This is deep!

---

people like Bush and Thurmond should be proof positive that Christ died in vien! Of course, if there was a second comming, fuckers like that would have a hand full of nails ready.

Any leaders ideas of beliefs aside, the sentiments of this chain mail were great. It has nothing even to do with religion. we humans spend so much damn time hating, arguing, posturing, etc. We get our shorts in a bunch over silly shit. it is foolish and rediculous. Someone once said that this country was not founded on religion, and the legal system was not influenced by the Ten Commandmants. SO? Even if the ten Commandmants had nothing to do with our penal code, what, I have to ask, would happen if we all embraced those commandments, and carried them out daily? There would be no need for police, judges, laws, the government, etc.I cannot see any harm with religion. Religion is not a negative thing, only as it is expressed by some folks. Even our founding fathers recognized the need for religion , but they said, as does the Constitution, that "religion", not naming a particular one, is beneifcial. The constitution and the bill of Rights only mentions that religion and the practice thereof may not be hindered (paraphrased. I have several copies of these documents, as well as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, so I really don't need any corrections)

In reply to:what, I have to ask, would happen if we all embraced those commandments, and carried them out daily? There would be no need for police, judges, laws, the government, etc.Are you talking about the Protestant, Catholic, Heberew, or some other version?"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."There's a problem right off the bat."Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."This goes on about graven images (goodbye, artists and photographers) and what a jelous being God is."Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day."Goodbye, Sundays at the mall, movies, etc."Honor thy Father and thy Mother."Even if they physically, psychologically and sexually abouse me? I don't see any exceptions.So far, nothing here that will empty the prisons."Thou shalt not kill."That's a good one. Easy to type, hard to get people to follow it. Does that mean we would stop sending soldiers into battle?"Thou shalt not commit adultery."It seems like the religious folks are doing it as much as the non-religious folks. There aren't many people in jail for adultery anyway."Thou shalt not steal."That's a good one, but there are no exceptions. Is it morally wrong to shoplift a piece of bread if your family is about to starve to death, and you have no alternative?"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."Why only against your neighbor?"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife / goods."There's this ambiguity over whether one's wife is one's property. Am I allowed to fantasize about her?In reply to:I cannot see any harm with religion. Religion is not a negative thing, only as it is expressed by some folks.The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" idea.In reply to:Even our founding fathers recognized the need for religion , but they said, as does the Constitution, that "religion", not naming a particular one, is beneifcial.That was surely not universally true. Some founding fathers were hostile to religion, and Thomas Jefferson came up with the idea of a "wall of separation" between church and state.In reply to:The constitution and the bill of Rights only mentions that religion and the practice thereof may not be hindered (paraphrased. I have several copies of these documents, as well as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, so I really don't need any corrections)However many copies of whatever documents you have, the first amendment says: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." You forgot about the first part of the sentence. What does "establishment" mean to you?

Uh oh...It seems that I wrote in haste, not fully expressing myself.I don't mean the Ten Commandments specifically, but it might be better to say that we could make greater efforts to adhere to the best parts of all of the religions that are positively geared ostensibly for the betterment of mankind (ignoring the whole concept that at least the Catholic church is all about control). Having studied breifly most of the major religions, I found many similarities in the laws and ideas that governed human behaviour towards each other and our neighbors (incidentally, the concept "neighbor" meant those around you. If you walked down a street you had never been down before, then those living on that street would be your neighbor also). It is those similar concepts that I was refering to. Maybe a generic, universal code of conduct. We have that at present, but it is enforced by fear and punishment, not by respect. Both Christ and Buddha preached respect...love under another name. It is all the same. I have hung with criminals, so I can say without a doubt there will always be a criminal element. Nothing will change that. BUT, if the general population has a greater sense of respect, then life will be more enjoyable, less confining. We have laws passed by our wunnerful politicians to control us since we as a species have shown an inabilty to control ourselves. True, there are many who have a social conciousness, from whatever source, and these types need not laws, since they know that shoplifiting is injurious to others as it will cause price rise that will be inflicted on the rest of society, (and it violates the most important of humans bonds...trust. By the way, there are many organizations and groups secular and religious, that are created just to help hungry folks. When I lived in a homeless shelter in West Va, there were 8 places around town that one could get a free meal. Many store owners and cashiers have good hearts, and would be willing to give a person food in exchange for some token task, or even just because) so these socially aware folks don't shoplift. As the impact of religion and the controls implicit in religion decreases in society, there is a corresponding increase of laws to cover this deficit. We are controlled, either by a set of rules delivered to us by a religious system, or by laws generated by the various governing bodies that dot our country (my son chafed under rules that I imposed, and that the school imposed. I told him that if he wanted to escape these rules, then go and live in the woods. But even there, I informed him, there are rules. We cannot escape them, we cannot escape some sort of control. Only can the mind be unfetterd, and only if there is sufficient ability ).Thomas jefferson had responded to a group of Danbury Conn ministers who were afraid that Congress might try the same thing that the British Crown had done during those days. They asked Jefferson for clarification. Mr. Jefferson merely told these men that there will be no abuse of religious privelage as there was under the Anglican Church, that the government will not interfere with the practice of any religion. THAT is the intent of that oft quoted letter. Granted, Jefferson was agnostic, I believe, but he had positive things to say about the place of religion in society, as did the majority of the founding fathers.I am not a gun nut, although I have been in the military, as have many of my ancestors. I have fired guns for sport. If I lay a loaded gun on a table, and no one touches that gun, no one will ever get hurt from that gun. Only when that gun is acted on and aninmated by a human will there be potential harm. Same with a knife. In Britain, some doctors are trying to have meat carving knives banned, or at least blunted, since there has been a sharp ( no pun intended) increase in stabbing deaths. No guns, so the next best thing...a knife. It is not the impliment or tool that is used, it is that the human mind has a desire to kill another for a slight, a perceived slight, or over a issue that can be resolved via other means. I knew of two brothers up here who kicked their next door neighbor to death. No guns, no knives. Then there was the guy who crossed over from Canada to the states carrying a bloody chain saw that he used to kill, I think, three people. No guns, no knives. It is the mind, not the tool. How can we address the mind? It surely is not the tools fault! ( I have many, many very sharp woodworking tools, so that I can make large piles of sawdust for no advantage. These tools have never killed anyone. They do what I want them to do. If the tool doesn't perform as I wish, it is not the tools fault at all. But mine) Granted, this last guy was a little loony, but many, many others are simply deficient in respect, problem solving, conflict resolution. In part, It could be said, because of lack of proper instruction.Damn I had to think, and MAN did that hurt!!

I take your second-to-last paragraph as a defense of the right to bear arms.One issue with a gun versus a knife or a chainsaw is that they're not easily concealable, and are not operational at a long range. The murder rate in Britain from all causes is quite a bit lower than it is in the U.S. It's also much lower in Canada, where gun ownership is common. The only explanation that I can draw is that the U.S. is a very violent society. The U.S. may be the most religious (developed) country west of the Middle East, but it's also the most violent.To reiterate, compare the U.S. (very churchy) and most of Western Europe (very non-observant). The U.S. is a far more violent place.

SteveA, SteveA, SteveA...I realize that you had mentioned the gun thingy as an anolgy. I also thought you would sieze on that passage and run with it. And so here we are.The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written in part as a knee jerk reaction to the tryanny of the British throne. In those days, there was no standing army, or at least one of note, and a lions share of the fighting men came from the obstinant militia. Today, there is a standing army, and citizen soldiers are not neccessary. However, in a similar debate, a poster on another forum included a quote from Hitler. He was uptight about the idea of allowing firearms in subjegated countries. No wonder, since an armed population is a challenge to a dictator. I will say that today there is no need for a militia, and then no need for citizens to own guns, but owning a gun is not to be equated with a taker of human life or a criminal. Many shoot them for sport or hunting, to put food on the table, so they are in that last valuable. It is when a gun or any other weapon is placed in the hands of those lacking in the proper means of problem solving. I have no qualms about homeowners having guns. I do have issues with criminals having them, and restricting gun ownership will not impact criminal activity. There are OTHER surveys regarding Canada that show that deaths resulting from rifle and shotgun use has declined, but not so for handguns (criminals tend to use handguns, while the honest gun owners are more about rifles. As you pointed out, they get better range, and so can take down the deer or other meat bearing animal destined for a eating table). I guess it is all about the set of stats that are used. These that I quote come from the justice arm of that country. Knifes are NOT hard to conceal. I have carried many. Even modified a jacket to have a fixed bladed knife in my left breast pocket. I also know a biker who had a razor in his shoe, with a string that ran up his leg to his pants pocket. Pens, pencils, forks, screwdrivers, etc are also not hard to conceal, but require a little more balls to use, since they must be deployed in close proximity.When you iterated your nebulous link between churchy-ness and violence, I had suspected that was what you were trying to intimate, but as you had edited your post, you confirmed my suspicions, and I am suprized. I would be more inclined to link violence with television and the rest of the media, as a recent study conducted by psychologists have done. Some researchers have determined that violent television and video games tend to increase aggressiveness in children ( duh!). I would say that this is more the likley culprit. I would be interested to see any correslations between violence in the media among the various countries, population taken into account, and the overall rate of violence. I also think there might be cultural diferences between theose in America and those in Western Europe, although many here in this country have come from the "Old Countries"Religion, specifically Christianity, has been under attack inthe public sector sicne the fifties. Ours is more and more a secular society. If there is an uptick in violence, and there has been, among the young, the women especially, I would say that this could be because of the DEARTH of religion is todays society.

Nice of you to be so patronizing.I'm not sure where "declining" gun violence in Canada comes into play. Tell me, what is the rate of handgun violence in Canada versus the U.S.?> nebulous link between churchy-ness and violenceThe Crusades were nebulous? The terrorism inspired by fundamentalist Islam is nebulous? The Protestant/Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland is nebulous? And how about the Branch Davidians? People feel a tribal need to gather in groups, and they become more concerned with the interests of their own groups than others. Organized religion provides yet another way for people to divide themselves from one another.> I would be more inclined to link violence with television and the rest of the media, as a recent study conducted by psychologists have done.One study does not a proof make. The evidence of the link between religion and violence has manifested itself for millennia.

I was not suggesting that there was a nebulous connection between religion and violence. I was suggesting that with the following statment.."The only explanation that I can draw is that the U.S. is a very violent society. The U.S. may be the most religious (developed) country west of the Middle East, but it's also the most violent."...you were attempting to establish this connection, but hadn't quite gone that far yet. As I read your post, I was suspicious that doing so was yor intent. Then after you edited and included this sentence, "...To reiterate, compare the U.S. (very churchy) and most of Western Europe (very non-observant). The U.S. is a far more violent place. " I was satisfied that you were, in fact, attempting to conect violence and religion. The only thing I lacked then was the scope; were you only going after religion in America, religion as in Christianity, or religion the entire history of organized religion.I did not mean to be patronizing by outlining a very brief sketch of guns and the early Ameican experience. I was merely trying to save time by illustrating that I am aware of the history, and that the history does not meet with conditions as they exist today. If that is not what you mean by my being patronizing, then I am in the dark.Sure, I can see the seeming correlation. But, religion is an emotive issue, and yes, religion is yet another hub around which folks can align themselves. But you said it yourelf. There is a tribal insticnt, and if it weren't religion, it would be something else; eye color, hair color, place of birth, economic standing of parents at birth. It seems that religion is being blamed for man acting out as he tends to anyhow (both the fundemental Islamists and the IRA use explosives as much as they use guns). Yes, handgun violence is higher in the states than in Canada, but tighter gun control has not affected handgun deaths as much as they have efected deaths by guns typically used for hunting exclusively. In other words, those who use guns for hunting, the generally honest type, is impacted more than the criminal, who uses handguns. In fact, the study I saw showed that handgun deaths were not effected at all. And this was a study published by that countries government.I don't need a study to know that the media and the violence it portrays daily, constantly, has a negative effect on kids (Now I have to spend energy and time to hunt up further studies. I am sure there are more). But in the final anaylisis, religion and spirituality is such a strong part of human beings, and even Jung said that if there was no God, amn would need to invent one. So with religion being so much a part of life, can it not be that it merely seems that religion is a culprit, but is maybe an afterthought? If our reliance on religion is so strong that religous diferences alone can cause war, is not this something that can be harnessed and turned for good? We would like to harness the raw power of a thunderstorm, and make use of its awesome power this should be also true of religion. This may not read well. I am tired and my eyes are gritty.

I was satisfied that you were, in fact, attempting to conect violence and religion.I didn't think my thesis was so obscure. Yes, that's what I was implying.> The only thing I lacked then was the scopeOrganized religion in general, throughout history.I assume that you found those questiones answered by my last post, though.> I did not mean to be patronizing by outlining a very brief sketch of guns..."SteveA, SteveA, SteveA..." is patronizing.> But, religion is an emotive issue, and yes, religion is yet another hub around which folks can align themselves. But you said it yourelf. There is a tribal insticnt, and if it weren't religion, it would be something elseReligion is just another invention of mankind, as I said, to separate people from one another, as is race.> Yes, handgun violence is higher in the states than in Canada,I'm glad we got that settled.> but tighter gun control has not affected handgun deaths as much as they have efected deaths by guns typically used for hunting exclusively. In other words, those who use guns for hunting, the generally honest type, is impacted more than the criminal, who uses handguns. In fact, the study I saw showed that handgun deaths were not effected at all. And this was a study published by that countries government.I don't dispute that.> I don't need a study to know that the media and the violence it portrays daily, constantly, has a negative effect on kids (Now I have to spend energy and time to hunt up further studies. I am sure there are more).You don't need a study? My gut instinct is that that is true, but gut instict is often wrong. That's one of the ideas of scientific observation and experimentation: to eliminate human bias (often caused by emotional response) from test results, to the extent possible.> But in the final anaylisis, religion and spirituality is such a strong part of human beings, and even Jung said that if there was no God, amn would need to invent one.But man did invent a god. He invented lots of gods. Just as children invent imaginary friends. It served a purpose when men lived in small itinerant tribes. There's no need for such superstition now, but we are left with biological baggage that compels us to think in certain ways.Many people are living quite fine lives without organized religion, and without any religion at all.> So with religion being so much a part of life, can it not be that it merely seems that religion is a culprit, but is maybe an afterthought? If our reliance on religion is so strong that religous diferences alone can cause war, is not this something that can be harnessed and turned for good? We would like to harness the raw power of a thunderstorm, and make use of its awesome power this should be also true of religion.You mean like harnessing atomic bombs to produce electric power? Irrational belief is not a physical force. It is more a pathology. It's harnessed all the time by demogogues, with bad results. It seems to have been harnessed by a certain political party as well.Religion itself does not stem violence on a large scale (perhaps it helps certain individuals to stay on the straight and narrow). Western Europe is full of non-believers, and their societies are far less violent than the U.S.