Oh Boy.. I'm a communist troll. Wow. I didn't know that. I don't even agree to that. But hey, feel free to keep believing that. It would be nice if you had something "constructive" to say, but that might require words and thinking, more than 3 words in any given sentence could be hazardous to your brain:) So don't start risking your health on our accounts!:)
lol.. yeah, laziness has it's virtues, after all, it got the remote control invented uh?:)
I have a saying that I go by in my day-to-day life: plan for the worst, hope for the best.
Aiming for utopia, is good, but obviously, there would be many hurdles, and I for one, can understand that and obviously if I were to elaborate further my ideas, you must always consider what can go wrong and ensure it either doesn't happen, or at least, have a plan for it.
Well, dictatorship is not what I would propose, heck, never give ultimate power to any ONE person. I think the "government" job, would be more a "people" job, where each individual would have a responsibility towards the governing process. Ultimately, you don't elect 1 person, but an odd number of people, in order to keep a balanced perspective on issues.
The world as we know it today doesn't have a shortage of food, we could feed everybody on the planet. But look at what "money" does. If a farmer makes too much milk, he's gotta trash it. Can't even take his extra milk and donate it for the poor.
We need a way to justify luxuries, but not necessities.
The soviet union, and their form of communism was doomed to fail by the way, the people didn't have any real freedom of expression or speech.
This was a case where the state was way too overbearing.
In the end, to create a correct form of government, we must first assert what our basic rights as human beings should be, what we should expect from society and what we should strive for.
Our current form of government don't govern people anymore, they govern budgets.
Big flaw right there.
Right now, we work for the sake of money, nothing else.
What's a country economic goals? what is the economy? hell, even the economists can't explain it to you, it goes up it goes down, they don't even know why!
I'm not going to label my thoughts as communistic, or whatever, I just know that if you get to a point where you wake up, you know the system is there for you, you have confidence in it, and it has confidence in you, then you don't have any real worries.
It's almost a star trek way of thinking, maybe, it is possible, ironically enough.
To live in a world where money is secondary, where your rights as a human are first and foremost important, should be our goal.
When you put the people first, then everything else can be set fairly.
Yeah, they had some good ideas, but, obviously it failed, for reasons which are obvious, certainly the fact that there was (and still is) no freedom of speech, is a big one.
In a perfect world, all would pay their taxes fairly and the taxes paid would benefit the people as a whole.
In this world, it's not happening. How to fix that? mmmm, simple answer, start all over. Bring the entire political and economic system down and reboot so to speak.
Will that happen? Maybe, maybe not, and certainly not in my lifetime anyways.
But it is what would be required. A clean slate for all, a true bill of rights for human, clearly defined laws which are above any religious practices and a new economy which would be based on that new bills of rights.
What could this bill be made of? the right for all humans to food, water, shelter, education.
What would the economy be like? simple, money as we know it would cease to exist.
As you look upon today's world, could such a goal be achievable? could we actually migrate to such a new system? YES.
How? in stage, obviously, it would take several generations to transit towards such a goal in order for this to be accomplished.
Why? Because many of the new concepts require a relearning of how to live, what to expect, how to interact with others, etc... So, for this to happen, a major part would be in the education that we provide to ourselves and our children, etc.., as they are the ones would continue the process in order to make it happen.
Sounds utopian? Why Not!!
Anything is possible to those who wish it.
How could this be possible? when we (humanity) realize that we are all the same deep down and we all want peace and prosperity, regardless or politics and religious beliefs.
What's the biggest hurdle?
Us the people, which is part being lazy and part resisting and fearing change, and
those who right now, are in power and truly benefit from this unfair world as it is.
I can see why zappers are used, heck, before being a computer consultant, I, too, in my early years, worked in the food industry as a cook, so I know all about dual book systems:).
The taxmen are so greedy, one has to do what one can in order to keep afloat these days.
there would be a way to avoid this, but who am I to say it and spoil the fun!:)
It's funny, the ultimately, the responsibility of an honest and upright government lies in each and every one of us.
The problem is that today's political system only encourages people to participate when its convinient for the elected.
The truth is, if we all took time and paid attention to what is being done by our government, it would have to be honest and upright.
But most people like to just coast along and pass the buck, and that's why there is abuse in the first place. Because we, the people don't monitor the people we elect.
Imagine if they truly took this to the next level and played around with the DNA of trees. Finding the ones responsible for shapes, etc... That could actually be even more amazing in its application.
mmm, I'm all for healthy competition, and that means this new browser will give IE something to think about, hopefully anyways, but now, we gotta see the quirks this browser will have when we do our webpages. *sigh*, more cross-browser detection to play with. Oh well..:)
I will admit that healthy competition goes a long way. But cooperation and competition can work both hand in hand too! In some levels the various agencies and countries can compete in finding various solutions, but in the end, work together towards the implementation. It's a question of prestige vs cooperation vs budgets.:)
You have a point for sure, I know that free speech in the US, isn't always so. The media certainly isn't as unbiased as we wished it would be, and more often than not, it's not even subtle how biased they can get.
But still, we are a wee bit better off than the Russians, we do have a bit more freedom than they do.
For sure, if we wanted to mount a website and have our opinions on it, we could.
Heck, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, certainly is proof that you can laugh at the establishment. Imagine that show in Russia?.. better not I think..:)
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree!:) Don't forget I'm being called a "flamebait" for my views in this article:)
But "pissing and moaning" about it, as you say, is far from constructive...
That much I'm pretty sure of.
Protesting just for the sake of protesting is wrong. Activists who protest the right of an established political party, aren't taking the right approach.
Anyone who wants to make an impact and try and change someone's mind, should in my honest opinion, be good mannered about it.
If you want to "woo" the republican supporters onto your cause, then "pissing and moaning" isn't the way to go, instead, challenge them with insightful thoughts and give them answers to problems which they are plagued by just as you are.
But as you say, they have the right to moan about it in the streets outside, as long as it is done in a peaceful manner, I agree with you on that point.
I'm not advocating for the republicans, don't get me wrong here.
But they have a legitimate right to set up conventions for their party to spread their message.
Protesting about it, is wrong.
If you want to show your way of thinking as better than theirs, you don't protest them, instead, you up and do better than them.
How do you do that?
Simple, have your own convention.
In that convention, list the issues and problems and then, give answers and solutions.
That's how it should be done.
That's why I say it is uncivilised to protest, because the entire political system is an adversarial one. It is based on conflicts.
There are rules and one of them is free speech on either side.
Don't go kicking the other party out, because you don't like their message, instead, be constructive and advertise your own message.
If you feel they don't have the solutions to the problems at hand, then, you dissiminate their solutions, find the flaws for all to hear and then, you propose your own answers.
If your party has the right answer, demonstrate it, prove it, and be effective about it. That's what this is all about.
I firmly believe that if you have the right message to give, if you can prove you have the answers to the solutions, then it doesn't matter what your party is called, people will listen.
But protesting and cause nuisance to a political convention is juvenile and counter productive.
It is a reflection on the strength of one's character, which, in this case, not good at all, in my honest opinion.
Well, we should count ourselves lucky that we have free speech. Obviously, the poor bastard who was running that Anti-Kremlin website, is now going to be a martyr to the cause of free speech, being a casualty of it.
I feel for those russians who know there is a better way of life, but are stuck in this transitory stage where many of them are forced to co-exist with the "old school" russian way of thinking.
Anyways, it is always sad to read news such as this.
Ok, first of all, Republicans have the right to setup a convention.
There shouldn't be any protestors to any such types of events.
Anyone who wishes to back the republicans should be able to do so freely.
And I'm not a republican and I know that!!
That is freedom of speech!
Now, for those who don't support the republicans, just DON'T GO!
Mind your own business!
Make your own convention, for pete's sakes!
You have the same rights as they do.
But when you start protesting something of that nature, you are acting like bullies and you are forgetting that America is founded on the basis of free speech, not just yours, but everyone's.
So, you can't go and protest against them having a convention, you are trying to take away a right which is theirs as much as yours.
Grow up for pete's sakes!
You don't want them (the Republicans) to win, then instead of being bullies and trying to stop people from thinking and talking, try being smart and intelligent and offer your point of views in a clear and concise manner. If you wish the Democrats to win, then, be smart!
To be smart, then come up with solutions to the problems at hands, don't stop them from meeting, but show them you have more substance and you have integrity.
A patent on Pg Up and Pg Down. What will they think of next? Oh yeah, a patent on rebooting? I mean, after all, only with Windows can one truly experience the excruciating joys of rebooting during critical work tasks and/or intense game play.
I would expect Microsoft to also patent the words "Critical errors" and "Windows must reboot in order to continue":)
Maybe Microsoft should also patent this "Vista sucks" or "NTFS has crashed, again...". I mean son-of-a-beehive, isn't it always your favorite files that get corrupted once you think your system is in perfect working order? Maybe Microsoft should patent their "Psychic Error Inducing Software" DLL, which I'm sure is part of every OS since Windows 95, but which they never advertise!
I would be all for that. Should we propose it to them?
So, if there is no state or order to which humans should adhere to in order to function in an orderly manner within a society, then how do we function? what do you propose?
Because obviously, you must have an idea here, I mean, you can't just object to something, and not have anything constructive to bring to this argument, right?
And as for humans having rights, well, "Cogito Ergo Sum" translating into "I think therefore I am". We have sentience. I believe we have rights, by the very fact that we can think. We can articulate our thinking, therefore, we can assert our rights. I wouldn't be waiting for any deities or higher powers to bestow upon us these rights, so it's up to us to take them.
Is there proof? Well, we are alive, we are here, so, that's practical enough.
Should there BE proof? That would mean, we would be answering to a higher form of authority, which, again, hasn't presented itself.
Well, not true, we are always at the whims of the universe and its laws. I know, sounds Sci-fi, but it's very practical actually. We answer to gravity, physical limitations, etc..
Since none of these laws have ever been explained to us, we are always in the process of trying to understand them and we are ever searching for the truth. Maybe that very fact is proof that we have rights. After all, we are questing for truth. I don't see any other species on the planet doing it.
I don't want to indulge in human misery, if anything, I would wish that our civilisation, our humanity as a whole could work together and end suffering as we see it and know it.
History can certainly be a teacher and most of all, a warning of mistakes not to be repeated.
I propose a world where a society should be govern first and foremost by law and that religion isn't part of the law making process. Religion should be a choice, its practices shouldn't however, be above the law.
I don't think my ideas, even in principle, are even close to Stalin's and Hitler's.
That's insulting.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have religion, but religions are man-based, and as such there are quite a few. In this day and age, where you can communicate with anyone across the globes in mere seconds, how could any ONE religion hold the truth? which one is right? or wrong? How can a law be fair if it's based on any religion?
You cannot have a multicultural environment like that. And again, religions are man-made, until further notice, thus, prone to errors like anything else. At this point in our current evolution, create a new law system and remove religion from the equation.
That's fair.
Doesn't mean people can't go to church.
It just means that none of the churches or religions out there can be above the law.
There is good in this, for example, some religions allows a man to hit and beat his wife and kids. Some will even allow them to be treated like property.
That's barbaric!
Is it fair??
I couldn't even start to understand how ANYONE could come close to defend that.
Even with the excuse such as "it is tradition, etc..."
Anyways, we all have our opinions, so I can't force mine unto anyone, but I know what I believe in at least. Cheers!
The State or the Society is where you get your rights from and therefore the rules to abide which guarantees you these rights and the privilieges which you are granted by following them. And I guess your point would be.. "Who sets the standards? or better yet, who says we have any form of rights?" And I say, "We as humans say we do."
We can affirm that, because as individuals, alone and not in cooperation with each other, we are doomed to fail, but as humanity, we can work together and achieve any goals we see fit.
That some of the ideas I have are based on the Bible or Mohammed, etc..., well, you know, its not a bad thing.
We just need to stop labelling things and we need to open up our minds that there are always new truths and better ways of living.
Our real education starts with "I don't know" and our true teachers should start with "I will teach you what I know, as I know it for now, but remember that what is true today, can be false tomorrow."
And as I see it, I'm not religious at all, I don't agree with the Bible in most things, except perhaps, it has given us a basis for some of the morals we follow, some of which are good.
But there is a lot of room for improvement, because of how it is interpreted by us humans.
What I don't agree most with the Bible is that it is the ultimate truth, that I just can't agree with. Too much death and sorrow and downright evil has been done in the name of the Church.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why what I wrote is set as "troll". Clearly, I don't understand. Whoever is doing this, isn't fair.
Oh Boy.. I'm a communist troll. Wow. I didn't know that. I don't even agree to that. But hey, feel free to keep believing that. It would be nice if you had something "constructive" to say, but that might require words and thinking, more than 3 words in any given sentence could be hazardous to your brain :) So don't start risking your health on our accounts! :)
lol.. yeah, laziness has it's virtues, after all, it got the remote control invented uh? :)
I have a saying that I go by in my day-to-day life: plan for the worst, hope for the best.
Aiming for utopia, is good, but obviously, there would be many hurdles, and I for one, can understand that and obviously if I were to elaborate further my ideas, you must always consider what can go wrong and ensure it either doesn't happen, or at least, have a plan for it.
To me, that's project management 101.
Well, dictatorship is not what I would propose, heck, never give ultimate power to any ONE person. I think the "government" job, would be more a "people" job, where each individual would have a responsibility towards the governing process. Ultimately, you don't elect 1 person, but an odd number of people, in order to keep a balanced perspective on issues.
The world as we know it today doesn't have a shortage of food, we could feed everybody on the planet. But look at what "money" does. If a farmer makes too much milk, he's gotta trash it. Can't even take his extra milk and donate it for the poor.
We need a way to justify luxuries, but not necessities.
The soviet union, and their form of communism was doomed to fail by the way, the people didn't have any real freedom of expression or speech.
This was a case where the state was way too overbearing.
In the end, to create a correct form of government, we must first assert what our basic rights as human beings should be, what we should expect from society and what we should strive for.
Our current form of government don't govern people anymore, they govern budgets.
Big flaw right there.
Right now, we work for the sake of money, nothing else.
What's a country economic goals? what is the economy? hell, even the economists can't explain it to you, it goes up it goes down, they don't even know why!
I'm not going to label my thoughts as communistic, or whatever, I just know that if you get to a point where you wake up, you know the system is there for you, you have confidence in it, and it has confidence in you, then you don't have any real worries.
It's almost a star trek way of thinking, maybe, it is possible, ironically enough.
To live in a world where money is secondary, where your rights as a human are first and foremost important, should be our goal.
When you put the people first, then everything else can be set fairly.
That's my opinion anyway! :)
Yeah, they had some good ideas, but, obviously it failed, for reasons which are obvious, certainly the fact that there was (and still is) no freedom of speech, is a big one.
In a perfect world, all would pay their taxes fairly and the taxes paid would benefit the people as a whole.
In this world, it's not happening. How to fix that? mmmm, simple answer, start all over. Bring the entire political and economic system down and reboot so to speak.
Will that happen? Maybe, maybe not, and certainly not in my lifetime anyways.
But it is what would be required. A clean slate for all, a true bill of rights for human, clearly defined laws which are above any religious practices and a new economy which would be based on that new bills of rights.
What could this bill be made of? the right for all humans to food, water, shelter, education.
What would the economy be like? simple, money as we know it would cease to exist.
As you look upon today's world, could such a goal be achievable? could we actually migrate to such a new system? YES.
How? in stage, obviously, it would take several generations to transit towards such a goal in order for this to be accomplished.
Why? Because many of the new concepts require a relearning of how to live, what to expect, how to interact with others, etc... So, for this to happen, a major part would be in the education that we provide to ourselves and our children, etc.., as they are the ones would continue the process in order to make it happen.
Sounds utopian? Why Not!!
Anything is possible to those who wish it.
How could this be possible? when we (humanity) realize that we are all the same deep down and we all want peace and prosperity, regardless or politics and religious beliefs.
What's the biggest hurdle?
I can see why zappers are used, heck, before being a computer consultant, I, too, in my early years, worked in the food industry as a cook, so I know all about dual book systems :).
The taxmen are so greedy, one has to do what one can in order to keep afloat these days.
there would be a way to avoid this, but who am I to say it and spoil the fun! :)
I wish I would have known, I would have gone and visited! Oh well, Beam me up Scotty, there are no intelligent life form in the vicinity.
It's funny, the ultimately, the responsibility of an honest and upright government lies in each and every one of us.
The problem is that today's political system only encourages people to participate when its convinient for the elected.
The truth is, if we all took time and paid attention to what is being done by our government, it would have to be honest and upright.
But most people like to just coast along and pass the buck, and that's why there is abuse in the first place. Because we, the people don't monitor the people we elect.
Imagine if they truly took this to the next level and played around with the DNA of trees. Finding the ones responsible for shapes, etc... That could actually be even more amazing in its application.
Hey! You are moving to Canada and I'm trying to move to the US to be with my fiance.. So, let's swap! :P :P
mmm, I'm all for healthy competition, and that means this new browser will give IE something to think about, hopefully anyways, but now, we gotta see the quirks this browser will have when we do our webpages. *sigh*, more cross-browser detection to play with. Oh well.. :)
I will admit that healthy competition goes a long way. But cooperation and competition can work both hand in hand too! In some levels the various agencies and countries can compete in finding various solutions, but in the end, work together towards the implementation. It's a question of prestige vs cooperation vs budgets. :)
omg, does this Anonymous Coward have a crush on lil' ol Barracuda Palin? ;) Anony and Pally, kissing by the tree_ee :P :P :P LOL
You have a point for sure, I know that free speech in the US, isn't always so. The media certainly isn't as unbiased as we wished it would be, and more often than not, it's not even subtle how biased they can get.
But still, we are a wee bit better off than the Russians, we do have a bit more freedom than they do.
For sure, if we wanted to mount a website and have our opinions on it, we could.
Heck, the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, certainly is proof that you can laugh at the establishment. Imagine that show in Russia? .. better not I think.. :)
Well, I guess we can agree to disagree! :) Don't forget I'm being called a "flamebait" for my views in this article :)
But "pissing and moaning" about it, as you say, is far from constructive...
That much I'm pretty sure of.
Protesting just for the sake of protesting is wrong. Activists who protest the right of an established political party, aren't taking the right approach.
Anyone who wants to make an impact and try and change someone's mind, should in my honest opinion, be good mannered about it.
If you want to "woo" the republican supporters onto your cause, then "pissing and moaning" isn't the way to go, instead, challenge them with insightful thoughts and give them answers to problems which they are plagued by just as you are.
But as you say, they have the right to moan about it in the streets outside, as long as it is done in a peaceful manner, I agree with you on that point.
You can't have it boy ways and call it fair.
I'm not advocating for the republicans, don't get me wrong here.
But they have a legitimate right to set up conventions for their party to spread their message.
Protesting about it, is wrong.
If you want to show your way of thinking as better than theirs, you don't protest them, instead, you up and do better than them.
How do you do that?
Simple, have your own convention.
In that convention, list the issues and problems and then, give answers and solutions.
That's how it should be done.
That's why I say it is uncivilised to protest, because the entire political system is an adversarial one. It is based on conflicts.
There are rules and one of them is free speech on either side.
Don't go kicking the other party out, because you don't like their message, instead, be constructive and advertise your own message.
If you feel they don't have the solutions to the problems at hand, then, you dissiminate their solutions, find the flaws for all to hear and then, you propose your own answers.
If your party has the right answer, demonstrate it, prove it, and be effective about it. That's what this is all about.
I firmly believe that if you have the right message to give, if you can prove you have the answers to the solutions, then it doesn't matter what your party is called, people will listen.
But protesting and cause nuisance to a political convention is juvenile and counter productive.
It is a reflection on the strength of one's character, which, in this case, not good at all, in my honest opinion.
Well, we should count ourselves lucky that we have free speech. Obviously, the poor bastard who was running that Anti-Kremlin website, is now going to be a martyr to the cause of free speech, being a casualty of it.
I feel for those russians who know there is a better way of life, but are stuck in this transitory stage where many of them are forced to co-exist with the "old school" russian way of thinking.
Anyways, it is always sad to read news such as this.
uh flamebait? lol.. me? why? oh boy.. that's too funny :)
Ok, first of all, Republicans have the right to setup a convention.
There shouldn't be any protestors to any such types of events.
Anyone who wishes to back the republicans should be able to do so freely.
And I'm not a republican and I know that!!
That is freedom of speech!
Now, for those who don't support the republicans, just DON'T GO!
Mind your own business!
Make your own convention, for pete's sakes!
You have the same rights as they do.
But when you start protesting something of that nature, you are acting like bullies and you are forgetting that America is founded on the basis of free speech, not just yours, but everyone's.
So, you can't go and protest against them having a convention, you are trying to take away a right which is theirs as much as yours.
Grow up for pete's sakes!
You don't want them (the Republicans) to win, then instead of being bullies and trying to stop people from thinking and talking, try being smart and intelligent and offer your point of views in a clear and concise manner. If you wish the Democrats to win, then, be smart!
To be smart, then come up with solutions to the problems at hands, don't stop them from meeting, but show them you have more substance and you have integrity.
The worse of oxymorons is: common sense
A patent on Pg Up and Pg Down. What will they think of next? Oh yeah, a patent on rebooting? I mean, after all, only with Windows can one truly experience the excruciating joys of rebooting during critical work tasks and/or intense game play.
I would expect Microsoft to also patent the words "Critical errors" and "Windows must reboot in order to continue" :)
Maybe Microsoft should also patent this "Vista sucks" or "NTFS has crashed, again...". I mean son-of-a-beehive, isn't it always your favorite files that get corrupted once you think your system is in perfect working order? Maybe Microsoft should patent their "Psychic Error Inducing Software" DLL, which I'm sure is part of every OS since Windows 95, but which they never advertise!
I would be all for that. Should we propose it to them?
So, if there is no state or order to which humans should adhere to in order to function in an orderly manner within a society, then how do we function? what do you propose?
Because obviously, you must have an idea here, I mean, you can't just object to something, and not have anything constructive to bring to this argument, right?
And as for humans having rights, well, "Cogito Ergo Sum" translating into "I think therefore I am". We have sentience. I believe we have rights, by the very fact that we can think. We can articulate our thinking, therefore, we can assert our rights. I wouldn't be waiting for any deities or higher powers to bestow upon us these rights, so it's up to us to take them.
Is there proof? Well, we are alive, we are here, so, that's practical enough.
Should there BE proof? That would mean, we would be answering to a higher form of authority, which, again, hasn't presented itself.
Well, not true, we are always at the whims of the universe and its laws. I know, sounds Sci-fi, but it's very practical actually. We answer to gravity, physical limitations, etc..
Since none of these laws have ever been explained to us, we are always in the process of trying to understand them and we are ever searching for the truth. Maybe that very fact is proof that we have rights. After all, we are questing for truth. I don't see any other species on the planet doing it.
I don't want to indulge in human misery, if anything, I would wish that our civilisation, our humanity as a whole could work together and end suffering as we see it and know it.
History can certainly be a teacher and most of all, a warning of mistakes not to be repeated.
I propose a world where a society should be govern first and foremost by law and that religion isn't part of the law making process. Religion should be a choice, its practices shouldn't however, be above the law.
I don't think my ideas, even in principle, are even close to Stalin's and Hitler's.
That's insulting.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't have religion, but religions are man-based, and as such there are quite a few. In this day and age, where you can communicate with anyone across the globes in mere seconds, how could any ONE religion hold the truth? which one is right? or wrong? How can a law be fair if it's based on any religion?
You cannot have a multicultural environment like that. And again, religions are man-made, until further notice, thus, prone to errors like anything else. At this point in our current evolution, create a new law system and remove religion from the equation.
That's fair.
Doesn't mean people can't go to church.
It just means that none of the churches or religions out there can be above the law.
There is good in this, for example, some religions allows a man to hit and beat his wife and kids. Some will even allow them to be treated like property.
That's barbaric!
Is it fair??
I couldn't even start to understand how ANYONE could come close to defend that.
Even with the excuse such as "it is tradition, etc..."
Anyways, we all have our opinions, so I can't force mine unto anyone, but I know what I believe in at least. Cheers!
The State or the Society is where you get your rights from and therefore the rules to abide which guarantees you these rights and the privilieges which you are granted by following them. And I guess your point would be.. "Who sets the standards? or better yet, who says we have any form of rights?" And I say, "We as humans say we do."
We can affirm that, because as individuals, alone and not in cooperation with each other, we are doomed to fail, but as humanity, we can work together and achieve any goals we see fit.
That some of the ideas I have are based on the Bible or Mohammed, etc..., well, you know, its not a bad thing.
We just need to stop labelling things and we need to open up our minds that there are always new truths and better ways of living.
Our real education starts with "I don't know" and our true teachers should start with "I will teach you what I know, as I know it for now, but remember that what is true today, can be false tomorrow."
And as I see it, I'm not religious at all, I don't agree with the Bible in most things, except perhaps, it has given us a basis for some of the morals we follow, some of which are good.
But there is a lot of room for improvement, because of how it is interpreted by us humans.
What I don't agree most with the Bible is that it is the ultimate truth, that I just can't agree with. Too much death and sorrow and downright evil has been done in the name of the Church.
The challenge indeed is to dissociate religion from law. In theory this is HOW it is supposed to be, but the practice is far from it.
:)
Only when religion is out of the equation will there be true progress both morally and scientifically. Ironic..