Wouldn't it be easier to spot a missile moving against a sea or sky background both by visual, radar (which is what phalanx uses), and IR techniques then a well camouflaged sniper hiding in the desert, jungle or apartment building?
I don't know for sure, but I'd think that one could spot a cruise missile with vapor trail with your bear eyes easier then you could a good sniper with very expensive optics. And radar sure as hell won't give you anything.
My (non-lawyer) understanding, which is probably incomplete and possibly flat out wrong (maybe someone more knowledgeable cares to chime in) is this:
First, if you live in a state where the age of consent is below 18, taking pictures of you minor girlfriend would probably land you into hot water. However, part of the Miller test when defining obscenity includes this phrase, "Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law." Which could mean that if what you're taking pictures of is legal then the pictures are legal. Of course it is a whole different game if you show or distribute the pictures to anyone else.
When it comes to charging children as adults I think the whole concept is just crazy, and wreaks of slippery slope to me. I think I'd be ok with DA's having the discretion to charge a 16-17 yr old as an adult, if they were required to provide expert testimony indicating that the person is psychologically an adult, but every time I hear about wanting to charge an 8 year old as an adult I cringe - they are supposed to be protected as minors for a reason!
In the US obscenity refers exclusively to sexual material, so you could publish any distasteful print material or music (with the possible exception of graphic descriptions of sexual child abuse), non-sexual images or video you want and it would not be illegal, and not be obscene.
Now, as to selling your house - in my opinion - you, as the seller, should not be allowed to discriminate based on anything. This country has had its share of race problems, and I'd prefer if something is up for sale then it should be sold to whomever is willing to pay for it, including young whippersnappers who want the easy living offered by a retirement community. After all why do you care who the next owner of your home is? On the flip side, If you are renting a room to someone, you can discriminate based on anything you feel like. if you have to live with the person, and you are the landlord, it is up to you to make the decision. This is also one of the things that cuts both ways, it might be profitable to set up a store that caters only to minor ethnic groups - do you want to be excluded from those establishments?
Interesting, but what is the bore diameter on a deep well like that? I don't know, but I'd imagine it would a bit harder pushing a quantity of solid waste down a bore hole, than pumping liquid out. Oh and that presupposes that there is a abscess to push the waste into. Unfortunately all I can get from the IEEE article is the abstract (and I have no idea what the penetrator is that the abstract mentions), but it seems to me - not an expert - that there are better ways of dealing with the waste.
For me, personally, it isn't the initial price that turns me off - although I do think it is a tad high, but it is the inevitable monthly service fees to make this thing useful that will stop me from buying one. I'm not about to have a $100+/month cell phone bill.
Do you know how much water is in the mud and how quickly anything that dissolves will migrate to the ocean? Do you know what plants or animals live in the mud? How are you going to dig a hole a couple of hundred meters deep under a couple of thousand meters of ocean?
Any plastic liner will be long gone before the container matrix degrades to such an extent that this will be a problem. So yes the issue is ground contamination, but no the don't put in plastic liners, because there is no point with all the effort they already go to to contain the stuff.
Oh, and currently there aren't any long term waste sites, they are sitting in the yard around the plant that creates the waste to begin with, or in pools at the same site.
Except for the small technical problem that sea water dissolves practically everything given enough time, and we want these things to be down there for a good long time.
Oh and the other technical problem that we don't know what kind of plants or animals might find the warm rocks at the bottom of the ocean good nesting sites and burrow holes into the containers, eat or otherwise absorb some radiation, do you really want to have to worry about the mercury and fissile material content of your tuna?
Alright, I don't think anyone has it quite right (and there is a very good chance I don't either), but while it is true that the photons you are seeing left the sun eight minutes ago, for all intents and purposes you are still seeing the present when you look at the sun. This is because even if the sun blew up "now" not only is there nothing we could do about it, but the fact that no information could reach us means that it doesn't happen until we can see it happen.
It is all about simultaneity and relative time. To steal (and badly mangle) a vaguely remembered example from my college physics text imagine a cosmic horse race. If you are standing at the betting window all bets will be closed the moment that the information that the race has started reaches the window, not the moment the information reaches the window minus the distance divided by the speed of light (which would require knowledge of future events). The fact that that information reached someone standing closer to the track is irrelevant, because he can't act on it and place a bet before the window closes.
So in summary my understanding is that just because everyone sees the sun blow up at a different time doesn't mean that it isn't blowing up in the present for everyone.
Yeah I know, nothing to do with the article, but I'd prefer that congress draft legislation to ban the use of the word embolden. I also nominate incentivize and impactful.
Feel free to mod me down.
Oh and to you it's a living language people, I know, but these bastardizations can in no way improve our ability to communicate.
You state, "there are some logical arguments for the existence of God as well, which I'm sure you're aware of; the ontological argument... (snip) I would still argue that his conclusions are wrong, because there are gaping holes in most of those arguments..."
Your argument has the exact same gaping holes that you dismissed of the theists ontological argument - because all you are espousing is an atheists ontological argument.
Your ontological premise of, "One can only conceive what one could, hypothetically, perceive," is merely the opposite of Anselm's ontological premise of, "Now we believe that [the Lord] is something than which nothing greater can be imagined... But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is."
Basically you are saying that if you cannot conceive of god there is no god - Anselm says because we can conceive of God there is a God.
That basically gives big business free reign to steal any technology that could be valued at more than $5 million - which is damn near any patent that is worth holding (and a lot that aren't). Now, I know some people on/. call for the total elimination of the patent system, but this probably wouldn't be the best way to kill it.
<pedant>when talking about money M usually means thousand, and MM million.</pendant>
I actually have experienced how easy it is to fly without ID. Not on purpose, but as a result of poor planning. My girlfriend and I were planning a flight from BWI (Baltimore,) which is a bit over an hour from my apartment, to CLE (Cleveland.) When we arrived at the airport she realized that she didn't have her ID with her. At the time I knew about this case and said we should see if we can get on the plane, rather than driving back to pick up ID and miss the plane for sure.
Unsurprisingly, it didn't work out. Somewhat surprisingly the problem wasn't with TSA, it was with Continental. Basically since I purchased the tickets originally and we didn't have any checked luggage I checked in at one of the kiosks, and got both of our tickets. We went to security, and I asked a very nice TSA supervisor if my girlfriend could pass through security as a "selectee" without showing ID, he said she could, but that the airline would have to reissue the ticket for her to show up as a selectee (still not sure why that is though), the supervisor even walked us back to the Continental ticket counter and explained the situation. The lady working the counter was an idiot. Now, I know that people working with customers have shitty jobs and constantly have to deal with irate people, believe me when I say we were being as polite and reasonable as possible. The lady was an idiot. When she eventually understood what we needed done, and after the TSA guy explained about six times that it was possible she decided she needed a supervisor. A supervisor was unfortunately unavailable - for 45 minutes... By the time it looked like we might be getting things sorted out the flight had left (and on time to boot.)
It was important that my girlfriend get to CLE, so she ended up buying a last minute one way ticket from Southwest (I think) for some exorbitant amount of money. She told them up front she didn't have ID on her and there were no problems what so ever, aside to having to submit to the reasonable pat-down search. Getting Continental to leave the return leg of her itinerary open was also an experience, I had to convince the same idiot woman at continental that whether or not my girlfriend has ID in three days and half way across the country wasn't really her problem, and that I had already paid for the return trip, and that it must be possible to fly after all without ID since she was through security while we were talking.
Anyhow, when she did end up returning (on continental) the people and the CLE ticket counter knew what to do, and once again she got on a plane only having to submit to the pat-down search.
I wrote Continental and (eventually) got a call back from someone in corporate relations or something, and talked the woman into issuing me a $200 credit. It didn't cover my costs, but in the end it was partially our fault for not being prepared, and for arriving a bit too close to departure time for comfort.
There is a fair amount of difference in the professional opinion of a corporate shill who is paid to spout the company line, and someone who has spent the majority of their life studying something.
Which is of course true, but what is an interested party to do when the data from both sides comes from someone more knowledgeable and with an agenda?
Well, first I believe that it is impossible for anyone to understand the nature or motives of God. For example, it really irks me when I listen zealots, especially young earth creationists and their ilk, talk about how the world had to be formed in such and such a way otherwise teaching x and y wouldn't make sense to them. The reason that it bothers me so is that they are projecting their shortcomings, e.g. ignorance, bullheadedness, incredulity, etc. onto god. And what is more they are telling me that their impotent version of god, who had to have created the world according to their understanding is the only god. To these professions I can only respond that my God is better, because I don't force him to live in my god box.
I think what most world religions do when they define their god as the one true god, is analogous to what the young earth creationist does, only slightly more sane, protected in apologetics, and usually without quite as much vitriol.
If God it truly beyond human understanding (which he'd have to be if he is to be creator of the universe, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient) why is it impossible that he'd present himself in different ways to different people? Even Christian tradition tends to acknowledge this (whether it admits it to itself or not.) God's personality undergoes some dramatic swings, most notably between the old and new testaments, but also within each testament. Can your really tell me that there are more similarities between Yahweh and God the Father, than there are between Yahweh and Allah?
That God's mood changes in spite of his eternal nature can be somewhat explained away through the classic hand-waving argument that the Bible is revelation expressed through the veil of human experience, but in my mind no matter how thick that veil is there is a substantial disconnect between Yahweh instructing the Israelites to kill "everything that breathes" (deut 20:16) in the promised land, and Jesus' instruction to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (luke 6:31)
Due to the remarkable differences between Yahweh and God the Father, and the relative similarity between Yahweh and Allah, wouldn't it be more logically consistent if Mohammad were God's final profit? Or maybe they're both right - and the apparent incompatibility only exists in the human mind. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but in so far any religion teaches love and personal improvement through selflessness, they are the same; in the sense that any religion teaches hate, intolerance, and violence, it is a perversion.
It is my assertion that the God wants us to be happy, and wants us to live in harmony. I believe that the primary purpose of spirituality is not to pay homage, but rather to connect us with our fellow man. Religion is the great equalizer. Before God we are all the same. It doesn't matter how much money we have, what we do for a living, or which family we were born into. Most teachings of most major religions stress values such as unity, hospitality, charity, and love. I don't think that the overlap is a coincidence. The more we work together, the happier we are - I believe that that is God's plan for us while we inhabit this world.
I don't think there is any difference between a Hindu practicing any of their yogas , which are supposed to unite them with all life, and a Christian practicing their virtues, with the goal of loving all of God's creation. After all, it is a relatively rare theology that posits that we worship God for his sake.
I think the problem lies in all they mythos we've evolved to help us understand the un-understandable. The fact of the matter is that there is no literal guy in the clouds with a gray beard, no literal St. Peter at the pearly gates, in fact I think that religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism do a bet
I guess I don't subscribe to the theory that when someone "smarter" than me has already said something about a subject, that makes what I think totally invalid, or at least less valid. I also don't subscribe to the theory that what people believed in the past is what's true right now.
Jees, simmer down there, I wasn't trying to insult you. What I'm trying to say is that there has been a lot written on the subject, and while that certainly doesn't invalidate what you think, you should at least consider why other people came up with their ideas. The wholesale dismissal of anything you disagree with, combined with very little justification of your own deterrence only theory does however lead me to question its validity.
In my opinion punishment is pragmatic solution, and the theories surrounding it are derived a posteriori. While you blasted my crime of passion example, you took no time to consider my proposition that theories of punishment are ultimately rationalizations. I maintain that since punishment is ultimately a human exercise, human motives must be considered. And since revenge, punishment, and fear are very real human experiences there is no reason to assume that somehow the criminal justice system cleanses these motives from the actual imposition of sentence.
Back to my crime of passion example. Consider it a thought experiment. If you could know with certainty that someone committed a crime, wholly without regard to consequences, and further that his punishment or lack thereof would never effect another persons decision to commit any crime, should that person be punished?
I would say yes, because punishment serves more functions than just deterrence.
I think we're more on the same page than I initially assumed - but I am a tad confused as to how you reconcile
Jesus said, "... No one comes to the Father but by me." Kind of closes the door on universalism - at least from Jesus' perspective.
and
I firmly believe that any person who earnestly desires relationship with God is able to have that relationship with Him.
I tend to agree that people can and do respond to the image of God in their conscious, or in nature, or in other people, and I have no problem calling that universalism.
I disagree that the noble savage discussion is irrelevant - while undoubtedly no one who is reading this has failed to hear of Jesus it still goes to the heart of our understanding of what it means to be saved. I choose to believe that in this world what is really important is that we be good to each other. I don't think it is a coincident that that meshes really well with Jesus' teachings. I also believe that if people are being good to each other how they worship, or that they worship is irrelevant. Plus it makes it easier for me to love my non-christian brothers. For me Christianity helps me be a better person, but I don't think that Ghandi will be left out for not going through Jesus.
You missed the point, jail, as it exists today, is very ineffective at rehabbing anyone. If we want to rehab people we shouldn't send them to jail. Jail does other things, like punishes criminal, stops criminals from hurting society at large, makes said criminal not want to go back once he gets out, makes non-criminals not want to become criminals, and so on.
It also doesn't matter if every option sucks, even if jail is completely ineffectual, it is still a better than the other option, which is to not punish criminals. I'm thoroughly unsurprised that we are talking about jail being a sucky solution.
I don't know where you get that idea, but many thinkers smarter than you or I have thought about punishment for centuries. For a very superficial review read this if you are interested. The fact of the matter is that we put people in jail because it makes us (society) feel better. All the various theories of punishment try to explain why it makes us feel better.
By the way, the word penitentiary is based on the idea that we sent criminals there so they could atone for their sins, hence the root, penance. So at least at some point in history someone in charge (of the Pennsylvania prison system to be precise) thought that we sent people there to pay for what they've done.
If you really think that the only worthwhile aspect of prison is deterrence, we should probably release anyone who commits a crime of passion. A crime of passion is essentially something that is done illegally without thought of consequences (which is why the death penalty as a deterrent argument is bunk.) Since consequences play no roll in such an act there can be no justice. Just to make sure though we could crank up all the prison sentences of those judged to be guilty of a premeditated crime (maybe we should bring back the stocks?) - that way people won't test the system to see if they can get away with something.
There are many reasons for sending anyone to jail, some are better than others. The OP essentially assumed that the primary reason for incarceration was incapacitation - removing them from society to protect us. I responded that the punitive aspect of punishment is much more important in this case, and that there is essentially no need to incapacitate non-violent criminals.
Clearly deterrence is another important aspect, which is why I added the "among other things" parenthetical.
You might be right that incapacitation is an important aspect of some white collar punishment - but I don't think it is in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be easier to spot a missile moving against a sea or sky background both by visual, radar (which is what phalanx uses), and IR techniques then a well camouflaged sniper hiding in the desert, jungle or apartment building?
I don't know for sure, but I'd think that one could spot a cruise missile with vapor trail with your bear eyes easier then you could a good sniper with very expensive optics. And radar sure as hell won't give you anything.
Because it's better then evolution?
You should blog that thought.
Wouldn't that be precisely The Trouble with Physics?
My (non-lawyer) understanding, which is probably incomplete and possibly flat out wrong (maybe someone more knowledgeable cares to chime in) is this:
First, if you live in a state where the age of consent is below 18, taking pictures of you minor girlfriend would probably land you into hot water. However, part of the Miller test when defining obscenity includes this phrase, "Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law." Which could mean that if what you're taking pictures of is legal then the pictures are legal. Of course it is a whole different game if you show or distribute the pictures to anyone else.
When it comes to charging children as adults I think the whole concept is just crazy, and wreaks of slippery slope to me. I think I'd be ok with DA's having the discretion to charge a 16-17 yr old as an adult, if they were required to provide expert testimony indicating that the person is psychologically an adult, but every time I hear about wanting to charge an 8 year old as an adult I cringe - they are supposed to be protected as minors for a reason!
In the US obscenity refers exclusively to sexual material, so you could publish any distasteful print material or music (with the possible exception of graphic descriptions of sexual child abuse), non-sexual images or video you want and it would not be illegal, and not be obscene.
Now, as to selling your house - in my opinion - you, as the seller, should not be allowed to discriminate based on anything. This country has had its share of race problems, and I'd prefer if something is up for sale then it should be sold to whomever is willing to pay for it, including young whippersnappers who want the easy living offered by a retirement community. After all why do you care who the next owner of your home is? On the flip side, If you are renting a room to someone, you can discriminate based on anything you feel like. if you have to live with the person, and you are the landlord, it is up to you to make the decision. This is also one of the things that cuts both ways, it might be profitable to set up a store that caters only to minor ethnic groups - do you want to be excluded from those establishments?
Interesting, but what is the bore diameter on a deep well like that? I don't know, but I'd imagine it would a bit harder pushing a quantity of solid waste down a bore hole, than pumping liquid out. Oh and that presupposes that there is a abscess to push the waste into. Unfortunately all I can get from the IEEE article is the abstract (and I have no idea what the penetrator is that the abstract mentions), but it seems to me - not an expert - that there are better ways of dealing with the waste.
For me, personally, it isn't the initial price that turns me off - although I do think it is a tad high, but it is the inevitable monthly service fees to make this thing useful that will stop me from buying one. I'm not about to have a $100+/month cell phone bill.
And thank God for that.
Do you know how much water is in the mud and how quickly anything that dissolves will migrate to the ocean? Do you know what plants or animals live in the mud? How are you going to dig a hole a couple of hundred meters deep under a couple of thousand meters of ocean?
Any plastic liner will be long gone before the container matrix degrades to such an extent that this will be a problem. So yes the issue is ground contamination, but no the don't put in plastic liners, because there is no point with all the effort they already go to to contain the stuff.
Oh, and currently there aren't any long term waste sites, they are sitting in the yard around the plant that creates the waste to begin with, or in pools at the same site.
Except for the small technical problem that sea water dissolves practically everything given enough time, and we want these things to be down there for a good long time.
Oh and the other technical problem that we don't know what kind of plants or animals might find the warm rocks at the bottom of the ocean good nesting sites and burrow holes into the containers, eat or otherwise absorb some radiation, do you really want to have to worry about the mercury and fissile material content of your tuna?
Alright, I don't think anyone has it quite right (and there is a very good chance I don't either), but while it is true that the photons you are seeing left the sun eight minutes ago, for all intents and purposes you are still seeing the present when you look at the sun. This is because even if the sun blew up "now" not only is there nothing we could do about it, but the fact that no information could reach us means that it doesn't happen until we can see it happen.
It is all about simultaneity and relative time. To steal (and badly mangle) a vaguely remembered example from my college physics text imagine a cosmic horse race. If you are standing at the betting window all bets will be closed the moment that the information that the race has started reaches the window, not the moment the information reaches the window minus the distance divided by the speed of light (which would require knowledge of future events). The fact that that information reached someone standing closer to the track is irrelevant, because he can't act on it and place a bet before the window closes.
So in summary my understanding is that just because everyone sees the sun blow up at a different time doesn't mean that it isn't blowing up in the present for everyone.
Yeah I know, nothing to do with the article, but I'd prefer that congress draft legislation to ban the use of the word embolden. I also nominate incentivize and impactful.
Feel free to mod me down.
Oh and to you it's a living language people, I know, but these bastardizations can in no way improve our ability to communicate.
You state, "there are some logical arguments for the existence of God as well, which I'm sure you're aware of; the ontological argument... (snip) I would still argue that his conclusions are wrong, because there are gaping holes in most of those arguments..."
Your argument has the exact same gaping holes that you dismissed of the theists ontological argument - because all you are espousing is an atheists ontological argument.
Your ontological premise of, "One can only conceive what one could, hypothetically, perceive," is merely the opposite of Anselm's ontological premise of, "Now we believe that [the Lord] is something than which nothing greater can be imagined... But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is."
Basically you are saying that if you cannot conceive of god there is no god - Anselm says because we can conceive of God there is a God.
It is a clever turning of the tables though.
That basically gives big business free reign to steal any technology that could be valued at more than $5 million - which is damn near any patent that is worth holding (and a lot that aren't). Now, I know some people on /. call for the total elimination of the patent system, but this probably wouldn't be the best way to kill it.
<pedant>when talking about money M usually means thousand, and MM million.</pendant>
I think they used some sort of distributed computing system on every windows machine.
I actually have experienced how easy it is to fly without ID. Not on purpose, but as a result of poor planning. My girlfriend and I were planning a flight from BWI (Baltimore,) which is a bit over an hour from my apartment, to CLE (Cleveland.) When we arrived at the airport she realized that she didn't have her ID with her. At the time I knew about this case and said we should see if we can get on the plane, rather than driving back to pick up ID and miss the plane for sure.
Unsurprisingly, it didn't work out. Somewhat surprisingly the problem wasn't with TSA, it was with Continental. Basically since I purchased the tickets originally and we didn't have any checked luggage I checked in at one of the kiosks, and got both of our tickets. We went to security, and I asked a very nice TSA supervisor if my girlfriend could pass through security as a "selectee" without showing ID, he said she could, but that the airline would have to reissue the ticket for her to show up as a selectee (still not sure why that is though), the supervisor even walked us back to the Continental ticket counter and explained the situation. The lady working the counter was an idiot. Now, I know that people working with customers have shitty jobs and constantly have to deal with irate people, believe me when I say we were being as polite and reasonable as possible. The lady was an idiot. When she eventually understood what we needed done, and after the TSA guy explained about six times that it was possible she decided she needed a supervisor. A supervisor was unfortunately unavailable - for 45 minutes... By the time it looked like we might be getting things sorted out the flight had left (and on time to boot.)
It was important that my girlfriend get to CLE, so she ended up buying a last minute one way ticket from Southwest (I think) for some exorbitant amount of money. She told them up front she didn't have ID on her and there were no problems what so ever, aside to having to submit to the reasonable pat-down search. Getting Continental to leave the return leg of her itinerary open was also an experience, I had to convince the same idiot woman at continental that whether or not my girlfriend has ID in three days and half way across the country wasn't really her problem, and that I had already paid for the return trip, and that it must be possible to fly after all without ID since she was through security while we were talking.
Anyhow, when she did end up returning (on continental) the people and the CLE ticket counter knew what to do, and once again she got on a plane only having to submit to the pat-down search.
I wrote Continental and (eventually) got a call back from someone in corporate relations or something, and talked the woman into issuing me a $200 credit. It didn't cover my costs, but in the end it was partially our fault for not being prepared, and for arriving a bit too close to departure time for comfort.
Which is of course true, but what is an interested party to do when the data from both sides comes from someone more knowledgeable and with an agenda?
Well, first I believe that it is impossible for anyone to understand the nature or motives of God. For example, it really irks me when I listen zealots, especially young earth creationists and their ilk, talk about how the world had to be formed in such and such a way otherwise teaching x and y wouldn't make sense to them. The reason that it bothers me so is that they are projecting their shortcomings, e.g. ignorance, bullheadedness, incredulity, etc. onto god. And what is more they are telling me that their impotent version of god, who had to have created the world according to their understanding is the only god. To these professions I can only respond that my God is better, because I don't force him to live in my god box.
I think what most world religions do when they define their god as the one true god, is analogous to what the young earth creationist does, only slightly more sane, protected in apologetics, and usually without quite as much vitriol.
If God it truly beyond human understanding (which he'd have to be if he is to be creator of the universe, eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient) why is it impossible that he'd present himself in different ways to different people? Even Christian tradition tends to acknowledge this (whether it admits it to itself or not.) God's personality undergoes some dramatic swings, most notably between the old and new testaments, but also within each testament. Can your really tell me that there are more similarities between Yahweh and God the Father, than there are between Yahweh and Allah?
That God's mood changes in spite of his eternal nature can be somewhat explained away through the classic hand-waving argument that the Bible is revelation expressed through the veil of human experience, but in my mind no matter how thick that veil is there is a substantial disconnect between Yahweh instructing the Israelites to kill "everything that breathes" (deut 20:16) in the promised land, and Jesus' instruction to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (luke 6:31)
Due to the remarkable differences between Yahweh and God the Father, and the relative similarity between Yahweh and Allah, wouldn't it be more logically consistent if Mohammad were God's final profit? Or maybe they're both right - and the apparent incompatibility only exists in the human mind. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but in so far any religion teaches love and personal improvement through selflessness, they are the same; in the sense that any religion teaches hate, intolerance, and violence, it is a perversion.
It is my assertion that the God wants us to be happy, and wants us to live in harmony. I believe that the primary purpose of spirituality is not to pay homage, but rather to connect us with our fellow man. Religion is the great equalizer. Before God we are all the same. It doesn't matter how much money we have, what we do for a living, or which family we were born into. Most teachings of most major religions stress values such as unity, hospitality, charity, and love. I don't think that the overlap is a coincidence. The more we work together, the happier we are - I believe that that is God's plan for us while we inhabit this world.
I don't think there is any difference between a Hindu practicing any of their yogas , which are supposed to unite them with all life, and a Christian practicing their virtues, with the goal of loving all of God's creation. After all, it is a relatively rare theology that posits that we worship God for his sake.
I think the problem lies in all they mythos we've evolved to help us understand the un-understandable. The fact of the matter is that there is no literal guy in the clouds with a gray beard, no literal St. Peter at the pearly gates, in fact I think that religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism do a bet
Jees, simmer down there, I wasn't trying to insult you. What I'm trying to say is that there has been a lot written on the subject, and while that certainly doesn't invalidate what you think, you should at least consider why other people came up with their ideas. The wholesale dismissal of anything you disagree with, combined with very little justification of your own deterrence only theory does however lead me to question its validity.
In my opinion punishment is pragmatic solution, and the theories surrounding it are derived a posteriori. While you blasted my crime of passion example, you took no time to consider my proposition that theories of punishment are ultimately rationalizations. I maintain that since punishment is ultimately a human exercise, human motives must be considered. And since revenge, punishment, and fear are very real human experiences there is no reason to assume that somehow the criminal justice system cleanses these motives from the actual imposition of sentence.
Back to my crime of passion example. Consider it a thought experiment. If you could know with certainty that someone committed a crime, wholly without regard to consequences, and further that his punishment or lack thereof would never effect another persons decision to commit any crime, should that person be punished?
I would say yes, because punishment serves more functions than just deterrence.
I tend to agree that people can and do respond to the image of God in their conscious, or in nature, or in other people, and I have no problem calling that universalism.
I disagree that the noble savage discussion is irrelevant - while undoubtedly no one who is reading this has failed to hear of Jesus it still goes to the heart of our understanding of what it means to be saved. I choose to believe that in this world what is really important is that we be good to each other. I don't think it is a coincident that that meshes really well with Jesus' teachings. I also believe that if people are being good to each other how they worship, or that they worship is irrelevant. Plus it makes it easier for me to love my non-christian brothers. For me Christianity helps me be a better person, but I don't think that Ghandi will be left out for not going through Jesus.
You missed the point, jail, as it exists today, is very ineffective at rehabbing anyone. If we want to rehab people we shouldn't send them to jail. Jail does other things, like punishes criminal, stops criminals from hurting society at large, makes said criminal not want to go back once he gets out, makes non-criminals not want to become criminals, and so on.
It also doesn't matter if every option sucks, even if jail is completely ineffectual, it is still a better than the other option, which is to not punish criminals. I'm thoroughly unsurprised that we are talking about jail being a sucky solution.
I don't know where you get that idea, but many thinkers smarter than you or I have thought about punishment for centuries. For a very superficial review read this if you are interested. The fact of the matter is that we put people in jail because it makes us (society) feel better. All the various theories of punishment try to explain why it makes us feel better.
By the way, the word penitentiary is based on the idea that we sent criminals there so they could atone for their sins, hence the root, penance. So at least at some point in history someone in charge (of the Pennsylvania prison system to be precise) thought that we sent people there to pay for what they've done.
If you really think that the only worthwhile aspect of prison is deterrence, we should probably release anyone who commits a crime of passion. A crime of passion is essentially something that is done illegally without thought of consequences (which is why the death penalty as a deterrent argument is bunk.) Since consequences play no roll in such an act there can be no justice. Just to make sure though we could crank up all the prison sentences of those judged to be guilty of a premeditated crime (maybe we should bring back the stocks?) - that way people won't test the system to see if they can get away with something.
There are many reasons for sending anyone to jail, some are better than others. The OP essentially assumed that the primary reason for incarceration was incapacitation - removing them from society to protect us. I responded that the punitive aspect of punishment is much more important in this case, and that there is essentially no need to incapacitate non-violent criminals.
Clearly deterrence is another important aspect, which is why I added the "among other things" parenthetical.
You might be right that incapacitation is an important aspect of some white collar punishment - but I don't think it is in this case.
Jails are for lots of things, rehab is perhaps the aspect they are least effective at.