basis for legislation.
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone uses their views of morality as the basis for legislation, whether or not they're religious.
Tools shouldn't be banned merely because they can be misused.
Or would you have us ban everything in Joe Sixpack's garage? Most of that stuff can be used for murder. How about the contents of your average student's backpack? I'm sure those textbooks could be used to bludgeon someone to death...
You cannot get forgiveness from a judge, only a victim can forgive.
You're acting like Christians don't have to seek forgiveness from the people we've offended.
(that the church knows your hiding)
If a church spends its time telling its members they're sinners, the church is doing it wrong.
As a christian you are taught to pile your sins (that the church knows your hiding) on Jesus and ask for forgiveness
And of course, in the attempt to make your argument sound more compelling, you're completely ignoring what "pile your sins on Jesus" means. It doesn't make "write a list and hand them to him in an envelope". It means "fix the problems in your life". That includes seeking forgiveness from others, and yes, from Jesus - after all, you ignored his counsel by disobeying it.
Do you think a judge will expunge your record if you've demonstrated an unwillingness to make amends with the store owner you've stolen from? Of course not - and Christ won't wipe away my sins if I refuse to seek forgiveness from the people I have offended. Seeking forgiveness is an integral part of repentance.
You're judging Christianity by your own incomplete interpretation of the Atonement. Judge us by our beliefs, not by your opinion of what our beliefs are.
Violent people are going to find some excuse for their violence; religion often serves this purpose. Nowadays, people use sports, politics, wars, and many other reasons for violence. Hitler didn't need religion to work his violence; neither did Stalin or Hussein or basically any other military dictator. Violent people make reasons for violence; whether they choose religion as that reason is completely irrelevant.
If it's not at all obvious to you, then you need to stop ditching your history classes, and you need to read the news once in a while.
You obviously don't understand the doctrine; that's not what it teaches at all. Nobody gets responsibility for their actions shifted to anybody else.
Imagine sin in terms of juvenile records in the court system. Jim commits some crimes as a young teenager; these go on his juvenile record. When Jim turns 17, he realizes that a juvenile record is going to make it difficult for him to get certain jobs later in life.
Jim learns that he can have his juvenile record expunged by appearing before a judge and convincing him that he has mended his ways. If the judge is convinced, the records are sealed.
This is essentially the same as what's going on with Christ's Atonement. Jim is always the one responsible for his own actions. However, Christ can decide to wipe Jim's record - all Jim has to do is convince Christ he's improved himself (by living by the principles Christ taught). Nobody but Jim will ever be held accountable for Jim's actions.
As you can see, Christ's Atonement is clearly not a shift-the-blame sort of belief system.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door harassing people who follow the wrong religion.
It's not harassment to stop by once; if you tell them to never come back, they won't. (At least, when I was a missionary for the LDS Church, I respected people's wishes, and I never knew a missionary who didn't.)
And don't tell me they don't think its wrong; if they thought all religions were equal, they'd leave people alone.
I wouldn't say any such thing; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints firmly believes it is "the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30). This necessarily implies that all other churches are not "true and living".
You apparently don't understand our motivation. Imagine you have a radio, but your neighbor does not. You hear on the radio one morning that your area is in danger of a flash flood. Would you not warn your neighbor, knowing he does not have a radio with which to hear the warning?
Similarly, Christians in general feel the need to warn their neighbors of impending danger. It's silly to fault them for this, whether or not you believe the potential danger, just as it would be silly of your neighbor to ridicule you for warning him of an impending flash flood; if you want them to leave you alone, just say so.
These aren't examples of violence, but they do demonstrate the same sort of misappropriation of religion as used to train suicide bombers.
... and yet your examples are of extremists, not of average beliefs. We've already been over this: extremists by definition do not reflect the beliefs of the group as a whole.
Yes, religion can be used as a tool to hold sway over large groups of people. So can politics, school, sports... Hitler didn't control Nazi Germany with religion.
Thinking that someone is going to hell for $BEHAVIOR and not associating with them on that principle is not the same as tolerance.
Who said anything about not associating with them? I have many friends and family members who are not members of my church, who engage in behaviors I consider immoral; I am well aware of the scriptural statements regarding their situation (which, by the way, isn't "going to hell" if by "hell" you mean "eternal lake of fire and brimstone").
Tolerance does not require that I accept $BEHAVIOR as morally acceptable regardless of my personal feelings; it only requires that I treat people who engage in $BEHAVIOR the same as I would treat anyone else. I treat my non-member friends exactly the same as I treat my member friends. That's called "tolerance".
Few religions don't seem to place a higher value on the afterlife than they do on actual life.
Most of modern Christianity seems to be missing the point, IMO. This life is (at least in the short run) far more important than the next; this life (according to Christ's teachings) is what determines where we end up in the next life. This life is, therefore, of the utmost importance, and it's far more important to know what we must do now than it is to know what we'll be doing in the afterlife.
I realize that asking for even "quasi-Christ-like" is asking a lot of humans, but I wonder if the ones on TV and those in government are really even trying.
The new testament introduced the concept of eternal torture in hell.
I definitely agree that eternal torture in hell would be immoral and unethical. Fortunately, my church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) does not teach this concept. Just one of many benefits of modern prophets and additional books of scripture...
Faith is a rejection of reason (just believe without evidence).
Faith does not require a rejection of reason. In fact, much my faith is based on logical reasoning.
Most religions contain testable promises. I believe paying tithing results in prosperity as promised by the scriptures precisely because I have tested the promise both ways. I used reason to test a religious principle!
You're free to believe I was deceiving myself if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive.
If you give up one part of your mind to faith, it will necessarily harm the rest because you will be forced to not exam the ideas based on faith too closely
I firmly believe that any true religion must be logically self-consistent. My church encourages members to examine their beliefs, to question them, to ponder and study them, and prayerfully come to our own conclusions. If that isn't reason, then there's no such thing.
Even the scriptures say God uses reason as a teaching tool; see Isaiah 1:18 and (for you LDS out there) Doctrine & Covenants 50:10-11.
Claiming faith and reason are inherently mutually exclusive is... silly, at best.
I'm not seeing a slippery slope argument anywhere... nor would I agree that atheists are any more likely to be "the next crusaders" than religious people.
I would strongly disagree with killing or imprisoning people whose beliefs differ from mine, and I don't know what "new law" you might be referring to...
Religions don't kill people; religious people kill people!
Not at all. Rather, people kill people (and sometimes the killer claims to be religious).
I would be surprised if the percentage of atheists who are also murderers is significantly different from the percentage of religious people who are also murderers.
You're free to (verbally) attack whatever you want; but attacking religion is as much a waste of time as trying to ban it would be.
I actually disagree with you on one point: my religion, at least, is at least as well configured to resist ridicule as it is to resist oppression.
Tell me, which is more resistant to ridicule:
- A religion whose members blindly follow its leaders - A religion whose members are encouraged to individually make the effort to pray and ask God whether said religion's teachings are true
If you have 10,000 people from each group, and you vigorously attack the beliefs of each group, I'm quite confident in claiming that the latter group will remain much larger than the former when each group's members are given the opportunity to leave.
After all, if I believe God himself has told me that $BELIEF is unequivocally true, then your opinions on the matter are entirely irrelevant, and no amount of discussion can change my mind! (Note that this is true whether or not God actually has told me any such thing. Such is the power of belief.)
Christianity, like all religions, advocate violence more they they condemn it. The entire Bible is almost nothing but war stories, murder, and god sanctioned murder. Your willful ignorance is far from convincing.
On the contrary; your willful ignorance is far from convincing.
You see, Jesus' teachings replaced the teachings of Moses, being essentially a higher law (or, a more pure form of the gospel). The teachings of Christ - Christianity - should be taken in that light.
In other words, Jesus taught against violence. How then does Christianity support violence? I challenge you to find a New Testament scripture encouraging Christians to violence.
Jesus was saying "Moses taught it's permissible to take an eye for an eye. I tell you, it's far better if you entirely avoid antagonizing those who do you wrong."
Religion gives you something bigger than yourself to blame, and an abdication of responsibility. "I was just following orders!"
The tendency to shift blame is fairly universal, and has nothing to do with religion. See, for example, all the parents wanting to blame their kids' lack of attention in school on ADD/ADHD, instead of finding out whether their kids might simply be bored out of their minds.
Christianity, on the other hand, actually teaches us that we're accountable for our own actions. Hardly a shift-the-blame sort of belief system.
Religion provides some people a convenient rack on which they try to hang blame, true; but so do schools, parents, friends, siblings, jobs, employers, employees, spouses, children, governments, etc etc etc.
We should blame people for their own actions, rather than allow them to shift the blame elsewhere when it's convenient.
There's only 10 farking rules, and no one can handle it. I say we don't ban religion, but we make hypocrisy illegal. I imagine it will end up with the same result.
I'm tempted to agree with you.
Then again, we don't bother enforcing half the laws on the books anyway. I'm pretty sure adultery is still illegal in New York, but I'd be surprised if anyone has even been arrested on it in the last quarter century...... of course, making a law and then ignoring it could also be considered hypocrisy.
Anyway, it's not just religious people who have a problem with hypocrisy;)
In some cases, yes, but you cannot deny that hate is taught by religion.
I certainly agree that some religions do teach hate, but Christ's teachings (for example) have never supported hate nor violence. (I'm not saying the Catholic Church never supported violence; that's an entirely separate issue.)
Not to mention, a lot of these terrorists are mentally ill bottom feeders who are being used by the religious elites to bomb their targets.
If you replace "elites" with "extremists", then I'd agree with you... But then, extremists have never been an accurate representation of the group they claim to belong to, by definition.
Few religions have any tolerance for gays, different religious people, atheists, women who want equality, etc.
You're conflating the ideas of "tolerance" and "acceptance". A group need not accept $BEHAVIOR among its members in order to tolerate that behavior in others.
Few religions advocate violence against those who hold different beliefs.
Ban religion? Don't be silly; that wouldn't solve anything. Generally speaking, people who commit violent acts in the name of religion are ignoring the teachings of the religion they claim to follow (e.g. the Crusades).
If religion were magically erased from existence, these people would just find some other excuse for violence.
I'm going to refer to the old axiom "correlation does not show causation". It's especially relevant with regard to religions that teach against violence.
I hate to jump in to this, but I have to point out that I am far more productive today with two monitors and a modern dual- or quad-core processor than I ever could have been on a 200MHz Pentium Pro. IDEs can be sluggish enough as it is, and even small speed increases can make a tangible difference in my productivity; your attitude of "200MHz ought to be enough for everyone" is simply ridiculous. I got a lot done on my old 133 MHz Pentium I on my old laptop in high school, but even then I knew my productivity was restricted by my CPU, RAM, and hard disk size. I'm not talking about gaming - I'm talking about programming.
But let's look at some real-world situations where even your coveted Pentium IV Prescott single-core CPU machine isn't even close to good enough: basically any data visualization application. 2000-era machines simply can't handle the size of the datasets commonly examined nowadays. Ever tried to load a detailed dataset representing the entire east coast into a modern water-flow data modeling application on a 2000-era machine? I have. It doesn't work.
Or another: Have you ever tried debugging an 1M LOC MFC-based C++ application that uses OpenGL on a single-core Pentium 4 with a 2000-era video card? I have. I spent a lot of time reading books instead of working, because the processor couldn't keep up with things. Heck, Visual Studio would take 15 minutes just to load the project and process the data it needs for intellisense to work properly. I'd click on things (to duplicate a bug) and it'd take several seconds to update the display with what I had clicked. Switching to a cheap Core 2 Duo machine solved... all of those problems.
I won't bother addressing your power-drain concerns; the fact that you're sticking with your Pentium 4 exposes your utter hypocrisy (or your deliberate ignorance, whichever you'd prefer to admit to). Core 2 Duos (especially 45nm) run on much less power than Pentium 4s, and they're undeniably faster and more efficient. "Power consumption" is about the stupidest reason you could have chosen for not upgrading from a single-core P4 to a C2D. ("Cost" and "I hate Intel" are probably the only vaguely legitimate reasons, but you mentioned disliking Intel just once before turning around and admitting you use their products. Shouldn't you switch to AMD if you hate Intel so much?)
In the hours or days right after the attacks, knowing of these security changes could be all that is needed to implement the same attack an hour and 5 minutes before the plane reaches it's destination.
Who's going to make them stay in their seats? If a passenger gets up, saying his bladder is about to explode, is the flight crew really going to stop him?
The rule is pointless and counter-productive, since it will undoubtedly create numerous problems with passengers who have a legitimate need to leave their seat during the last hour of flight.
Furthermore, what are the chances that multiple bombings would be planned to occur on the very day that the secret new restrictions go in place?
Furthermore, what are the chances that you could actually keep secret a plan that requires the cooperation of tens of thousands of airline and airport and TSA employees?
It's silly to pretend the TSA should be able to keep secret stupid, pointless new "security" rules like this.
It's also worth remembering that the TSA withdrew their subpoenas.
It's all well and good to try to prevent future attacks, but implementing rules entirely unrelated to the attempted bombing does not help anyone - for example, the "no leaving your seat for the last hour" rule would not have prevented the attempt, since the bomber did not leave his seat. What purpose does the rule serve?
At any rate, as others have pointed out, I have seen no indication that the intended recipients of this memo were sworn to secrecy - especially since tens of thousands of people would have to read it in order for it to be implemented properly, and it's unrealistic to think you can keep something as large-scale as that a secret.
Slashdot Mirror
it's possible for atheists to have this too
This is the key.
The thing is, any widely-held belief (whether or not it's supported by fact) can be used as the justification for all sorts of nefarious deeds. Think violent protesters claiming to support environmentalism, for example, or "gay rights" supporters vandalizing churches and physically attacking religious people. (I'm not trying to claim that the majority is violent, merely that ideals are often used as the basis for violence.)
Banning religion would not solve the actual problem - people can be violent. The motives they assign to that violence are largely irrelevant... if we want people to stop being violent, we should teach them not to be violent, we shouldn't ban the things they choose to blame.
Again, banning the things violent people claim as motives will not solve the problem.
many religions place an emphasis on this life. Christianity and Islam are morbid exceptions.
On the contrary; Christianity places extreme importance on this life. According to Christian teachings, this life is the only time in which we can exercise faith and obedience, be baptized, and so on - things without which we cannot be saved.
Christ's teachings tell us that this life is of the utmost importance in determining whether we return to live in God's presence. It's absurd to claim Christianity is a "morbid exception" when clearly Christianity places great important on this life.
According to mainstream Christian teachings, the only thing in this life that determines where you end up in the next life is whether you accept Christ as your savior.
... unless you bother reading the new testament, which explicitly states that "faith without works is dead". Merely claiming "I accept Christ" is not enough; you have to demonstrate it by living your life as Christ taught you should.
So yes, people who believe words alone are enough are teaching something immoral (and hypocritical), but it's unfair to judge Christ's teachings by something Christ never taught.
otherwise they wouldn't attempt to use their views of morality as the basis for legislation.
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone uses their views of morality as the basis for legislation, whether or not they're religious.
Tools shouldn't be banned merely because they can be misused.
Or would you have us ban everything in Joe Sixpack's garage? Most of that stuff can be used for murder. How about the contents of your average student's backpack? I'm sure those textbooks could be used to bludgeon someone to death...
You cannot get forgiveness from a judge, only a victim can forgive.
You're acting like Christians don't have to seek forgiveness from the people we've offended.
(that the church knows your hiding)
If a church spends its time telling its members they're sinners, the church is doing it wrong.
As a christian you are taught to pile your sins (that the church knows your hiding) on Jesus and ask for forgiveness
And of course, in the attempt to make your argument sound more compelling, you're completely ignoring what "pile your sins on Jesus" means. It doesn't make "write a list and hand them to him in an envelope". It means "fix the problems in your life". That includes seeking forgiveness from others, and yes, from Jesus - after all, you ignored his counsel by disobeying it.
Do you think a judge will expunge your record if you've demonstrated an unwillingness to make amends with the store owner you've stolen from? Of course not - and Christ won't wipe away my sins if I refuse to seek forgiveness from the people I have offended. Seeking forgiveness is an integral part of repentance.
You're judging Christianity by your own incomplete interpretation of the Atonement. Judge us by our beliefs, not by your opinion of what our beliefs are.
*sigh* I assume that's some jab at Mormons?
Violent people are going to find some excuse for their violence; religion often serves this purpose. Nowadays, people use sports, politics, wars, and many other reasons for violence. Hitler didn't need religion to work his violence; neither did Stalin or Hussein or basically any other military dictator. Violent people make reasons for violence; whether they choose religion as that reason is completely irrelevant.
If it's not at all obvious to you, then you need to stop ditching your history classes, and you need to read the news once in a while.
You obviously don't understand the doctrine; that's not what it teaches at all. Nobody gets responsibility for their actions shifted to anybody else.
Imagine sin in terms of juvenile records in the court system. Jim commits some crimes as a young teenager; these go on his juvenile record. When Jim turns 17, he realizes that a juvenile record is going to make it difficult for him to get certain jobs later in life.
Jim learns that he can have his juvenile record expunged by appearing before a judge and convincing him that he has mended his ways. If the judge is convinced, the records are sealed.
This is essentially the same as what's going on with Christ's Atonement. Jim is always the one responsible for his own actions. However, Christ can decide to wipe Jim's record - all Jim has to do is convince Christ he's improved himself (by living by the principles Christ taught). Nobody but Jim will ever be held accountable for Jim's actions.
As you can see, Christ's Atonement is clearly not a shift-the-blame sort of belief system.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door harassing people who follow the wrong religion.
It's not harassment to stop by once; if you tell them to never come back, they won't. (At least, when I was a missionary for the LDS Church, I respected people's wishes, and I never knew a missionary who didn't.)
And don't tell me they don't think its wrong; if they thought all religions were equal, they'd leave people alone.
I wouldn't say any such thing; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints firmly believes it is "the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30). This necessarily implies that all other churches are not "true and living".
You apparently don't understand our motivation. Imagine you have a radio, but your neighbor does not. You hear on the radio one morning that your area is in danger of a flash flood. Would you not warn your neighbor, knowing he does not have a radio with which to hear the warning?
Similarly, Christians in general feel the need to warn their neighbors of impending danger. It's silly to fault them for this, whether or not you believe the potential danger, just as it would be silly of your neighbor to ridicule you for warning him of an impending flash flood; if you want them to leave you alone, just say so.
These aren't examples of violence, but they do demonstrate the same sort of misappropriation of religion as used to train suicide bombers.
... and yet your examples are of extremists, not of average beliefs. We've already been over this: extremists by definition do not reflect the beliefs of the group as a whole.
Yes, religion can be used as a tool to hold sway over large groups of people. So can politics, school, sports... Hitler didn't control Nazi Germany with religion.
Thinking that someone is going to hell for $BEHAVIOR and not associating with them on that principle is not the same as tolerance.
Who said anything about not associating with them? I have many friends and family members who are not members of my church, who engage in behaviors I consider immoral; I am well aware of the scriptural statements regarding their situation (which, by the way, isn't "going to hell" if by "hell" you mean "eternal lake of fire and brimstone").
Tolerance does not require that I accept $BEHAVIOR as morally acceptable regardless of my personal feelings; it only requires that I treat people who engage in $BEHAVIOR the same as I would treat anyone else. I treat my non-member friends exactly the same as I treat my member friends. That's called "tolerance".
Few religions don't seem to place a higher value on the afterlife than they do on actual life.
Most of modern Christianity seems to be missing the point, IMO. This life is (at least in the short run) far more important than the next; this life (according to Christ's teachings) is what determines where we end up in the next life. This life is, therefore, of the utmost importance, and it's far more important to know what we must do now than it is to know what we'll be doing in the afterlife.
I realize that asking for even "quasi-Christ-like" is asking a lot of humans, but I wonder if the ones on TV and those in government are really even trying.
I know exactly what you mean... it's quite sad.
The new testament introduced the concept of eternal torture in hell.
I definitely agree that eternal torture in hell would be immoral and unethical. Fortunately, my church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) does not teach this concept. Just one of many benefits of modern prophets and additional books of scripture...
Faith is a rejection of reason (just believe without evidence).
Faith does not require a rejection of reason. In fact, much my faith is based on logical reasoning.
Most religions contain testable promises. I believe paying tithing results in prosperity as promised by the scriptures precisely because I have tested the promise both ways. I used reason to test a religious principle!
You're free to believe I was deceiving myself if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive.
If you give up one part of your mind to faith, it will necessarily harm the rest because you will be forced to not exam the ideas based on faith too closely
I firmly believe that any true religion must be logically self-consistent. My church encourages members to examine their beliefs, to question them, to ponder and study them, and prayerfully come to our own conclusions. If that isn't reason, then there's no such thing.
Even the scriptures say God uses reason as a teaching tool; see Isaiah 1:18 and (for you LDS out there) Doctrine & Covenants 50:10-11.
Claiming faith and reason are inherently mutually exclusive is... silly, at best.
I'm not seeing a slippery slope argument anywhere... nor would I agree that atheists are any more likely to be "the next crusaders" than religious people.
I would strongly disagree with killing or imprisoning people whose beliefs differ from mine, and I don't know what "new law" you might be referring to...
Perhaps you replied to the wrong post?
It's amusing that you think "reason" and "religion" are mutually exclusive...
Religions don't kill people; religious people kill people!
Not at all. Rather, people kill people (and sometimes the killer claims to be religious).
I would be surprised if the percentage of atheists who are also murderers is significantly different from the percentage of religious people who are also murderers.
You're free to (verbally) attack whatever you want; but attacking religion is as much a waste of time as trying to ban it would be.
I actually disagree with you on one point: my religion, at least, is at least as well configured to resist ridicule as it is to resist oppression.
Tell me, which is more resistant to ridicule:
- A religion whose members blindly follow its leaders
- A religion whose members are encouraged to individually make the effort to pray and ask God whether said religion's teachings are true
If you have 10,000 people from each group, and you vigorously attack the beliefs of each group, I'm quite confident in claiming that the latter group will remain much larger than the former when each group's members are given the opportunity to leave.
After all, if I believe God himself has told me that $BELIEF is unequivocally true, then your opinions on the matter are entirely irrelevant, and no amount of discussion can change my mind! (Note that this is true whether or not God actually has told me any such thing. Such is the power of belief.)
Christianity, like all religions, advocate violence more they they condemn it. The entire Bible is almost nothing but war stories, murder, and god sanctioned murder. Your willful ignorance is far from convincing.
On the contrary; your willful ignorance is far from convincing.
You see, Jesus' teachings replaced the teachings of Moses, being essentially a higher law (or, a more pure form of the gospel). The teachings of Christ - Christianity - should be taken in that light.
In other words, Jesus taught against violence. How then does Christianity support violence? I challenge you to find a New Testament scripture encouraging Christians to violence.
You're missing the point.
Jesus was saying "Moses taught it's permissible to take an eye for an eye. I tell you, it's far better if you entirely avoid antagonizing those who do you wrong."
Religion gives you something bigger than yourself to blame, and an abdication of responsibility. "I was just following orders!"
The tendency to shift blame is fairly universal, and has nothing to do with religion. See, for example, all the parents wanting to blame their kids' lack of attention in school on ADD/ADHD, instead of finding out whether their kids might simply be bored out of their minds.
Christianity, on the other hand, actually teaches us that we're accountable for our own actions. Hardly a shift-the-blame sort of belief system.
Religion provides some people a convenient rack on which they try to hang blame, true; but so do schools, parents, friends, siblings, jobs, employers, employees, spouses, children, governments, etc etc etc.
We should blame people for their own actions, rather than allow them to shift the blame elsewhere when it's convenient.
There's only 10 farking rules, and no one can handle it. I say we don't ban religion, but we make hypocrisy illegal. I imagine it will end up with the same result.
I'm tempted to agree with you.
Then again, we don't bother enforcing half the laws on the books anyway. I'm pretty sure adultery is still illegal in New York, but I'd be surprised if anyone has even been arrested on it in the last quarter century... ... of course, making a law and then ignoring it could also be considered hypocrisy.
Anyway, it's not just religious people who have a problem with hypocrisy ;)
In some cases, yes, but you cannot deny that hate is taught by religion.
I certainly agree that some religions do teach hate, but Christ's teachings (for example) have never supported hate nor violence. (I'm not saying the Catholic Church never supported violence; that's an entirely separate issue.)
Not to mention, a lot of these terrorists are mentally ill bottom feeders who are being used by the religious elites to bomb their targets.
If you replace "elites" with "extremists", then I'd agree with you... But then, extremists have never been an accurate representation of the group they claim to belong to, by definition.
Few religions have any tolerance for gays, different religious people, atheists, women who want equality, etc.
You're conflating the ideas of "tolerance" and "acceptance". A group need not accept $BEHAVIOR among its members in order to tolerate that behavior in others.
Few religions advocate violence against those who hold different beliefs.
Ban religion? Don't be silly; that wouldn't solve anything. Generally speaking, people who commit violent acts in the name of religion are ignoring the teachings of the religion they claim to follow (e.g. the Crusades).
If religion were magically erased from existence, these people would just find some other excuse for violence.
I'm going to refer to the old axiom "correlation does not show causation". It's especially relevant with regard to religions that teach against violence.
I hate to jump in to this, but I have to point out that I am far more productive today with two monitors and a modern dual- or quad-core processor than I ever could have been on a 200MHz Pentium Pro. IDEs can be sluggish enough as it is, and even small speed increases can make a tangible difference in my productivity; your attitude of "200MHz ought to be enough for everyone" is simply ridiculous. I got a lot done on my old 133 MHz Pentium I on my old laptop in high school, but even then I knew my productivity was restricted by my CPU, RAM, and hard disk size. I'm not talking about gaming - I'm talking about programming.
But let's look at some real-world situations where even your coveted Pentium IV Prescott single-core CPU machine isn't even close to good enough: basically any data visualization application. 2000-era machines simply can't handle the size of the datasets commonly examined nowadays. Ever tried to load a detailed dataset representing the entire east coast into a modern water-flow data modeling application on a 2000-era machine? I have. It doesn't work.
Or another: Have you ever tried debugging an 1M LOC MFC-based C++ application that uses OpenGL on a single-core Pentium 4 with a 2000-era video card? I have. I spent a lot of time reading books instead of working, because the processor couldn't keep up with things. Heck, Visual Studio would take 15 minutes just to load the project and process the data it needs for intellisense to work properly. I'd click on things (to duplicate a bug) and it'd take several seconds to update the display with what I had clicked. Switching to a cheap Core 2 Duo machine solved... all of those problems.
I won't bother addressing your power-drain concerns; the fact that you're sticking with your Pentium 4 exposes your utter hypocrisy (or your deliberate ignorance, whichever you'd prefer to admit to). Core 2 Duos (especially 45nm) run on much less power than Pentium 4s, and they're undeniably faster and more efficient. "Power consumption" is about the stupidest reason you could have chosen for not upgrading from a single-core P4 to a C2D. ("Cost" and "I hate Intel" are probably the only vaguely legitimate reasons, but you mentioned disliking Intel just once before turning around and admitting you use their products. Shouldn't you switch to AMD if you hate Intel so much?)
In the hours or days right after the attacks, knowing of these security changes could be all that is needed to implement the same attack an hour and 5 minutes before the plane reaches it's destination.
Who's going to make them stay in their seats? If a passenger gets up, saying his bladder is about to explode, is the flight crew really going to stop him?
The rule is pointless and counter-productive, since it will undoubtedly create numerous problems with passengers who have a legitimate need to leave their seat during the last hour of flight.
Furthermore, what are the chances that multiple bombings would be planned to occur on the very day that the secret new restrictions go in place?
Furthermore, what are the chances that you could actually keep secret a plan that requires the cooperation of tens of thousands of airline and airport and TSA employees?
It's silly to pretend the TSA should be able to keep secret stupid, pointless new "security" rules like this.
It's also worth remembering that the TSA withdrew their subpoenas.
It's all well and good to try to prevent future attacks, but implementing rules entirely unrelated to the attempted bombing does not help anyone - for example, the "no leaving your seat for the last hour" rule would not have prevented the attempt, since the bomber did not leave his seat. What purpose does the rule serve?
At any rate, as others have pointed out, I have seen no indication that the intended recipients of this memo were sworn to secrecy - especially since tens of thousands of people would have to read it in order for it to be implemented properly, and it's unrealistic to think you can keep something as large-scale as that a secret.