I am not really a Rousseau fan so the concept of a noble savage untouched and pristine in a natural world does not really move me. I find myself more likely to believe man evolved as god evolved, as a suspicious jealous character that would reinforce tribal and group protective strategies to the detriment of peaceful universal view. As a result, there has been a strong tendency to create ways of dehumanizing members of the species who don't conform to the perceived norm. Superstition and fear are primal traits that we, as a race, have yet to conquer. What is the base fear of the religious? The fear is that outside influences will erode and corrupt. If we tolerate homosexuality are kids will all become homosexuals. If we tolerate western influences are women will all wear thong bikini's and have Tibetan religious symbols tattooed on their asses and dance to pop songs by Madame Goo. Maybe they are right. Maybe it is better to keep homosexuality punishable by death and keep the women in their places. Who am I to judge? However, if you look at the Iran-Iraq War. One million dead. Horrible deaths. That was Arabs killing Persians based on political disputes driven by who gets the oil fields and fueled by a fundamental difference in the lineage of the chosen one in the Islamic faith. The roots of that particular conflict going back to the days when Britain and France carved up the spoils of war and was sparked by the rise of Theocracy in Iran instead of an American backed autocracy. But who cares why it happened? The point is, if the people of the world can't evolve past their fundamental suspicious and jealous nature then there is little chance for a peaceful happy future. Whether people of faith like it or not, they have traditionally been a means for humans of questionable scruples to achieve their political and economic aims. So, in my opinion, it is up to the faithful to tear down their walls and become more tolerant of the other people in this world. This is a concept that extends beyond religion alone. There are tribal and racial and political and economic boundaries that must be bridged. I think I alluded to this earlier but the human race has come to the time when we can no longer wall ourselves off from a global community.

The funny thing to me, is that the basic teachings of Jesus and Buddha and in the Bhagavad Gita and the Old Testament (with an alternative interpretation) supports this notion. All of these sources pretty much teach to tear away the yokes of tradition and look at the World with a new vision. In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that he must look beyond the tribal or family unit (to the point of practicing war against them). Buddha rejects the comfortable life and all family ties to find the enlightened path. Jesus teaches to leave behind the family that rejects the way. It is all a matter of interpretation.

Forgive me, but I find that very sad somehow.

Complete agreement.

When the extremes of any social construct rise to the top, the center tends to evaporate. My references to Pope Paul VI are made because of the religious leaders of the last century, he understood this as well as anyone and worked his whole life to build the bridges. I am not a Catholic but I see in that greatness, love, charity and most of the good things that spriritual leaders teach through the centuries. Yet I also am aware of the conundrum that appeals to higher laws than man's have guided both Pope Paul and his like and the man who bombed the abortion clinic in Birmingham, the Klan and their like. Thus the saying, you shall know them by their acts.

we all see things differently, i think that man still has whatever nobility he had as a savage and he is still balancing it with a lot of pragmatic baggage (uh oh, pragmatic again)

No, you just didn't read the whole book. You picked a few words out to make a point. That is the fucking problem with people quoting any of these books. Like Agnes points out, they were all written by people.

Israel's claim on that land was always contingent on them treating the stranger as themselves, or the land would vomit them out.

The claim of the Zionist movement and a the whole foundation of the current Jewish State is based on those few words. God gave them that land and told Joshua to kill everybody and everything in it. God even get's pissed at Jericho because Joshua allows a concubine inhabitant of the native population survive after she helps the Hebrews. To punish, God slows the successes of the genocidal war on Canaan.

I agree people look for what they want in the text, few point out that God ranks up there with Stalin, Hitler and the like or that the Prince of Peace is a warrior God!

You do realize that that the dual ambiguous God that loves peace and smites evil is part of the whole evolution thing, right? If you don't have that smite your enemies clause, well, it is evolutionary suicide! (or so I have been told)

There is a time for every event under heaven.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/There- ... 24-72.html

Since you can find these words, "In the latter days you will clearly understand it," in Jeremiah 23 and 30:21-24 I take those words to heart. In Jer. 30:21-24 you can find that there is a leader who will be one of them. I'm quite sure that he is one of the Olive Branches in Revelations 11, who I hope today's establishment does not end up killing. (If the Olive Branches are killed it says they come back to life 3.5 days latter.) Jer..23:33-40, where it talks of each man's own words being the oracle, or there will be an everlasting reproach which will never be forgotten, sure sounds like the Liberty which founded America.

It really sucks that the Zionist (The same kind of people as those who killed their last king, and who, what I cal, THE-MEDIA-RIGHT-STORM), are still living in the days of Joshua.

Israel may very well end up surrounded by armies, as Luke 21:20 says when her desolation will be at hand. (to scare the living hell out of them.) I've seen her desolation in Gaza. And so has this man at the United Nations: http://www.facebook.com/notes/-the-peop ... 8986123857

the thing is (referencing the bible) it is being "sold" as THE WORD OF GOD...and there are things in there that make you wonder.
being the word of god gives it a lot of backing! a lot of weight!
the part i referenced back there (for example) about lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob (for whatever they might find desirable) (something like rape?) so as not to bother with his guests. i don't know of any reprimand in the bible to lot over that expressly, but even jesus said, "remember lot's wife" (as a sort of warning) who was turned into a pillar of salt (which i am pretty sure means that was the end of her) for "looking back". so i am wondering if i can find out more according to the bible about lot's wife...what can i make of this? and i am not quite sure where to look or what to look for exactly because i realize i don't remember knowing her name. i remember during some time pouring over these things quite a lot, but i don't remember much else about that, so all that i know about her is pretty much that. but where was the outrage in the bible over lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob i wondered?

Thomas Paine's words in the important book The Age of Reason . Paine wrote, "Is it because ye are sunk in the cruelty of superstition, or feel no interest in the honor of your Creator, that ye listen to the horrid tales of the Bible, or hear them with callous indifference?"

There were some Zionists without religious agenda and it would be unfair not to mention them. All accounts, they were of the "non-practicing" Jewish persuasion (I would say there were probably some who were just not orthodox). They were Zionists of necessity (dare I say, pragmatic). Many of them were openly opposed to imperialism and were actually quite left of center. They became "Zionists" in the 30's for obvious reasons and were willing to dedicate themselves to moving people from Europe to Palestine before all hell broke loose. They were disappointed with the events that transpired in Palestine in the late 40's. The Jewish terrorist groups and the formation of an isolated Jewish State. They argued a non federalist approach with segregation of Jews and Arabs in what is now Israel was untenable. Their philosophical descendants are still alive and well here in America if nowhere else.

That is the diversity of the world. One of these people, Hannah Arendt, was quite vocal about her opinions on the subject and has remained controversial to this day. She had an "interesting" relationship with Martin Heidegger in the 1920's (she even communicated with him openly after the destruction of National Socialism) and she didn't necessarily agree with the total condemnation of German Culture or its portrayal in the wake of the holocaust. I find her an interesting character who actually spoke up for sanity at a time when little sanity could be found (of course, that would be anytime). Existentialism, who can figure!

(warning...there is substantial anti-Hannah propaganda out there, mostly stemming from her coverage of the Eichmann trial, whom she never argued to be innocent only that the depiction of the historical events was probably accurate but maybe not truly objective.)

Pretty much sums it up!

Do you expect consistency among authorities when they have their own agendas?

The Supreme Court just ruled that California cannot prohibit the sales of violent video games to children based on failure to conclusively prove harm and that this is a freedom of speech issue where the Constitutional right to freedom of speech trumps weak evidence on the side of product safety. The same authorities (by position, not persons) has ruled that pornography can be banned by communities based on local assessments of the harm done with a "know it when you see it" argument. Is that consistent?

One doesn't have to throw out the Constitution to change the fact that interpretations have led to inconsistencies by the highest authorities on subjects.

I would expect people who are concerned about the rights of peoples would be more concerned with Syria at the moment. Not surprisingly but reassuringly, the harsher the government acts, the larger the protests become as long as this does not go on for so long that terrorist groups form. Arendt and others like her tried to point out that these tactics would backfire. I can't think of any cases where acts of terrorism produced a change of mind for the good. They seem to only harden positions at the extremes.

I figured it out.

"All them gods are just about the same" John Prine

Do priests really eat Quaker oats?