A Bitter Pill

So, normally I try to avoid traps on religion and politics — especially on the interwebs. But, nontheless, I was bored and decided to get into it.

So, somebody on a messageboard posts a topic entitled “If you believe in god, you’re a moron.”

Fort: Recent pope raving:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/13/pope.brazil.ap/index.html

“Blame COMMIES! and CAPITALISTS! and CONTRACEPTIVES!

And pretty much anything else that requires thought…” - Pope Dickhead the XCVenth

Okay, fine, so he has something against the pope and organized religion. I can understand that.

So, I reply/bite:

Gospel:

APARECIDA, Brazil (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI blamed Marxism and unbridled capitalism for Latin America’s problems on Sunday, and urged bishops to mold a new generation of Roman Catholic leaders in politics to reverse the church’s declining influence in the region.

“The Marxist system, where it found its way into government, not only left a sad heritage of economic and ecological destruction, but also a painful destruction of the human spirit,” Benedict said as he opened a two-week bishops’ conference aimed at re-energizing the church’s influence in Latin America.

But he added that unfettered capitalism and globalization, blamed by many in the region for the deep divide between the rich and poor, gives “rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness

Not to say I agree with him, but you need to read a bit more carefully. Just because some things a person say is wrong, does not mean EVERYTHING he says isn’t insightful or untrue

Which leads to more unearthing of his hatred

Font: Actually, Gospel, let me make a few of the things I said a bit more clear, so you understand:

If you BELIEVE in GOD you are a MORON.

That about sums it up.

Everything the pope says is laden with fairytales of skipping unicorns and guys who SOMEHOW live forever.

But go ahead, and eat that shit up.

I’m not sorry if I hurt some feelings. If you’re religious, then, well, I’m pretty damn sorry for you. You can’t just be happy being part of the Nitrogen cycle.

Uh, let’s try more logic

Gospel: You’re missing my point. I’m not saying I agree with the Pope, nor did I say anything he said is true. But, there are a few religious progressives, including some sects of Catholacism (blacklabeled as “buffet chatholics”) that do not hold the pope’s infalability to be true.

Pope == False ==> God = False ????

Not only are you lumping every chatholic together, you are grouping all flavors of christianity together. I am not having “hurt feelings”. I’m simply pointing out some misunderstandings in your original post.

Let’s see if it works…

Fort: And a point of mine is also being missed:

I don’t take the time to differentiate between sects of catholicism, or christianity, because it’s not worth it.

There is no such thing as religious progressivism. That’s like saying there is a such thing as polished shit.

Nah.. he’s still upset with teh g0dz0r

Gospel: You’re clearly taking the approach of scientific mind. To that extent, would a scientific mind not differntiate between opinions, and to that extent at least hold the possability that what people say could be true and could be false. Furthermore, your opinion could be true or could be false.

Everybody has a belief structure, I don’t see the need to attack peoples’ as a whole unless it is clearly causing problems. Was chrsitanity a vehicle of enslavement and ignorance in the past (circa 12-1300’s+) sure. But, it does do a whole lot of good too in the world in its current mutation. There is nothing in this world that is 100% good or 100% bad, I’m sure Stalin did something good for his country at some point.

You need to differntiate, because there will always be conservatives, extremists, and fanatics in any belief. Dismissal without listening is equally as ignorant as the approach hardcore bible thumpers take; your form of logic is no better than theirs, imo.

Eastern religions are more like philosphy than anything else. Eastern cultures are neither innocent nor any cleaner in terms of Taoism, confucism, and general culture than the Western world (if not worse).

You can find flaws in anything, bible, scripts, whatever. You can find problems with the constitution, acts, laws, ~etc. It just seems Christianity has become the new “safe” whipping boy for people’s angst. Not sure why.

Buddhism and Hinduism did not stop India from being one of the most class-est, tiered societies in the world. Buddism didn’t stop people in Japan from invading their neighbors. Religion isn’t always the savior nor the cause of human strife. If you look at the kill count — yes, religion is very high, but you have to look at the deeper history. How many people were killed over territorial disputes disguised as a holy war (e.g. Vandals “crusade” against the holy roman empire). Or, the famous Crusades … when all they wanted was Israel.

Religion, yes, is a powerful scapegoat — but a blame-all is far from true. Look how many people die(d) under communist, atheist regimes. Look how many people die over trbial conflicts in the Congo in Africa. People will ALWAYS find a reason to kill each other.

Simply put, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Religion does a lot of ignorant things, but it does a lot of good things simply from a social structure standpoint.

Being a “moron” knows no creed, race, or country. It is individual.

TL;DR … maybe that’ll work

Fort: To answer Gospel’s question of why Christianity is the new whipping boy, one word: Evangelism.

Citing the eastern religions, allow me to clear something up, I’m speaking of my disdain for the belief in ‘God’, that being, the humanized version of some sort of super bearded old white guy depcited in the new testament.

So, the far eastern enlightenment chasers aren’t my target at all.

Evangels, Christians, Catholics - That’s who I’m militant against. I know evils are aspects of the individual; they exist in every creed, race, or religion, however: Difference between an atheist pedophile, and an evangel one: The atheist gets caught. Meanwhile the other is sheilded by his local ‘church’ group because he’s ’such a great guy.’ I’ve seen this happen personally in my life, and it boils my blood, and yes individual quams have influenced my anger towards an entire group.

Other problem with evangels, christians, catholics: They think just because GOD has forgiven them, everyone else will as well. WRONG!

The former Nazi Pope can take his ideals of having infinite numbers of catholic kids taking over the planet, along with his kid-raping cohorts in the vatican and cardinal diasies, and he can cram them up his ass.

/end statement.

still more hostility ;(

But wait. A semi-intelligent responce!

Miang: eh, the fact that its intertwined so heavily into our government is my main reason for such a militant attitude towards faith in a god / the afterlife.

Essentially, you can either be a religious literalist, in which case you kill people for heracy, or be a moderate which truely makes no sense. If the bible is the written word of god, and he tells you to kill those who are not of the same faith as you, why is it ok to ignore that part while taking it upon yourself to set the moral benchmark for all the people living around you? Picking and choosing whatever verses are convenient for your social agenda do not reflect a divine relation with a higher being. Fanatic or moderate, both religious models have no logic in them what so ever, yet are still tought as law to unknowing kids.

My problem is that religion breeds ignorance. From birth its an easy answer for most people. In that sense, yes, it has served some function as a sound social institution, but its blatant hate for science and progressive thought has kind of proven to me that humanity will be much better off once we stop treating mythology as fact.

Not to say, of course, that there arent other very important social issues outside of religion, but yeah, its time for humanity to move on.

A good argument, but

Gospel: @ Miang (a very good post)

Define blatant disregard for science when most, including Einstein, have some sort of belief structure. Furthermore, you are assuming that religion or exposure to it will make people ignorant. I can tell you my friend, there is a lot more in this world (especially America) that makes kids ignorant. The fact 80% of history taught to young kids is incorrect and skewed is a sign of that.

Pick and choose? That’s somewhat true, and is the common line used against “buffet” catholics. But, morality is never absolute as you make it, and true Christianity is about the message. I am not saying I am a particularly religious person, but I am taking the vantage point for this argument’s sake.

Also, picking and choose what is “conflicting” in the bible is a matter of perspective. Who was Kaine’s wife? We will never know. But, even Jesus violated the Sabbath. See, with the bible, unlike the Tora, there is a “new” chapter–which separates Christianity from convectional orthodox Judaism. It’s not quite “fair” to pick out semantics in the bible. Just because on page 329402 it says one thign and page 239804932043290 it says another dosn’t make the thing as a whole crap. Again, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Do some people take it TOO FAR? Yes. Are there insane, zealous evangelists? YES! But, I highly doubt these people would be any more enlightened wether there was or is a religion at all.

If a child is so helpless they will never question god and make the choice on their own, they were incapable of independent thought to begin with. Just because there exists an “opiate” in your mind does not mean everyone needs to take it. You are insuinating that the pressence alone of religion will defile the otherwise enlightened and intelligent minds of people.

Yes, I agree, I dislike how integrated religion is in our government currently. But, the fact o fthe matter is this country has and always will be Protestant rooted. I really don’t think most human beings would disagree with most of the tenemants of religion (not killing, faithfulness, stealing, etc). And the fact Roe V. Wade allows a woman’s choice shows that the government is not a 100% theocracy. I just cannot except this “all or nothing” sentiment.

fort: There’s something I need to clear up with you, Gospel, about Einstein having a belief system. Dr. Hawking also is proported as to believing in a ‘God’ of sorts. Infact MANY highly advanced astro-Physicists of our time do not tote themselves as complete athiests.

There ‘God’ however, has nothing to do with personal morals, social codes of conduct, or the organization of an afterlife. They instead believe in the Universe as an alter-force; more then physical law, atleast human physical law, will ever be able to define.

Saying that they have some sort of belief system must be understood for what it is; a belief system. There’s no Bible for Einstein and Hawking, only scientific maturation. I have a belief system in the theory of gravity. It has no similarities in the slightest with dieism.

Furthermore, I’m sorry that this thread has developed in this fashion, though I must admit I foresaw a bit of it. Let me try to bring it back to its intended focus:

I hate the Pope. He is an outdated, archaic, dangerous figurehead. I hate Catholism, because they KNOW in their hearts that I’m lesser then a person for having critical thought. I hate Evangels, and nothing needs to be said furthermore about that. I hate Christianity as a whole, because it’s had it’s chance as a social control mechanism, and needs to proceed the way of the dinosaur, as fast as it possibly can. These are MY feelings. I reserve my right to feel them as passionately as I choose. I don’t care about evidence to the contrary. I shall stand as stubbourn as one of the bible-thumpers on this issue: The New Testament, in all of its forms and interpretations, is rediculous at best, murderous at worst, and arguably one of the largest wastes of collective human society’s time.

Let us not even begin to speak of Pan-Arabic Islam, because THEN I’ll get afluster.

But, then, a mystery poster comes and wins the internet…

yang: Because a group of people, albeit a scientific community, with a set system of belief isn’t a religion. . .
The religion of astrophysicists is still a religion and it is still ridiculously fallible. Hence why some of what Einstein and Hawking have already donated to the world of science is now wrong. No person is perfect, therefore no group can be perfect. And while Hawking himself is not a Catholic, there are many astro-physicists that are. There are many priests who are scientists and many scientists who follow the church.

Omg! How can this be?!!

You and every other person who hate Catholics and Christianity hate them because they have held back science, yet they have given much to its development. Genetics today owe their existence in essence to a Catholic monk.
The stream line thought of evolution and development also are in debt to the evil and oppressive Catholic church. While rooted in the Greeks, these theories probably would have been passed over and forgotten had it not been for a certain Dominican monk and his peers.
The church, and its doctors have been keepers of knowledge for thousands of years. Modern astro-physics, philosophy, modern science owes a great deal to Bonaventure, Augustine, Aquinas. Without them, Plato and Aristotle might have been lost for centuries. Kant, easily one of the greatest minds to grace this earth, while not a self-defined follower, admits to the great use and necessity of religion.
The Pope and many doctors of the church, both today and in history have been protectors of academics and have only sought to keep this vast wealth and give it to the community. The present pope is not the mystic his predecessor was. He is truly an academic mind, and if you had bothered to let fall your personal prejudices, you would have been able to discover this for yourself.

Perhaps you hate them because they limit your own personal code of ethics and beliefs because. . .they. . .um. . .beat you up for having them!
I see. Ok Fort, if this is the case, if you have encountered the modern inquisition, then I think you should notify the local authorities. (This might land you in a nice white cell with a pretty white jacket to compliment it. But! You will be safe from the Christian bullies.)

Because of their actions in the past?! I think it entirely fair to hold a group responsible for the actions of the fathers. So, let’s wipe out Germany and Japan, and every Native American Tribe. (Of course, they can wipe us out too.) Let’s also kill the remaining family members of Charles Manson and every serial killer. Because, they are responsible after all. My great great great great great grandfather was killed by a Viking, I think that means I can kill the descendants of the Vikings.

Or! You hate them because they believe in something you don’t believe in and they think you are wrong? Though, you think they are wrong. Um. . .well those SOBs! How could they be so mean and unfair?!!

To refer to the original article, the pope was entirely correct. “Unfettered capitalism and communism” are responsible for much of the poverty and destitution in Latin America. Any simple understanding of economics will tell you that. Of course, we must also attribute it to the corrupt governments and the narrow, irrational minds that continue to march on in their haze without accepting knowledge. (Perhaps we should hate them for their stupidity and lack of critical thought. . .)

While I agree (and you might claim I have no right to agree or make this agreement known to you) that it is by far and away your right to believe whatever it is you wish, I think for someone who values progressive thought and understanding so highly, you should take a look back at your own argument. By your own words, the parallel can be made for other systems, ethics, beliefs, etc.
Racism can be justified by your words:
X group of people have done this and some continue to do so. Thus, the group as a whole is bad and I personally hate them.
Genocide:
X group of people are worthless because in the past they have committed these sins, and I can and do continue to hold hate against them. Thus, wipe them out.

Hold onto ignorance and you do nothing but perpetuate the very same problem you claim to detest in the subject of your hate. Treasure your irrationality, and you further stem the sickness that infects humanity.
Your mode of thinking, while entirely within your rights, is horribly flawed, irrational, and a greater poison to society than the grand ‘injustice’ of a belief in God.
Clearly objectivity is not something you prize. Since that is the case, really you shouldn’t be arguing anything of import since you have proven yourself incapable of separating rational thought from your own personal bias. For shame. As Gospel said previously, many atrocities have been committed by every religion. Yet you choose Christianity as your target because it personally has affected you. Again, a narrow world view and extremely selfish. You care for your own personal grievances but not those of humanity at large.

The church has risen above, accepted its flaws, and will attest to its lack of qualifications (for instance) to speak on matters of science from the pulpit. Which is why evolution is a personal ‘belief’ within the church, not one of doctrine.

I find it very interesting that the institution you hate has risen above you in its ability to acknowledge its limitations and its quest to correct them.

I think the safer equation we should make is:

Those who desire to live in ignorance = Idiots. i.e. you

zomg!

America is Evil Shockumentery Checklist:
1. Theatrical movie music - check.
2. Random political speeches clipped in (out of context for the most part) - check.
3. Random segments spliced together giving no frame of referancfe and only making unresearched assumptinos - check.
4. Random “authorities” agreeing with you - check.
5. The internets said it was true - check.

I think that video might be hinting on some debatable points, but much like the enemy it tries to engage. Fearmongering met with even greater fearmongering.

I’m really opposed to heavy taxing which is why I do consider my a conservative in the very strictest and older sense (not to be confused with neoconseravtism).

But,

We are in a new day and age, and I was bend my will a degree or two to come in line with modernism. I think mistaking the US Government as peddling “Americanism” is stretching it. It’s the companies, the fortune 500, the marketing, and the general willed ignorance of most people.

– Addressing the income tax:
Regardless if it is law or not, it’s there. I can see the argument that the rich don’t pay enough or whatever you want to say… but if we’re gonna go the “all is fair and free” route then we should remove minimum wage laws and such. Income tax is represenative of the federal government having control of your life to a degree. Well, why should they bother business owners to fair practices and protection of labor unions? Let’s get rid of it all at once.

– Addressing strong government control:
As opposed as I am to strong government control and taxes, the confederate states were a pretty clear of example of what happens when the government can’t levy taxes or has little inter-state power. Founding fathers and some of the4 most brilliant men were for a stronger government. I’m not advocating abuses of power or anything like that, but simply trying to meet this extremist preview half way.

I think the video makes the mistake Michael Moore made many times (no, not being a hypcrotical fatass): tries to squeeze to many arguments under the banner of “things are fucked up”. Too many shockumenteries only point out problems without going deeper into the ramifications of the alternatives or how to handle those ramifications or transitions would be (e.g. if we did removee income tax, how to compensate the various budgets of the federal government, etc). It’s really easy to be negative, but it’s hard to be constructive.

I’d have to see the video, but I’m willing to bet it’s not very constructive. Legal or illegal, consequences are reality in so far as repealing the income tax would have dire ones. So, unless it offers reasonable solutions I really don’t wanna hear it.

Tax protester constitutional arguments

Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never “properly ratified.” One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states’ ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio’s date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.

In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,[12], the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes ‘income’ to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on “accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Under this definition, any increase in wealth—whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions—are all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party[13], gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances[14], and certain scholarships. [15]

The only court case since then that repeals any powers is from disability, injury, compensation, etc.

Murphy v. IRS

On August 22, 2006 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service[16] and United States [Murphy v. United States]) that 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(2) is unconstitutional under the Sixteenth Amendment to the extent that the statute purports to tax, as income, a recovery for a non-physical personal injury for mental distress and loss of reputation not received in lieu of taxable income such as lost wages or earnings. The Court stated:

At the outset, we reject the Government’s breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment — upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The Sixteenth Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as “incomes” every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the “Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact.”

The Court also stated:

In sum, every indication is that damages received solely in compensation for a personal injury are not income within the meaning of that term in the Sixteenth Amendment. First, as compensation for the loss of a personal attribute, such as well-being or a good reputation, the damages are not received in lieu of income. Second, the framers of the Sixteenth Amendment would not have understood compensation for a personal injury — including a nonphysical injury — to be income. Therefore, we hold § 104(a)(2) unconstitutional insofar as it permits the taxation of an award of damages for mental distress and loss of reputation.

The Murphy ruling is mandatory precedent only in the District of Columbia.

So, if conspiracy theorists are going to argue against the supreme court and not trust any of the three branches of government, then we shoudl just start a revolution because if this is true then the government is beyond hope anyways. Otherwise, statutory law and decisions should be recognized instead of randomly citing pieces of the constituion and trying to debase the 16th amendment under symantics.

In Summary:

So, Clint Eastwood is releasing to concurent films on Iwo Jima. One being Flags of Our Fathers, which goes over the famous flag raising photo and the various unknown unpopularized backworkings (e.g. the dwiindling public support, funds, etc and the revival via that photograph). While Letters from Iwo Jima covers the Japanese side. I imagine it goes over their honor, duty, and all that jive. I suspect the latter movie will have a lot more potential (both being good though). I am excited from Letters from Iwo Jima a bit more, but I do eagerly await both. Clint Eastwood might win Best Director AGAIN (rightfully so).

Flags of Our Fathers Trailer

Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers Mixed Trailer

So, I was watching part of Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How THey Got That Way. I think it was a fairly even-handed documentery on the origions of hard drugs. Of course, some of our more liberal members of society would argue it’s simply a scare tactic to get you to not do drugs.

Now, I can agree, your every-so-often marijuana bowl isn’t so bad. But, like smoking or alcohol, it can be addictive. Do I agree hemp was probably illegalized arbitrary reasons? Probably. That aside, the documentery delt with more life-shattering drugs like cocaine, heroine, crack-cocaine, etc. They even made points to admit the government initialllly used exaggeration tactics and stigma to enhance the scare people straight.

But I digress, drugs are dumb. If you knew the medical ramifications for doing cocaine or heorine, you would be a fucking moron to touch the stuff. At least cigarette smoking allows some hoep of recovery if you quit by 30 (infact, you can regenerate most of your lungs if you do so). Yet, we have this extensive anti-smoking campaign.

Cigarette smoking, like other things, is a choice and the ability to quit is possible. Even if once quits cocaine/heorine, you are fucked. You will probalby carry permanent damage for the rest of your life. Explain to me why this is bad. Our government dosn’t want a doped-up society a la China circa. 1920’s. The communist government had to mass-execute people–including entire families–to get that society off opium.

The documentery made a powerful ending note, which I have emphasized for quite awhile. People do drugs, activites, escape, etc because they need a break from everyday life. Well, that’s understandable. I think everybody can empathisze with that. The problem is, when you do hard drugs to esacpe, you don’t return to everyday life. It’s not like nursing off a hangover or getting the munchies from weed. If you wanna tell me I wouldn’t know because I never touched the stuff, then I’ll ask you how you know sticking a sword up your rectum hurts if you never tried it?

I pray to god 99% of college educated kids realize how dumb this shit is. Sadly, I can’t assume much intelligence from a college education nowadays. Probably some bullshit academic sociological leftist textbooks that advocate drug use (get your 4th edition, revised for $150).

• Listening To: Tool - Salival - You Lied (Live)