Societies are worse off "when they have God on their side." Morals and Ethics Suffer In A Religious Society.

holy@!$%#.  we really are that foolish. 

Holy @$@%#$ thanks for the link Raechel, its amazing how much scrolling one has to do to find us

The results of that survey are scarier than hell for me...

You can hold both theories and beliefs concurrently.  First, to understand the theory of evolution you must first read Darwin's writings not listen to the morons who try and extrapolate his theory to mean something it never meant.  He never claimed we descended from a single cell.  He claimed creatures evolve to adapt to their environment which is accepted fact in science.    He never said how life beagn as he couldn't prove it nor observe it. 

The belief in a Creator is based on faith. 

Science in all of it's knowledge and advancement can not determine how, when, where, why life was created, nor can it determine the origin of different species.  Even through studying genetics man has only scratched the surface of what genes we have in common and what that might mean.  The best analogy I have seen is one that says we know there's a door and we have found the handle, but we are still looking for the key and have no idea what's on the other side of the door.   

The theory of evolution didn't start with Darwin, and it didn't end with Darwin. If you only read Darwin's writing then you will not understand the theory of evolution. You will only understand a primitive version of evolution as it existed at that time.

Science does not accept anything after Darwin and what was prior to him was an inconsistent mass of beliefs, Darwin consolidated and refined the model to what is excepted science, anything else is by definition a religion and subject to the same skeptisim as Christianity.   

LIAMD, define for me a creator which doesn't violate Russell's Paradox, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, the Turing Halting Problem, or Wolpert's works on the limits of  inference machines and I will agree that it would be reasonable to concurrently hold a belief in a creator and the theory of evolution.

"Science does not accept anything after Darwin and what was prior to him was an inconsistent mass of beliefs, Darwin consolidated and refined the model to what is excepted science, anything else is by definition a religion and subject to the same skeptisim as Christianity."

There is not a single grain of accuracy in your statement.  Allow me to try and rewrite it for you.

Science has discovered huge amounts of information since Darwin and what existed prior to him was a mass of information in biology, as well as many other fields.  Darwin had nothing to do with any "model of what is accepted science." No reputable scientist has ever suggested that all science, other than Darwinian evolution, is, by definition a religion and subject to the same skepticism as Christianity.

LIAMD, not only do you lack even rudimentary understanding of Darwin, but you incorrectly make the following assumptions: 1) Darwinism is state of the art evolutionary theory; 2) evolution is the be all and end all of biological science; 3) science is limited to biology; and 4) the scientific method itself has nothing to do with any of this.

At least the US did better than Turkey.

4 votes for alec's comment...

Whoops, would only let me vote once...

Let me give a clue to those who need it. You can believe in evolution AND a Creator, and I would venture to say that therein lies the actuality plurality of the American people.

I'm sorry, but if you think the theory of evolution is the same today as what Darwin wrote about then you are misinformed. Evolution did exist as a theory before Darwin. He added a component to it (natural selection as a means of driving change). Since Darwin, though, many other ideas have come up that contradict things that he believed. The theory of evolution according to Darwin is simply not the same thing as the theory of evolution as currently accepted by scientists today.

LIAMD, define for me a creator which doesn't violate Russell's Paradox, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, the Turing Halting Problem, or Wolpert's works on the limits of  inference machines and I will agree that it would be reasonable to concurrently hold a belief in a creator and the theory of evolution.

GOD is beyond human understanding. Write that on the blackboard a hundred times.

If you take everyhting you know and multiply it by a zillion times what everyone else knows, you still cannot fathom WHY God exists. Or how.

It is so silly, it becomes pathetic, for people to keep demanding a 'scientific' proof of the existence of God.

Show me 'scientific' proof that people have compassion for others, and are not just acting or emoting for their own egotistic psychological benefit.

Show me scientific proof that you love your children.

The current age is suffering through a rush of aggressive atheism, put forth by people who want everyone to think like them, after they get done admiring them.

Science does not accept anything after Darwin

This may come as a shock, but modern evolutionary theory doesn't bear much resemblance to Darwin's original proposals. Some of Darwin's hypotheses have been overturned, while others have been overhauled. That's why there are very few "Darwinists" in the scientific community: Darwin was right in a very general way, but was wrong on most of the specifics.

Your sentence makes about as much sense as saying "Science does not accept anything after Newton." The physics we have today is better than Newton, just as our biology is better than Darwin.

GOD is beyond human understanding.

To respond in the same vein. It is so silly, it becomes pathetic, for people to think that this is a valid argument, that it carries any weight, or serves to foster any type of rational discussion on the topic. The current age is suffering from a rush of aggressive religion, that reacts with nastiness in the face of any perceived challenge. (See John, it's easy for both sides to make baseless assertions.)

But to respond in a manner that would take your assumption as an honest one, then why worship god? I guess that question doesn't really get at what we're discussing, but If we could never understand how or why or what it is, then all of the characteristics we assign to God would be arbitrary projections of what makes us mere-mortals comfortable. (i.e. saying that god is beyond our comprehension, but then insisting that he "hates queers" or it makes god happy to see christians happy etc...)  For the most part, it would make most "popular" conceptions of God self-contradictory. It just seems like an awfully hollow argument considering all the bluster coming from BigBabyJesus's cheering section about so many specific aspects of human life.

(i.e. saying that god is beyond our comprehension, but then insisting that he "hates queers" or it makes god happy to see christians happy etc...)

God is also beyond 'hating queers', I think it is safe to say. You're problem, like just about every atheist I come across, is that you equate the human interpretation of God's 'instructions' with GOD.

In one of Aldous Huxley's books he talks about the effect of psychedelic drugs on perception. He says that human beings have developed over the course of tens of thousands of years in a way that permits us to cross a street without being hit by a truck. Without the narrowing of focus and consciousness that makes sense of the sights and sounds and other physical impresssions of the traffic and the spatial distances involved, we would be overwhelmed by the pure level of information bombarding our brains we would become paralyzed trying to cross the street. Psychedelic drugs alter the way the brain processes sensory information and open the doors of perception.

Without 'religion' GOD would be too overwhelming a concept, just like the street traffic without the filter of focused consciouness.

Without 'religion' GOD would be too overwhelming a concept, just like the street traffic without the filter of focused consciouness.

Without Religion God cannot be capitalized upon. Where there is a profit to be made there is an entrepreneur.

Just as silly a statement.

It's a silly statement to a materialist. If you ever found yourself in a truly existential condition you'd be PRAYING for the order and purpose of it to be revealed to you.

Is love or compassion a physiological activity or a transcendent one?

John I know that regardless of the religion of your choices or the depth of your belief your relationship with God in whatever form that takes for you is a personal one. That or you are believing vicariously and have no beliefs at all.

Given the personal nature of the relationship it needs no filter. Nor should the believer want one.

I don't see belief in a Creator, and belief in evolution as being mutually exclusive.

I believe in god, I believe he put us here for a reason, the purpose of the church is to allow those who believe to help each other.  Those who understand faith know that you can not force your belief on to another, if you try to do that what they have is not faith.  Regardless of what is said most church's and most members do not hate and do not want to force people to change.  We hope others will because we think it will help then to find more happiness

"It's a silly statement to a materialist. If you ever found yourself in a truly existential condition you'd be PRAYING for the order and purpose of it to be revealed to you."

I consider myself to be an extremely spiritual person.  But I also view notions of order and, especially, purpose to be products of human vanity.  I can create a sense of order in terms of the world I live in so that my human brain can make sense of it, but still realize that that is a completely artificial construct.  As for "purpose," there isn't any, other than that humans create to facilitate their denial of chaos.

You're [sic] problem, like just about every atheist I come across, is that you equate the human interpretation of God's 'instructions' with GOD.

-your problem, like every other bible-thumper I come across is that you equate any "straying" from the evangelical path with atheism. I'm not an atheist, but I sure as hell prefer their company, because the atheists I know don't feel it's necessary to make broad assumptions about people who they know nothing about (wait, wait wait... did I just make a broad assumption about a group of people?). But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not using atheist in a pejorative sense, and that you were not jumping to some conclusion about me.

Without 'religion' GOD would be too overwhelming a concept, just like the street traffic without the filter of focused consciouness.

-That's an interesting attempt at an analogy.  (Is that why Ben Affleck's head explodes at the end of Dogma?) But again, it's a mere cop-out to try to get the last word, which seems fairly typical in this type of debate. But all it does is take us to another self-contradiction. You told me that I am only finding fault with "god's instructions" and that I am equating human understanding of god's instructions with god. But aren't you essentially doing the same thing when are saying that religion is the "necessary filter" and there is no other way to understand god.

Either way, what huxley had to say about perception has always been interesting, but it's just one route amongst many that the science of perceptual psychology has taken. Either way, Huxley most certainly wouldn't feel the need to compel others to accept his views on religion or perception:

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion...Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent enough."

Just a side note re 2.14, if youre interested in "scientific proof" regarding compassion, I would suggest starting by checking out some texts about primate behavioral ecology, and then moving on to altruism in humans. I don't help out others because of my religion. I do it because I'm a primate-american.

GOD is beyond human understanding.

Aghiahgaafsdagahja is beyond human understanding. So is any other term I feel like vomiting up, as long as I don't define it.  But any attribute which you ascribe to Aghiahgaafsdagahja or God is understandable provided that it is defined, and using those attributes I can decide whether the existence of such a thing is self contradictory. Do you want to argue that square circles and linear spheres exist?

I'm sure some of you intellectuals will jump all over me for this, but God calls himself our heavenly Father.

My five year old knows I love her, and she loves me in return.  She doesn't know everything there is to know about me.  Some things she is too young to know, and some she just never will be able to comprehend.  If I tell her she can't have ice cream for breakfast, she doesn't understand why.  I explain, and she still doesn't really understand.  But, because she loves me, and knows that I love her, she takes it on faith that I want what is best for her.  This is all a result of our relationship, but I had to love her first.

The current age is suffering through a rush of aggressive atheism, put forth by people who want everyone to think like them, after they get done admiring them.

I've noticed that on both sides. Everyone is wanting to be validated instead of just having a personal conviction of their beliefs. It is happening with Christians wanting to filter their beliefs into government, knowing that there are a majority of people on the earth who do not believe in Christ. (Obviously, those Christians are not reading their Bible or they would know that). I see it with homosexuals who desperately want people to accept their lifestyle. People may not accept their lifestyle and have every right not to. It may have nothing to do with what the Bible says, it may just be that they don't see a square peg fitting into a round hole as "normal". Anyway, if we all minded our own business and let the government stick to issues like protecting America from terrorism and protecting the economy, we'd be a lot better off.

If I tell her she can't have ice cream for breakfast, she doesn't understand why.

avg mom... nice to run into you again love :-)...I liked your analogy, If I liked kids I might have even found it....cute. But the simplest response would be that (hypothetically of course) one day your daughter might have a five year old begging for another scoop which she shouldn't have, and your daughter will tell your granddaughter that she can't. Most likely, at that moment your daughter would understand exactly why you told her she couldn't have it....but the granddaughter might have a hard time understanding why.

Cmarshing: 

Everyone is wanting to be validated

-True.

People may not accept their lifestyle and have every right not to.

-Also true, with the exception of one word. I would go with "tolerate" instead of "accept."  I would imagine most of the gay community could care less as to what you or I think of their bedroom activities, but I would also imagine most of the gay community would get riled up if you or I engaged in some behavior aimed at stigmatizing their lifestyle or taking away their rights.

There is a difference between being asked to tolerate something and being force fed it down your throat. Having homosexuality on television is being asked to be tolerable. If you don't want to watch it, change the channel. Being taught that homosexuality is normal in school, being forced to not speak on homosexuality as a sin at church, etc. is it being force fed down your throat. There is a difference. Both of the latter things have occured.

Re: Evolution Question,

1. Which came 1st the chicken or the egg???? ( a question my previous boss use to ask in job interviews, but can not given the religious implication )

Now.....

2. Which came 1st Americans losing faith in evolution or the politicians (especially the Republican Primary candidates)???????

The real question is what influences the answer??????????????????????

"Being taught that homosexuality is normal in school, being forced to not speak on homosexuality as a sin at church, etc. is it being force fed down your throat. There is a difference. Both of the latter things have occured."

I never heard of homosexuality being taught as "normal" at a school.  I suspect that your complaint is either that it is being mentioned at all, or, if mentioned, it is not taught to be a deviation.

As for the government dictating what a church can or cannot advocate, that's silly.  I challenge you to give me a single instance in which the government dictated to a church what it could or could not speak about homosexuality as a sin.

alec,

homosexuality is normal.

God made them that way.

Deal with it.

Dragon Woman, I don't think alec is against homosexuality.

Alec, anything that is taught in public school that is contrary to what one group believes or does not believe to be right should simply not be taught. Period. If one group has a problem with it, it should not be taught. That goes for anything under the sun. It is not fair to validate and accomodate every other thing under the sun except a person's belief system. Facts and facts only should be taught in school, and only facts that can be proven with 100% accuracy. Everything else should be taught at home. That takes a hell of a lot of guess work out of educating young people.

Also, there was a country in Europe where a pastor was thrown in jail for refusing to marry a gay couple. If you give me a second, I'll find out where and get back to you.

and your daughter will tell your granddaughter that she can't. Most likely, at that moment your daughter would understand exactly why you told her she couldn't have it....but the granddaughter might have a hard time understanding why.

Lonokemp:  good to "see" you too!  You're right on about this!  Let me tell you, as a mom I've had a lot of moments where I said "oh now I understand what mom was doing!"  But it took a long time and (if I hadn't been the rebel I was) faith.

alec - I do wish they would not address issues like homo- or hetero sexuality at school, I don't want them to condemn or condone it.  I want that to be left up to the parents.  Unfortunately, this is not the case.  The schools aggressively teach that all teen sexuality and sexual activity is a normal and healthy part of adolescence.  The few that also offer abstinence programs, ridicule those programs, censor their content, and ultimately undermine their effectiveness by saying in effect "you're a freak if you don't have sex in high school"  This is reinforced by every teen movie they see.

"Alec, anything that is taught in public school that is contrary to what one group believes or does not believe to be right should simply not be taught. Period. If one group has a problem with it, it should not be taught. That goes for anything under the sun. It is not fair to validate and accomodate every other thing under the sun except a person's belief system. Facts and facts only should be taught in school, and only facts that can be proven with 100% accuracy. Everything else should be taught at home."

That's ridiculous.  Since all of science is, by definition, subject to falsification, are you actually suggesting that no science be taught at all?  Likewise, do you really mean that any aspect of history that is offensive to any group must be excised from the public curriculum?

I strongly oppose giving each and every religious sect the power to veto any and all public school content.  It is specifically for that reason that these sects can and, in fact, have created private systems designed to inculcate children with their belief systems.

As for the European pastor, my comment was addressed to the American educational system.  If you can find me an example of governmental interference in any rite or ritual conducted within a church regarding homosexuality, I'd surely like to know about it.  Remember, almost every European nation has an established state church.

alec- I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but telling young children to go out and explore their sexuality is not a "fact".  Facts are "you are horny teenagers, sex feels good.  If you do it, you could get STD's, pregnant, your heart broken.  Here's some ways to protect yourselves, and here's how often they actually work for the average teen. You gotta make the decision for yourselves, but if you have moral issues, go talk to your folks"  Would that really be so hard? 

As for the European pastor, my comment was addressed to the American educational system.  If you can find me an example of governmental interference in any rite or ritual conducted within a church regarding homosexuality, I'd surely like to know about it.  Remember, almost every European nation has an established state church.

Study anything that has been going on in Massachusetts right now, and you'll see what I mean. All you have to do is look it up. It is not hard to find.

I agree that catering to religious groups is silly. The post I made was "tongue in cheek." However, I do think it is unfair to teach something in school that specifically goes against what one group believes to be true, yet is taught in school as "fact." The big bang theory is an example of that. I was taught in public school that this was fact. I believe from my faith that it is not. That is what I meant.

"I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but telling young children to go out and explore their sexuality is not a 'fact'."

I am not advocating the promotion of sexuality among "young children," although I do advocate age appropriate, fact based sex education.  I am not aware of  any public school telling "young children" to "go out and explore their sexuality."  Perhaps you can be more specific.

"Study anything that has been going on in Massachusetts right now, and you'll see what I mean. All you have to do is look it up. It is not hard to find."

Perhaps you can provide me with some concrete examples, since you have made this dubious and unsupported assertion.

GOD is beyond human understanding.

Aghiahgaafsdagahja is beyond human understanding. So is any other term I feel like vomiting up, as long as I don't define it.  But any attribute which you ascribe to Aghiahgaafsdagahja or God is understandable provided that it is defined, and using those attributes I can decide whether the existence of such a thing is self contradictory. Do you want to argue that square circles and linear spheres exist?

You seem to be resisting the concept of 'beyond human understanding'.

young children = under 18 = legally still a child.

I have 16, 18, 18 at home and 19 at school.  None of them are mature enough yet for a sexual relationship or to handle the possible consequences.  All of them have goals and dreams for their life that don't include "putting another person's needs first" right now.  They choose this for themselves, despite all the pressure otherwise.

They are a scary bunch that want to bring about the 'end of days' and are busy praying for armageddon.

Frankly, I would argue that the high rates of sex, pregnancy and STDs in adolescents is probably due to the fact that many of the devoutly religious (at least the ones I've known) don't say anything to their kids about sex except "don't do it until you're married."  This non-education of our youths on sex is becoming disastrous.  Most teenagers probably don't even realize they can get some STDs through oral sex.

Is it easy to talk to your kids about sex?  Heck no, but isn't it better than to let them go down the path of getting their education from other kids who are as clueless as they are?

lets see hhmm. B-Russia/Georgia, Russia/Chechnya  that one cool for now,  about 6 in Africa,  Myanmar/rebels, Nepal/rebels,  Indonesia/rebels , Sri Lanka/Tamils,                 A-  U.S.A/AlQueda-Afghanistan,  U.S.A-Iraq/Iraq-quasi Iran-other interested parties.   might be others out there cant  recall at the moment

Actually,

I feel that when I pray I'm talking to myself, therefore I must be god.

Isn't too far off imho

The bible tells us that our bodies are temples and that god is everywhere.  And we all know that feeling when we turn off our brains and just do, how much we get accomplished in those times.

Each of us are god and if we could accept that responsibility and act for the betterment of our creation then imagine how great the world would be.

I read a book long ago called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn that had a similar point to the one you make here.  You should check it out.  Fast, easy read and makes you think.

Thanks I will

I return the favor with another book:

Jesus and Buddha as brothers

Oh Killfile that made me laugh this morning.

If you're bored and in the mood for a good movie rent the "Ruling Class" it has some of the funniest one liners about the existence of god and British royalty.

"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris

I see this every day, nearly every time I drive any where, the people who are the most rude aggressive drivers have religious stickers on the rear of their cars, Or some gaudy printed or airbrushed shirt that is screaming religious zeal. They are the worst people I have ever met. I am an atheist and I know I treat people better than Zealots do. It is so much easier to build more lies on top of lies that is why it is so easy for these people to hate you because they can claim that God gives them the right to do whatever they please. Just look at Sarah Palin, she is the poster child of brazen political zealotry right along side of Michelle Bachman who called the video and transcript of her diatribe on HardBall a "urban legend" This is the problem with this world Religion and those weak minded enough to believe such supersticion. The negatives of religion are too numerous to mention and I have things to do, Bye.

Excellent comments here - that is why when someone shows up and says - "God said", or "This is God's will", all my red lights and buzzers go off.  No one human is more dangerous than at this point.

When ever i see some one use the word "God" in politics. I like to replace that word with Zeus. It has the same validity ..... but oh so much more amusing.

A while back I was falsely accused of putting a Darwin Fish sticker over the word God on some over zealous woman's bumper art that erroneously claimed "one nation under God" This covers the whole rear bumper of her mommy van, I do print these Bumper stickers and I give them out to who ever wants them. Well I just happen to give 3 of them to some young guys and went into the store, I saw this zealot in the store and she shot me a mean look. Well I left the store and went home, 45 min. later a cop showed up at my door and claimed that he had videotaped evidence that I was guilty of vandalizing her van. I asked to see the evidence and he him-hawed around ,wouldn't tell me what camera from what store had this alleged video. So I called the stores while he waited on my porch which pissed him off because I was checking out HIS story. He said that he had other calls to make and that if I would just admit to him that I did it then she wouldn't press charges. There was NO video evidence and a witness told the cop that two young men with short hair did it, he still pressed me to admit to it and "man up", to which I replied that he should man up first and admit to me that he lied about the video evidence and the witnesses statement that was given to him. He threatened to arrest me and I told him Please do officer! I want this to be brought to the public! He left all pissed off and told me to watch myself, what I'm getting at is that this zealous woman and the officer go to the same Evangelical church, the same one that has a stranglehold on FairField County. This kind of harassment and persecution goes on all over this nation and it must be stopped!

Each of us are god and if we could accept that responsibility and act for the betterment of our creation then imagine how great the world would be.

You're not God, but you can be holy.

Why are we not god? god is everywhere which means god is within us. And more to the point god is us.

Let me put forth my theory.

So God created the heavens and the earth and they were lovely.

Then God made they planets and the stars and they were lovely

Then God made the plants and animals, and both were tasty.

Then God made the angels and they were usefull, but rather dull.  Yes-men are rather dull don't you think?

So then God made us in his/her own image.  But made us infantile but with free will. (Actually I'm not convinced we are his only flock)

So God sits backs and waits for us to grow up and realize our potential, so that eventually God has somebody worth having a conversation with.

Now that is patience!!! (and love)

god is everywhere which means god is within us.

Another book that addresses this concept somewhat is "The Third Jesus" by Deepak Chopra.

3sheets:  You had better get that cat a litter box. However, I still don't think you can manage to be "God" even if you clean that litter box every day or two.

@Blearc

If god created all that ...then...WHO created God?

When Religious people can prove their claims they will begin to make sense. But until then, they are just delusional minds, incompetent to deal with the reality of life.

There ought to be a law that forbids to impose religion on newborns under the age of 25.

Eli-502143:  I am biting my tongue very hard.  I am not required to prove my belief to you or any one else.  I have done very well in life considering I have a delusional mind, and am incompetent to deal with the reality of life.  No one has ever imposed my belief on me, and for certain I have NEVER tried to impose my belief on any one else in the world. 

I tend to agree with your statement that not living up to their religious ideals could be the reason for the high suicide rate.

I think religion can be good, in moderation.  Most of Christianity is built upon guilt.  It's built upon fear of punishment (which most parenting books currently say is NOT the best motivator).  If you look at Buddhism and some other religions that emphasize becoming a better person rather than feeling guilt when you fail, I think you'll probably find less dysfunction.

If everyone left the battle, we'd just turn over the nation  to them. James Dobson for Prez? Into the oceans!!! At that point death would be the coward's way out.

WinslowD:  I know your theory fits your beliefs, but you might want to check the stats on how many of those suicides were connected to military personnel and their family members.  Sadly, there is a much higher suicide rate for our military folks.

It is true that there are many military personnel in Colorado Springs but this is true of other cities as well.  Some people have attributed the suicides to the old mines that are underneath the city, the theory being that the mines have created some kind of a negative energy or interfered with normal magnetic energies that result in depression.  I don't know the causes of this suicde rate but at any rate with all of the "religion" in the city it is clear that people aren't finding comfort and support in the "christian" element there.

 it is clear that people aren't finding comfort and support in the "christian" element there.

And that, ultimately, is the tragedy.  A Christian should be reaching out to offer hope ad comfort to the suffering.  We should be seeking out the hurting people around us to offer physical and spiritual help and encouragement.  We can't be responsible for the result, but we can always reach out in love.

average mom:  You are wasting your time and energy on this discussion.  Most of the people in this "discussion" if you want to call it that - are not interested in what you or I think at all.  All they are doing is "arguing", name calling and judging.  We have no business here at all.  If not for the "average moms" in this world - it would be a bleak place for sure.  I am almost glad my own mom is not alive to see what our world has become.  Mom would dissolve in tears of sorrow that so many do not believe those of us who do believe in God, and have spirituality in our life, have any brains at all.  We are "delusional" and incompetent to deal with the "reality of life".  I don't know about you, but my two sons have served this country in the military, as men and women have done forever - partly to allow these people the freedom to "speak their minds".  I am retired professor of psychology, and will take common sense any day over my extensive education.  I am able to think for myself, and seem to be rational for the most part.  However, I have learned on this venue that I am just short of severely retarded.  My, my - I have lived all these years believing I was somewhat "normal".  I do not have any prejudice in my soul, and am not guilty of any "isims".  I have defended the rights of gay people to be "married", and have always defended any minority group regardless of whether I agreed or understood them or not.  It is not my job on this earth to judge others.  I have always wanted the word EQUAL to be valid in respect to all human beings.  "Religion" scares me - spirituality inspires me. I wish you comfort, and the pleasure of seeing your children turn into kind and compassionate adults.

kitty -thank you for your kind words.  I, too, believe we are all created (born) equal.  Thank you for the sacrifice of your sons' service.  I know that it's often as hard for the family members.  I lost a close family member a few years ago in Iraq to an IED, and struggled to not blame "religion" for the acts of some of it's people.  I was angry, bordering on hate at times.  If this was really only "fundamentalists" then why didn't they do something about it?

I spent a summer in the middle east, serving the Muslim women and children. and realizing how easy it was to love them.  The more I understood the culture, the belief system, and their true hearts, the more I found to respect and admire about them.

All hateful people I've met are very hurting people

I guess it's never a waste of time ;0)

average mom????  No, I don't think so - to give of yourself and your time to the Muslim women and children is NOT average.  I do not have the health any more to do some thing like this, but IF I were able, I would consider it a huge privilege to help any group of people in need.  People that are mean spirited are just that - nothing you or I can say or do will change that fact.  My sons gladly served this country, and they have no regrets.  They would do it again and both of them totally believe in Equality for ALL - irrespective of their belief or lack thereof.  My "hat" is certainly off to you and yours - THANK YOU.  kitty

You're sweet, thanks.  Me - totally average.  My God - totally extraordinary.  Any good I can do is because of Him.

Intolerance? Look in the mirror. The times doesn't mention the whole study of course. Just because one looks into a lake and falls in love with their reflection doesn't mean societies woes are going to disappear. Humans will never be without religion one will love God, gods, himself or government and all are a faith and belief. Humans are just going to go back to kindergarten and learn respect.

By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC

updated 12:22 p.m. ET, Thurs., Dec. 15, 2005

Paul was quickly skewered for mixing up correlation and causation. Just because the United States has the highest rate of religious faith and the highest crime rate doesn’t mean religion causes crime.

In fact, Paul’s paper — published in The Journal of Religion and Society by Creighton University, a Jesuit college in Omaha, Neb. — explicitly states that it “is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health.” But that disclaimer was ignored in the Times report.

In all the confusion over what Paul said or didn’t say, his real contention is often missed. He explained that his research wasn’t really about the United States; it was about the other well-off Western democracies where religious belief is comparatively low. He wanted to examine the idea that a “secularized” society would do worse than a faithful society, which he called “a common theme of many religious people — not all of them, but many.”

“What my study shows is that’s simply not true,” Paul said in an interview.

“In Western society, there are many, many secularized nations that are performing quite well socially. So that’s the main conclusion,” he said. “What I’ve done is I’ve falsified what I call the creationist social hypothesis, and I’ve done that forever. You can never make the claim again that it’s impossible to have a society that’s non-religious that does well.”

So basically your saying that the researcher didn't want to beat up on religion with his findings.

The problem is that his data is what it is.  And combined with other data, rational people have come to the conclusion that organized religion screws up society.  Not religion or spirituality its self but church that has too much power over a specific society.

Blearc Well, organized social anything seems to screw up society simply because the organization has to believe in freedoms if the don't they go about converting everyone. From atheism to communism its all organized belief systems. So, that is all I was pointing out I think the study has no answer really just leads to more questions about other social groups would be intresting to extend that research to all aspects of social groupings.

There are a multitude of reason that the United States is askew in relationship to other highly developed countries.  I personally think that organized religion plays a large part in that, but I don't think this article can be used to support that stance.

However, this article can be used to support the position that more religion is certainly not the answer.  A good read for the people that won't read it.

I have a magical rock in my yard that keeps tigers away from my house. It works great.

There is some correlation, though. The religious block tends to support ineffective policies, and effectively castrates the effective policies and uses the results of the meddling to justify denouncing those policies.

A good read for the people that won't read it.

LOL--too true!

Societies are worse off "when they have God on their side."

This is how the title starts.

God has nothing to do with religion.

Man created religion

The problems that religion cause aren't limited to our great nation.

No, indeed, they are not; however, in my view it is rather naive to discount or ignore other factors that exist in our environment and insist that religion stands as the root cause of our problems.

Your right there are other factors.  But Palin, Dobson, Fallwell, 700 club, etc, etc have brought to the forefront the problem of religion in the United States being a (not the) source of alot of the racism and hypocrasy that we face. 

We heard from Palin, Hannity, who's that lady who used to talk about familial problems but now is in our face about politics, Dobson that Dems are evil will bring about the end of the world and make your children sleep in tents with gays, Obama is a terrorist and liberalism equals evil.  Now you may claim that these are not your spokespeople, but I ask you who are.  Its gotta suck, just as it must suck for muslims that bin Laden is view to be the spokes person for Islam.

I've said it in other threads, the christians need to take their religion back from these nutjobs.  The perception of christianity isn't that far from extreme muslims.  Their just not using rocket launchers....... yet.

I agree with all your points, but if you add religious dogma to all of those human frailty's that you mention then it's like pulling the graphite control rods out of a nuclear reactor! Guess what happens.

 Andromeda,

 And the U.S. is also one of the greediest, materialistic and selfish nations on the planet; religion aside.  Perhaps our penchant and proclivity for greed, avarice, intolerance, acquirement and narcissism outweigh religious influences; perhaps we should be looking up another tree and not use religion as a scapegoat for our ruin.

  I agree with most of what you said. Our nation does have many spoiled and selfish citizens that are greedy and hateful at times. I feel that we have so much freedom to do as we please which leaves room for more crime. Crimes happen regardless of religion though there are people who use religion as a crutch to commit their crimes. I think it is the people that are what's wrong with the world, not religion.

I agree religion is not the origin of our issues.

It is only an entity, like money. It is how it is utilized that matters.

MsLabMgr:  What exactly would you like for us "christians" to do????  You could move to a Scandinavian country, or of course, I am sure you would rather "christians" move. How moral and ethical you are.  Now what is it you "manage"????  Just a thought - when "christians" rise to the filthy level of our wonderful government and the politicians in Washington - THEN maybe we should move.  Why is anger misdirected? As a Christian, more accurately stated, a spiritual human being, I have not done any thing to any one to try to force my belief or any thing else I see as right on any one.  You people are classifying all of us in the same category. 

 I have ALWAYS wanted churches TAXED if we are to have true separation of church and state.  A person who does not share my belief, should likewise not have to pay for it either.  I am not welcome in the local church in this small town BECAUSE of my belief, and my thoughts on Taxing churches.  I do NOT have to attend any church and do not need their support for my belief.  I am, contrary to some opinions, not delusional.  I can read my Bible for myself, and am capable of doing my own thinking.  IF churches were taxed most would dissolve as they have, like our government, become Big Business. 

Your television would be almost devoid of the dog and pony shows that are supposed to represent the Christian way of life - without MONEY they would disappear almost entirely.  Personally, I don't care what the church thinks of me, nor any of the people here - I am not accountable to any one other than God, and I will stand alone on that day to be Judged.  I was not put on this earth to have other people think for me, and I do not tolerate it either.  You are certainly correct this is NOT the United States of Christians - I thank God for that.  I don't need that label, nor any other label placed upon me by those that do not KNOW me as an individual,and accept me as I am. To lump every one that is a believer in God into one category, just simply is not right.

I agree that the pandering done for Christian votes is shameful, but the alternative is unimaginable.  The last thing that this country needs is another president that really thinks God chose them. 

Religion + politics = crusades, holy wars, death and distruction. 

Don't let the two meet!  And as far as I'm concerned it's already too close in this country.

In case you weren't aware, Britain was very religious during the crusades. You're hurting your case. Now that they're not as religious they're less violent. Coincidence?

The British Empire is one of the most brutal and vicious empires ever, just ask Ghandi.   I would argue that the reason their empire is as violent today isn't the decline of religion but rather it is due to an economic decline.  America reigns supreme.

In regards to Britian and the Crusades, I don't think you read my post.  I was trying to point out that just because someone says their Christian doesn't mean they are.

I believe the real culprit in the degradation of society is ignorance and history provides enough examples to show that one doesn't necessarily need religion to be violent.  Fanaticism of any sort is a dangerous thing

"The British Empire" was brutal and vicious. I don't think it was the most brutal and vicious. Nor do I think America today is any better than the British Empire at the time of Ghandi. Look at our actions in Iraq and our attempt to intimidate Iran as evidence of that. We are a brutal empire right now. That's not "Supreme" by any measure other than perhaps at war.

In regards to Britian and the Crusades, I don't think you read my post.  I was trying to point out that just because someone says their Christian doesn't mean they are.

And just because you say they're not doesn't mean they're not. You don't get to invent a definition in order to prove your argument. You're using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

I believe the real culprit in the degradation of society is ignorance and history provides enough examples to show that one doesn't necessarily need religion to be violent.  Fanaticism of any sort is a dangerous thing

I agree with all of that. I would add, though, that religion often promotes ignorance, and fundamentalist Christianity in America is a great example of that.

No one sems to ever mention that one of the driving forces of the crusades was to stop the muslims from killing or converting at swordpoint middle eastern christians.

No one sems to ever mention that one of the driving forces of the crusades was to stop the muslims from killing or converting at swordpoint middle eastern christians.

True, but then dog gone it - the christians decided to be just as bad, and took on those same practices of forcing others by sword point.  It's was choose our god or die on both sides... both just as bad. 

Just as in today's example - all radical religions are dangerous, usually go against the finer things of what the actual religion teaches, both christian and Muslim or other, and ends up being destructive for which ever nation in the long run.

Thats true, JoMan, the Inquisition was pretty nasty for one. Then there was the elimination of the Cathars and the Templars, followed later by inter-christian battles. Its been a long road  to get where we are now and hopefully we can keep improving as we move forward.

institutionalized religion, thats when societies are worse off... the sole purpose for these is control, take the Catholic church for example and how rich the pope is.

The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes from within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness, with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka(God), and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us. This is the real peace, and the others are but reflections of this. The second peace is that which is made between two individuals, and the third is that which is made between two nations. But above all you should understand that there can never be peace between nations until there is first known that true peace which is within the souls of men.  -- Black Elk

Great posts Wes, although I kinda disagree with you on England being most brutal... I mean right now there are over 1 million Iraqi deaths because of our war for 'peace and freedom'

fyi I seeded another article that you may find very interesting

Thomas Jefferson was a wise man, as were many of our founding fathers.  Hence the First Amendment and lack of references to God in our Constitution.  The founding fathers did not want religion to influence politics.  But currently, the right wingers are pushing for that more and more.

Jefferson was a Liberal true, but Hamilton was also a founder, and he opposed the "Bill of Rights" was latter discredited and even shot in a dual for slandering Burr, So for all pratical purposes, he invented swiftboating and could be named the founder of the Far-Right in America.. The dichotomy goes on as always....

 I would theorize that the problem is not in a belief but in the diversity of beliefs.

No, it's just that all superstition's are a  carry over from our ignorant past, when we would huddle around a camp fire and make up stories about the scary noises to help the children sleep. It's time to put these superstition in there proper place and move on. The "My god can beat up your god" mentality, and the dogmatic belief that Morals and everything that is good come from god and all things evil are from a another being outside of our control without the protection of this god fallacy that exists in any religion must be discarded first.

Agree...yes, yes I agree

No one religion is imperviously sheltered from damnation except of course when it is your religion.

The Sun rises... worship her well, for that is my guiding light.

Religions are like farts, mine smells ok but yours stinks!

Josheph - haha  Good one, I have to remember that.

OK here is my token, but pertinent,  Jefferson quote that everyone loves me for...wait for it..

wait for it....

"I sincerely... believe... in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities. --- The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

Of course as with all traits that are inherent, there will variation along a curve, Manson, Jim Jones-Mother Terasa,  Mahatma Gandhi, and everyone in-between.

To answer brutality with brutality is to admit one's moral and intellectual bankruptcy. Mahatma Gandhi

One more..

"The compulsions of the law [religious dogma and civic law] seem to have been provided for those only who require compulsions." --Thomas Jefferson to Albemarle County Commissioners, 1780.

I reject your claim that Islamic nations have less crime. I seriously doubt that's true. If anything Islamic nations have less prosecutions of crime, because many crimes are allowed due to low human rights standards. For instance, whereas in America a rape would be prosecuted as a rape, in many Islamic nations it would either go unreported (due to fear of the woman being prosecuted for infidelity/poor morals) or just not get a conviction. If you are looking to Islamic nations for higher moral standards then you are deluding yourself.

there also is harsher punishment for crimes, stonings beheadings in the public square. 

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, give him a religion and he will starve to death praying for a fish! or  Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasp in prayer!

I will give that Saudi does have much harsher punishments for many crimes and we just toss them in jail. I also expected the arguements given.

Rape can not even be considered as a comparrison even though we do have a great many people in jail for such. But isn't that part of the basic difference? Like a religious person in the US, Saudi women do not run around 1/2 naked like commomn whores asking to be raped. The lack of religion allows for more rape in the US.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita here is a link that shows the number of rapes per 100,000. Surprisingly the US is not at the top of the list but after studied a minute I can see how the list came to be as it is.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, give him a religion and he will starve to death praying for a fish! or  Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasp in prayer!

You are trying so hard to be funny, I can appreciate your effort. Snicker snicker. That would be praying for a bit then fishing. Wheras you would just supply the fish, no effort required.

Dressinjg "1/2 naked like a common whore" does not cause rape. Rapes and sexual harassment do occur in muslim countries when the women are covered head to foot.

Women get raped in bikinis. Women get raped in jeans. Women get raped in long dresses. Women get raped in burquas. Women get raped in prom dresses.

You are not "asking for it" because you wore a skirt that was too short or a low cut blouse because clothign does not cause rape.

Rapists cause rape. And they are in every culture. They just get away with it more easily in some than others.

What Ragnell said. Rape is not caused by women dressing in skimpy outfits.

The interesting thing isn't so much that there is a correlation as much as the fact that the correlation is the opposite of the common claim. While this alone isn't strong evidence that religion causes violence, it is evidence suitable to reject the claim outright that religion reduces violence. If the latter claim were true then you would expect the exact opposite correlation. Thus the lattter claim is disproved.

That would only apply if everyone in this country was religious.

That would only apply if everyone in this country was religious.

Why is that?

Religion is not a set of laws that is enforceable on others.  There is no religious police force that goes out to keep crimes from occurring. The only way religion could reduce crime is if everyone adhered to the tenets it postulated. If everyone in a nation was religious and you still had high levels of crime, then you could say that its tenets were ineffective against crime.

That would only apply if everyone in this country was religious.

not really - we have policies and laws based on religion that are complete failures (like our approaches to sex, birth control, alcohol consumption, etc that are based on religion not sound science or experimental results). Plus, the "bible belt" has some of the highest divorce rates and other "vices" in the nation.

If everyone in a nation was religious and you still had high levels of crime, then you could say that its tenets were ineffective against crime.

90% of the people in this country profess to some level of religion. Are you suggesting that the majority of crimes are perpetrated by the other 10%?

Our laws are civil laws, they can and have been modified over time, according to civil/legislative procedures. There probably is a high % of Americans that had some level of  religious schooling when they were kids, but when they grow up it is up to them how they live their lives. A ctually most statistics on crime show that repeat offenders do commit most of the crimes. Cliffdogg though is referring to moral behavior  and that comes back to an individual is free to choose how he lives his life and the decisions he makes in life for good or bad.  If a person makes choices that go against the faith he was raised in or loses his faith altogether thats his personal choice.

As Adam pointed out, the interesting thing is that the correlation shown in the article is the opposite of what is often claimed. That this would only be relevant if everyone were religious is, in fact, wrong - especially when nearly everyone is religious (to some degree). That was my point with the 90%/10%.

So, If nearly everyone in a nation was religious and you still had high levels of crime, then you could say that its tenets were ineffective against crime.

I'm not saying that it's religion's (or the Church's) responsibility to control morality or enforce laws. Just that a highly religious society is no more moral than a highly secular one.

A ctually most statistics on crime show that repeat offenders do commit most of the crimes.

So you would assume that those "repeat offenders" are all from the 10% of the population that is not religious rather than the 90 that is?

no  , not saying that crime is commited at many levels even by some who think they are high and mighty and religious

Kevin -where does your 90/10% assertion come from?  source?  are you then just referrng to people who do not claim to be atheists?

The percentage of non-religious people in prison is actually lower than the percentage of non-religious people as a whole in America. If you want to argue that the crime is caused by the non-religious then you are, again, mistaken.

Because an individual fails does not invalidate the message.

Its not the message thats the problem, its the organized aspect.  The message is different for every person that reads a passage.

I dont know , Paul , how many are there ?

Because an individual fails does not invalidate the message.

That's very true.  However, in order to validate the message, those bearing it should really be trying to live the message.  I think many just say they believe but rarely think about it much less act on it outside of church.

I think we'd all be better off if churchgoers would spend more time practicing and less time preaching.

:  Sir/Madam - you are wasting your time on this "discussion".  "Religion" has gotten a very bad rap due to the attitudes of a few, and they are better known as hypocrites.  That word, hypocrites, covers a huge multitude of "sins".  I learned a LONG time ago not to "argue" "religion" with any one.  I do not claim "religion", but I do have a good hold on "spirituality".  Maybe you will agree - there IS a difference.  This country needs total separation of church and state - TAX churches and see how many continue to "function".  Far too many have become nothing more than big business.  Non-believers should NOT have to pay for my "belief".  I never discuss my belief with any one unless I am asked a specific question, and then only from those I know personally, and that is very seldom.  "Christians" have brought a lot of this trouble upon ourselves, I should say myself.  If we would live in the manner God instructs - this whole world would be different.  The blame for a lot of "christian" bashing lies directly upon our own backs.  We have, as a group, "Judged" others too many times.  I will not post another time here - this will be my last.  I just hated to see you keep on charging windmills as it were - salvation is a gift, and should NOT be forced upon any one.

Spirituality, religion? Just beliefs and not facts? Hard to argue in court God made me do it, the devil made me do it, dude produce him? A poor concept?

It seems every brain is wired differently, some to lead, some to follow, and some to wonder about the others. Why does a person lead? You can look at it for a variety of reason, power, glory, greed and possibly some feel they actually have plan that is beneficial?

Why do people follow? Possibly for the same reasons? Then there are the Jonestown type deals, how do you get involved in that? The poligomy(sp) deals? Just seems very weird to me.

I actually attended church as a child, forced to by mom. It made no sense, and today I am still baffled. You don`t need to believe that way to be a good person.

Thats right Paul, its up to each of us to live our lives as best we can with or without religion. For me I,m happy with what I,ve learned in my search. I also learned respect for others and the world we inhabit through that search. Someone who says God made me do it is fooling himself or lying.

Its not the message thats the problem, its the organized aspect.  The message is different for every person that reads a passage.

That's what I think about our modern day church, and where I think Christians have gone wrong. Our modern day church has become a clique of elite people who throw stones at everyone who doesn't live the law of Moses. However, those elite at the top fail to see that they themselves are totally incapable of living that life as well. Thus, they are hypocrites, and ruin the view of Christianity, which is supposed to be the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

Jarrod - You have an interesting thought here. 

When I was in church there was a huge ideal of the "them/us? concept.  We were, smart, good, wise and right.  They were lost, confused, wrong and dense.  This even went on in the attitudes between the different christian churches. 

To give another, well, weak example - this parallels the support that goes on between the teams in sports.  To me it goes beyond just fun and recreation - it breeds violence and separatism.  It dehumanises the other group, and makes actions or thoughts against them much more tolerable - this is how the religious groups seem to be.  Scary thought.

Excellent point, Jarrod.

Us vs. them mentality never brings people together, and in many churches, there is this feeling of us vs. them.

Living in harmony with one another is a good thing to strive for.  If you look at Christ's message, you can find that message there, but the institution of the church often emphasizes conversion rather than living in harmony.  Personally, I'd find myself more attracted to a religion where the people are nice to me and to each other and to strangers but never try to force their beliefs on me and never condemn me for having different beliefs. 

I tend to agree with you.  Your reference to avoiding focusing on ourselves reminds me of a quote my teacher had in her classroom in high school:  "When looking for fault, use a mirror, not a microscope."

Thanks purple

While they try to sound scientific they fail miserably. Anyone schooled in debate with no knowledge of science can easily poke huge holes in this study. 

That is an utterly falacious "thought experiment."  Nobody, least of all evolutionary theorist believe the universe came to being as discrete pieces that just fell together randomly.

Then How? Give me your best guess.

Then How? Give me your best guess.

They can't.

The reason why you get stuck on this problem is because you are looking at very limited closed systems. Do you know how long it takes for a watch to build itself from the dynamics of the Universe? Approximately 13.7 billion years. This is because it is easier for the universe to form a connected biological construct which builds a disconnected mechanical construct than it is for a disconnected mechanical construct to form on its own. Belief in god requires the fallacious belief that something can come from nothing. So if you threw everything into a paper bag and shook it up, how long before a construct which knows everything, can do everything, and is everything forms?

The reason why you get stuck on this problem is because you are looking at very limited closed systems.

So throw in some other stuff, and see if you ever get a watch, or the early "stages" of a watch.  You won't.  You need a watch maker.

Do you know how long it takes for a watch to build itself from the dynamics of the Universe? Approximately 13.7 billion years.

So shake the bag for a really, really long time.  You still won't have a watch.  That's Joe's point.

Belief in god requires the fallacious belief that something can come from nothing.

So where did this "something" come from?  Something else?  So then, where did that "something else" come from?

S C Smitty

I couldn't say it any better. It seems to me that to believe everything started from nothing takes more faith than believing in God' I'll take the latter. If you just think about your body and how everything is fashioned to work together it is just like that fine watch I mentioned. There had to be a Maker and that Maker was God.

Or you need components which follow rules (let's call them "laws of physics") which would naturally push them together in certain ways.

Please supply the components. We could go on forever you know. For your every answer I would have a question. In the end we would go 360 degress to where it came down to where you place yor faith.

SC Smitty and Joe, complexity is emergent in even very simple systems. If your bag is the size of an observable universe things like watches and computers and societies build themselves. You're assuming that there is something special about the processes which drive life and consciousness, something nonphysical perhaps. But all systems change through the application of rules, and all rules come from other rules.

Ah! but who supplied the first rules. Where there is an end there has to be a beginning. As I said for every answer I could have a question.

There are no first rules. Show me an end and I'll believe there was a beginning. For every answer you could have a question, I agree, but you can't have an answer for every question.

Ah! but I do. The end is you so where is the beginning?

Nice try but, an end implies termination or a lack of continuity.

Not necesarily. The end is the final product of transition and development from a beginning, therefore if man is the end product where is the beginning?

In what way have you demonstrated the finality of man? In what way is man the final product, in which ways is man incapable of improving.? By your logic it would seem that every moment is it's own end. No effects are uncaused, and no effects do not cause other effects.

You are like Barack Obama a lot of eloquent words to avoid answering a simple question which you have no answer. I'll give you one last question that was on one of my final high school exam in 1968 and was the only question on the exam. "Why". I will wait for you answer and then sign off. Remember you only have one chance to get it right. Hint, a lot of eloqent words or phrases would not get you by this teacher.

I'll answer your question with a question, the answer for which provides the answer for your question. What is the probability that a randomly chosen program will halt?

Since I bet you like the bible, I'll give you a clue. Finish this phrase: "I am the Alpha and the..." If you can calculate the numerical value for that you'll have your answer.

Sorry to be so late. Guess what? You just failed the final. I warned you about eloquent word answers. The answer is very simple. "Why Not". Not to be out done, If an unstoppable object hits an immovable object What happens?

What color is the sky? The sky is not purple.... If you think that is an acceptable answer, I'm elated to fail whatever final you give.

I was trying to introduce you to the concept of uncalculable numbers, oh well, guess you aren't ready.

I agree and would like to add that Britain had had one religion and a very homogenous people for hundreds of years, unlike America.  Even now, with the large Muslim population, to help "keep the peace" they have capitualted to stop teaching the holocaust in schools.  Are we really willing to go there?

Oh God, I hope not.

average mom-  maybe England should stop teaching about the bombing of London and other cities, that  probably wasnt as bad as it was made out to be either