Science vs. Religion, : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

This is a quote I read some time ago on the Freedom Forum. It very adequately sums up why I have no use for religion and very little use for politics.

"Published error is at the heart of any real science. We scientists love to do experiments that show our colleagues to be wrong and, if they are any good, they love to show us to be wrong in turn. By this adversarial process, science reveals the way nature actually works. Science differs from politics, or religion, in precisely this one discipline: we agree in advance to be in error. There is no shame to this. The freedom to make and admit mistakes is at the core of the scientific process. If we are asked to forswear error, or worse, to say that error means fraud, then we cannot function as scientists." Robert E. Pollack

The church made mistakes, such as, the earth is flat, the earth is only 6000 years old, the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the opposite. But if instead of killing, suppressing, torturing or burning those who proved them wrong like Bruno, Socrates, Copernicus, Severtus, etc., if they had siimply admitted they had made a mistake, perhaps they would have more credibility.

Scientists, when new evidence is presented or found, admit they were wrong, and build on the new information. This has just been proved with the location of new planets in the universe and the new evidence that brings more proof to the theory that dinosaurs were closer to warm blooded mammals, rather than reptiles, which many have already stated but lacked definitive proof.

Concerning politics, it's even worse, for they make the most ridiculous statements without a shred of proof. They always seem to have a ready answer to the greatest of blunders and mistakes. Or they will deny that they made a mistake, or they were given bad information.

-- gilda (, April 21, 2000


Sounds about right to me.

-- (Carl Sagan@ using a ping .putter), April 21, 2000.

Socrates was tortured by the church? I think not.

Yes, the church of the Middle Ages was by and large reactionary, but many of the "scientists" of the era promulgated the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory, etc, as well, and resisted new ideas on what they considered scientific grounds. I think it's fair to say they used the church in their own way to maintain the "scientific" status quo.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 21, 2000.

gilda, Did you use scientific principles to deduce that y2k was going to bring doom, or was it just your irrational fear? Seems it wasn't only the "church" who falls for bad science. In one breath you brag that scientist make mistakes, and then decry the "church" for doing the same. Just more of your anti-church fluffballs floating in the wind of nothingness. No intellectual discussion, just another vain attempt to slander the church. It appears that something in your past has made you bitter about the subject -and many other subjects as your posts often indicate. You have something deep to deal with inside, if you don't, you'll just get even more bitter.

-- FactFinder (, April 21, 2000.

I am not anti-scientific. Far from it, it has been my livlihood. But don't idealize it--the world of science has its charlatans, its ego-maniacs, its fad and conformity as much as does religion. Its "truths" are ever changing---200 years ago science decreed that the world was Newtonian, mechanical. How modern at the time; how quaint now. What will be "true" 200 years from now? At best, science leads from partial truth to partial truth--a constant peeling of layers of an infinite onion that will never reveal total truth.

And it deals only in physical truths; those that are measurable. Yet qualitative issues are what bedevils us. WHY is it better to live one way than another? What scientific law determines morality? Science is critically important but ultimately we cannot avoid FAITH.

-- Lars (, April 21, 2000.

Hi, Gilda, yoohoo, it's me -- over here, I am really scared to say too much about the Christians since every time I do I get roasted. But, then that's to be expected, isn't it? Let me say this - there are a lot of folks out here who believe that the world is just a teensy bit older than 6,000. What is really frightening is "fundamentalism" of any shape or color. Look what is happening to the women in "fundamentalist" Afghanistan! Look what is happening to women in "fundamentalist" Africa. And I have an acquaintance who is an "American fundamentalist" and she dares not speak to her husband until spoken to. Don't get fooled girls. Fundamentalism is about male superiority. And say, one more thing---Thanks Gilda.

-- Pat (, April 21, 2000.

I mostly agree with Lars. Science's proper domain is the physical universe, everything that can be observed and measured. Perhaps someday what we call "faith" can be traced to electrical and chemical patterns in our brains, and that's the domain of science as well.

And while Lars is right that critically important questions do NOT fall within the purview of science, this doesn't necessarily mean they are properly addressed by faith. Faith (in whatever) is only one approach to the unanswerable. Agnostics have claimed for ages that some questions of such importance to the religious can be cheerfully ignored forever without reducing the quality of life at all. Those questions *required* to be addressed (like, What should I do now and why?) can be effectively handled by trial and error, combined with childhood training. No religious convictions are required to lead a full and happy life, nor a miserable life. Similarly, religious faith neither guarantees happiness nor misery either.

When religion tries to make and enforce claims within the domain of science, it's out of bounds. And when some people start making absurd claims about the physical universe to force that universe to fit misreadings of religious teachings, we can only laugh. But when catastrophically failed policies like the War on Drugs goes on and on and on because some religion decides that drug use is immoral, we all suffer.

And remember that scientists are people. "Science" may delight in having error corrected, but scientists do not. In most cases, one scientific theory doesn't supplant another because of superior data or analysis, but because adherents of the old theory die off and are not replaced. The scientist's effort to be without pride is as futile as the Christian's effort to be without sin. Criticisms of science itself based on what scientists do is misplaced.

-- Flint (, April 21, 2000.

Hello, Flint.

Current high science has been unable to explain to me how demons can attack a human spirit.

Demons are evil spiritual beings, very real and very evil. They can easily brainwash humans, most of whom are too dumb to discern their noxious intrusions...

-- dinosaur (, April 21, 2000.


Demons? Real? But most people are to stupid to realize they exist? What evidence do you have they exist?

-- Jim Cooke (, April 22, 2000.

An urban legend that propogates itself by the fear it causes, and which sometimes survives longer than the human lifespan, is a good example of a force similar to what a demon might be.

-- (, April 22, 2000.

Are demons real?

Well, are shadows "real"?

Do urban legends exist?

Then consider mob psychology. Lynchings. Also the notion that adults who commit child abuse were often abused themselves when they were children. A dispute between two family members thousands of years ago has led to constant tension between modern-day Arabs and Israelis.

People are influenced in subtle ways by society, and in ways their pride will not allow them to see.

-- (~@~~.~~~), April 22, 2000. e and Other Disciplines

Those who speak of the incompatibility of science and religion either make science say that which it never said or make religion say that which it never taught. Pope Puis XI

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. John Paul II, Pope (Karol Wojtyla) James Reston, Galileo, A Life, HarperCollins, NY, 1994, p 461. (1)

The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundry condition. Alan Turing

He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion. -Goethe

Modern man worships at the temple of science, yet science tells him only what is possible, not what is right. John Milton S. Eisenhower

To a Europe exhausted by nearly two centuries of religious wars, [Isaac] Newton's works were first and foremost a message about God; that He did not behave in a capricious or arbitrary fashion, in response to either His will or human prayer, but in accordance with absolute, unwavering, and humanly discoverable laws of nature which governed him and all his works. He had become the infinitely perfect Clock-Maker, his works fathomable by the human mind. Forrest MacDonald

Science may have found a cure for most evils; but, it has found no remedy for the worst of them all- the apathy of human beings. Helen Keller

What are the sciences but maps of universal laws; and universal laws but channels of universal power; and universal power but the outgoing of a supreme universal mind? E. Thomson

The soul is the mirror of an indestructible universe. Gottfried Whilhem Leibniz, (1646-1716) The Monadology.

-- (Quotes@and.ideas), April 22, 2000.

To you men who say I was glorifying science, or that I consider all scientists to be paragons of virtue, I say Baloney. Did I say that every scientist admitted to being wrong. NO! I was speaking of scientists, science and religion in the aggregate not the individual. God what a pompous bunch you are. (Not you, Carl Sagan)

Pat, I understand exactly how you feel--step on the sacred cow of religion and you will be "roasted", and they'd probably love to do it literally if they could still get by with it. You are right about the fundamentalists. I truly hope women aren't stupid enough to fall for that garbage of male superiority again. Those dumb enough to fall for it deserve what they get. Did you know the Tennesee legislature denied women the right to vote, after they decided that women didn't have souls. Self-righteous bastards!!!

Obviously most of you haven't read "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom." It was written by A. D. White the co-founder and first president of Cornell University--a Christian by the way.

Here is a quote from the cover of the book. "In all modern history, interference with science in the name of religion has resulted in the direst evils...." The Persecution of Galileo, the attacks on Darwin and his "Origin of Species," the great plagues of history--all are shown to have their common origin in man's unwillingness to give up his mistaken theological beliefs. Mr. White's book has been acclaimed as the classic effort in America to do away with superstition and dogma." Check it out on for more information.

There's more but I'm tired of arguing with fools. Fact Fouler, since I'm not capable of intellectual discussion, don't bother posting anymore of your bile to me please.

LBO Grease, concerning Socrates: an Athenian jury officially convicted Socrates of corrupting youth and interfering with RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, and sentenced him to death. I never said he was tortured. And what was this deadly interference Socrates was doing??? He was teaching them to ask questions, to challenge dogma. Religion cannot stand to be questioned.

BTW, most Christians weren't even clean. They thought prayer would stop plagues. They lived in utter filth. Luther asscribed his own diseases to devil's spells. Check out The History of Medical Economy During the Middle Ages. It took the Jews to take the lead in medicine. Jews were outcasts because they promoted sanitary conditions and hygiene, and were capable doctors for that time. Also read, Spain, A Land Blighted by Religion. They lived in filth, thinking that praying to the Madonna and bell ringing was the best cure for pestilence and plague.

Even Ben Franklin was attacked for his experiments with electricity. Turn off your electric power you religious fools!

"The greatest evil always masquerades as the greatest good."

-- gilda (, April 22, 2000.

gilda, what a smarmy way you have of dodging the point of my remark. Is it necessary for me to quote you:

>>The church made mistakes, such as, the earth is flat, the earth is only 6000 years old, the sun revolves around the earth, instead of the opposite. But if instead of killing, suppressing, torturing or burning those who proved them wrong like Bruno, Socrates, Copernicus, Severtus, etc., if they had siimply admitted they had made a mistake, perhaps they would have more credibility.<<

Now, gilda, does the indefinite "they" used three times in your last sentence refer to the church of your first sentence or does it not? If Socrates was tried and convicted by an Athenian jury in the 4th century B.C., then the church had nothing to do with it. Now if *you* would simply admit you made a mistake, perhaps you'd have more credibility.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 22, 2000.

The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. --Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love

Though many have tried, no one has ever yet explained away the decisive fact that science, which can do so much, cannot decide what it ought to do. --Joseph Wood Kruch

-- (Quotes@and.ideas), April 22, 2000.


I can't quite figure out what you mean when you say "If Socrates was tried and convicted by an Athenian jury in the 4th century B.C., then the church had nothing to do with it."

Athens had no religions? News to me. Athens meticulously separated religion from jurisprudence? News to me. Or are you implying gilda must be wrong about the unwillingness of religions to admit to fallibility, on the grounds that Christ wasn't yet born? What ARE you saying?

If Socrates was put to death for the crime of questioning religious doctrine (maybe among other things?), gilda's point stands. What's yours?

-- Flint (, April 22, 2000.

I have not made a mistake. I read this is the Life and Death of Socrates. No I can't find the exact quote. But it took me about three seconds to find it by going to search, typing in Socrates and checking his death sentence. Check it out, it says "for interfering with....religion of the city." I am talking about religion, not any one faith. Got it? Religion has been around a long time, although it may not always mean Christians. To me church and religion are synomous.

I haven't made a mistake you sanctimonious pedant. You're either so screwed up about my last sentence, or else you are being deliberately dense, that I can't believe it. My last sentence is about politics and politicians and has nothing to do with church, religion or your almighty Gawwd.

-- gilda (, April 22, 2000.

I meant to say, "My last *paragraph* is about politics and politicians....," NOT "last sentence." Also, just so you don't have to play learned teacher all night, I'll admit to being in a hurry and wrongly spelling "synonymous."

I said, "Concerning politics, it's even worse...." This is in reference to Pollack's quote where he says "Science differs from politics, or religion,..." I don't suppose you even saw the word *politics*, for your eyes were so full of MAD at seeing me once again question your sacred cow and crutch, religion, that you couldn't wait to pounce.

-- gilda (, April 22, 2000.


I know gilda can't help it, but you must have taken dumb pills today. The term "church" is uniquely Christian, and did not exist in the 4th century BC. Look it up. The *pagans* of Athens worshipped in temples. Of course there were religions, but despite gilda's ignorance, "church" and "religion" are not synomous(sic). So *my* point stands.

For gilda:

See my response to Flint. I even quoted your own words, my dear. The "last sentence" to which I was referring was the last sentence of that quote. How difficult is that to understand? That's two mistakes now.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 22, 2000.


Ah, I understand. You have decided to split hairs rather than address an argument clearly intended as a comment about organized and sanctioned religions, of whatever stripe. My guess about your meaning was correct, then. I must regard your very careful misinterpretation as deliberate, however inapposite.

But turning around and using sophistic semantics to find "error" where it exists only within the distortion you select, is not worthy of you. Gilda remains correct. Surely you must realize you haven't even presented a weak case, since your private definitions of terms fail to address the substance presented. Try again.

-- Flint (, April 22, 2000.

More the fool, you, Flint. I suggest you look again at who first misread whom. Furthermore, gilda is not ranting against *all* religions, just those she disagrees with. Unless you believe she is ranting against her *own* religion as well. And based on the evidence of other threads, her religion is akin to that of the Athenians she has condemned. I would also submit, looking back 2400 years, that what we know about Socrates may be nothing more than a myth, a story written by Plato.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 22, 2000.

Hello Flint-- Early in this thread you made a statement about religion and drugs. The idea that religion sparked and is a prime mover in the anti-drug wars is new to me. Would you elaborate?

Gilda--I am constantly amazed by what you have read. I am also amazed by the put downs you receive. Maybe you need to sign your posts as "Sam" or "Bob" or "Joe."

-- Pam (, April 22, 2000.


That's a very good question, worth some discussion (which I doubt it will receive, alas).

Religious beliefs have social consequences. They are not entirely something trotted out only inside places of worship (I won't call them "churches" in light of Elbow's claim that only Christians have churches), and forgotten after the service ends.

Some of these consequences are fairly easily traceable to specific teachings of a specific religion. I can't buy beer on Sunday, for example. Other consequences are more indirect, but reflected in our civil law nonetheless. We have a great many laws against victimless crimes -- "crimes" only in our belief that they are injurious to the soul of the perpetrator, and should therefore be punishable by the State.

Why do we legislate morality? The State should properly (according to Lockean precepts) protect individuals against depredations by *other* individuals. Justice Holmes wrote, "the freedom to swing your arm ends where the next man's nose begins." In practice, we make a critical qualitative exception to this axiom. We say: Except if we think swinging your arm that way is immoral. So we have laws against certain drugs, against prostitution, against "indecent exposure" (where does the definition of "decent" come from anyway?)

You might claim that it's the job of the State to protect us from ourselves, but you'd have to explain why many dangerous activities are perfectly legal, from skydiving to driving automobiles. Most political philosophers in the Lockean tradition posit that the individual should be permitted to do any damage he chooses to himself, provided nobody else is harmed in the process.

But in that case, who is being harmed by laws against victimless crimes, and how? By nature, these crimes have no victims. Nobody else (and perhaps not even the perpetrator) is being harmed. We are simply trying to prevent behavior that violates some sense of morality, rather than the rights of others. Where does this moral sense come from? Why is it so different in places where prevailing religion is different (and they have their own equivalents, congruent with their own religious teachings?). Is this coincidence?

I've seen claims that permitting such activities would promote social disruption. The fact that they don't disrupt where legally practiced is countered with the argument that such activities are "accepted" elsewhere, but would be disruptive here because of a lack of acceptance. But this only begs the question -- why would people here, but not elsewhere, refuse to accept behavior that otherwise does them no harm? These prohibitions are explicit only in our religions teachings, and are jarring exceptions to our legal traditions.

The war on drugs has certain telltale aspects beyond the fact that the victims are prey to the war itself rather than to the drugs (as Milton Friedman explained so well). One theme of this thread concerns the inflexibility of religion, and the war on drugs is an excellent illustration. When religiously inspired legal efforts produce the exact opposite result from the intent, we step up our efforts anyway, making things much worse.

We still live with the organized crime we planted and nurtured to healthy adulthood via prohibition. We're doing it again. We are filling prisons with victimless criminals and spending a fortune doing so. We are making drug dealing extremely profitable. We are effectively forcing people into a life of crime ancillary to the moral issue by forcing prices so high. And knowing all this, we keep right on making it worse. Immorality must be stopped! No price is too high, no mistake can be admitted. This is religion, not practical law.

-- Flint (, April 23, 2000.

Elbow Grease, church, synagogue, meeting house, brush arbor, cathedral, temple, sanctuary, mosque, house of worship, chapel, are all synonymous with religion. But as Flint said, you don't want to address the issues, you want to nit pick about semantics and definitions.

Pam Elbo is from the old TB forum, and he spent much of his time, along with his other religious fanatic friends judging, slamming and doing his Christian hatchet job on me and a few others, but I seem to be his, and the bible thumpers, favorite target. I suppose it's because I don't mince words. Being spiritually incorrect always bring out their denigrating, condemnation. Thanks for noticing.

Pam about reading, I was lucky. Both my parent were avid readers. They read to me and taught me to read when I was four. There were never, ever any restrictions on what I read. It has been the great love of my life. I owned a book store for several years and wrote a newspaper column about books. My house is full of books and I have a workshop next door with about 3000 more. I majored in literature, but also took philosophy, religion and archaeology in college, where I discovered a lot more interesting books.

Elbow Grease, since, according to you, I'm so dumb and slow-witted, compared to your towering intellect, why do you even bother to talk to me. Oh, I get it, it's fun to gouge lesser mortals, who don't measure up to your lofty, Christian standards.

As far as Flint taking his "dumb pills," or being "More the fool," you wish!!!!

Flint, I am always truly amazed by your logical arguments. I am a great fan of John Locke, especially his opposition to the theory of demoniacal possession. In spite of Locke's logic, John Wesley, literally interpreting the Bible stated, "to give up witchcraft is to give up the Bible," and continued to comdemn the insane as witches and possessed by demons.

Elbo, seeing that all you want to do it nit pick, carry on, I'm sure you'll have a fine time.

What's wrong? Have things got too dull for you on EZ Board's holier-than-thou forum?

-- gilda (, April 23, 2000.

Good Morning, Flint,

First, the point on which we agree: The so-called War on Drugs is a failure. There is too much money to be made, and too much demand. We even hear apochryphal stories of Clinton's involvement in the drug trade. But to legalize drugs on the grounds that drug use is a victimless crime is an extraordinarily binary and shallow conclusion. Not quite up to your usual standards of discernment, Flint. One doesn't need religious convictions or high intelligence to realize that drug addiction, legal or otherwise, is not without victims,


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 23, 2000.


Ok, so you have a perceptual handicap. Look again at my first post. I did address the subject of the thread. You chose to comment only on the first sentence and nothing else. And if you had been more general in your terminology, I wouldn't have made that initial statement. That's what makes Flint a fool, because he's being intellectually dishonest. You, OTOH, seem to be just clueless.

Your words:

>>...he spent much of his time, along with his other religious fanatic friends judging, slamming and doing his Christian hatchet job on me and a few others, but I seem to be his, and the bible thumpers, favorite target. I suppose it's because I don't mince words.<<

You don't mince words? That's being overly kind to yourself. Virtually from your initial post on TB2K you set up and hacked your Christian strawmen at every opportunity, and you continue doing so here, even when your response is totally off-topic. *Your* unprovoked hatchet jobs preceeded my responses. The difference between us is that you unjustly condemn an entire class of people, while I am addressing your blatant intolerance specifically.

Why do you bring up EZBoard again? I've told you before that I don't post there, and I told you why. Got an Alzheimers problem? ADD?

And as for nitpicking, Flint is the master here, not I.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 23, 2000.

"The difference between us is that you unjustly condemn an entire class of people,..." -Elbow

gilda -

I just came from another thread where you did this with the Cuban- Americans. I mean I just literally closed that one, opened this one and there it was.

What's going on with you? Are these truly your thoughts?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 23, 2000.


Since I have not suggested a drug policy, I can't quite understand how you can call that policy binary and shallow.

I agree with Friedman that drugs should be regulated, much like the State regulates many other things. Yes, drug addicition is a Bad Thing. As I implied, so are activities like driving cars in the sense that people kill themselves and others by doing so. As a result, we license the activity, we have speed limits and many other traffic laws, we have fairly serious penalties for driving while impaired, etc. This same approach with drugs is a demonstrated success elsewhere in the world, where addictive drugs are legal yet cause no crime wave or serious social problems.

So why do we carry on in the face of such flagrant counterproductivity? Why start the war in the first place? Yes, some bureaucrats make a good living in the process, and there are some vested interests beyond the drug dealers themselves. But the war itself would not be possible without pretty damn solid and widespread public support, despite the results. It's a moral war.

And don't get me started about motorcycle helmet laws.

-- Flint (, April 23, 2000.

Debra, If I did a hatchet job on Cuban-Americans, then I would say that I'm in good company. There are plenty who agree that the Little Havana Cuban-Americans have behaved like maniacs. Does this mean all Cuban-Americans are like this? No. But do I have to preface every single post with a disclaimer about each and every Cuban-American faction, to make it politically, socially, and spiritually correct enough for you.

Check out the post Taz made about "most disagreeing with her about Elian, and maybe you will understand better what I was saying.

Now do you want to address my post, or just sing backup to Elbo.

Exactly what do you mean by "What's going on with you? and "Are these truly your thoughts? Which thoughts??

-- gilda (, April 23, 2000.


Legalization must precede Regulation, so I don't believe I over- inferred your intention. But I did want to hear where you were going with the subject. I admit I don't have an answer. We do have parallels with regulated booze and cigarettes. These policies have not been what you would call a resounding success, in terms of the socioeconomic and health-related consequences. The government dogs have turned and bitten the tobacco industry, and alcohol related problems in this country are a disgrace. Are you suggesting more of the same? If regulation is lax, we have a situation similar to alcohol. If regulation is tight, people will circumvent it, with help from organized crime.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 23, 2000.

Ouch! That stung. I'll come back when your in a better mood.

-- Debra (Ican', April 23, 2000.


Experience in other countries is admittedly iffy. Some places have much worse problems with alcohol than the US, some much better. But you seem to be implying that a vast improvement isn't worth making unless it's perfect, which it won't be. You claim to have no answer because you have no perfect answer. Perfection, I think, lies in the religious realm, whereas excellence lies in the practical world.

Of all the evils I (and Friedman) enumerated about the drug war, the actual ill effects of the drugs themselves weren't involved. Some people will abuse anything they can get their hands on. Let's recognize this and act to minimize, NOT maximize, the resulting damage. And while we're at it, let me buy beer on Sunday. Why not?

-- Flint (, April 23, 2000.


I don't mean to imply any such thing. You keep pushing the religious angle but I don't see it in that light. I agree that there is room for vast improvement without getting near "perfect." However, the suggestions so far have serious downsides with historical precedents. And, as previously stated, the biggest roadblock is the entrenched interests on both sides of the law who would resist changing the status quo.

You made a comment before about the War on Drugs having wide spread public support. I don't think that is accurate. The public sees the consequences, and insists that Something must be done and our leadership takes action. The specifics of the implementation are hardly ever in the hands of the rank and file.

As to the Blue Laws, that is an issue you'll have to deal with yourself. Considering the seriousness of other problems our country needs to address, by all means, have a beer.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 23, 2000.


I can't tell if we're in agreement here or not. Have there been any referenda on regulating rather than outlawing specific drugs now classified as restricted? I vaguely recall a few at the state level, and the idea was voted down. People still equate the drug problem with the drugs and not with the anti-drug policies, which is why economists like Friedman would never win an election.

Certainly I agree that wherever you have Big Money, for whatever reasons, you will have powerful vested interests. But indirectly, the public does have influence over such policies. No, they can't determine the nuts and bolts of regulation and enforcement, but they can vote for politicians who favor major changes. Yet even the call for regulation of marijuana has been regarded as a lunatic fringe issue for over 30 years. And I have personally heard the idea denounced from the pulpit on moral grounds.

While I can't prove it today, I'd be willing to bet we'd see big changes if the various churches started preaching moderation rather than prohibition, and emphasizing personal responsibility rather than proscription by the State. From the religious perspective, something cannot be partly moral anymore than someone can be partly pregnant. It's an orientation toward absolutes that's at the heart of the problem.

-- Flint (, April 23, 2000.


By coincidence, 60 Minutes just this evening did a piece about the governor of New Mexico, who is a legalization/regulation advocate. I am glad to say, Ed Bradley really hammered the guy with some hard, straight up questions. The governor's responses were less than compelling. He admitted that his proposed changes would have to survive the gauntlets of public opinion, legislative wrangling and controversy, and the result, at best, would be trading one set of problems for another. He also argued that marijuana was "harmless," but without skipping a beat, tried to apply the same argument to heroin and cocaine. That's a standard Camel's Nose strategy, and is dishonest. So right off the bat it seems obvious that the pro-legals have an agenda they're only hinting at. Lastly, when questioned about practical implementation of his policy, he wasn't hazy or vague, he was non-committal, as though that aspect was unimportant. Sorry, I need something a bit more concrete before I vote.

>>It's an orientation toward absolutes that's at the heart of the problem.<<

Here is where we part company. On the one hand, churches *should* promote the very highest standards; that is the very essence of their business. You're right; something cannot be partly moral. But that's hardly a bad thing, any more than an accurate scale is a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't believe pulpits have quite the influence you assume.


-- LBO Grise (LBO, April 23, 2000.

Science is a cutthroat business where you have only about a 10% chance per year of keeping your "business" funded. And big labs with older bosses suck away funding and resources from smaller labs with younger investigators trying to make a go of it. ITs about publish or perish and grant money, nothing more. ( Well maybe I have a cyncial view right now. Of course it is more than that...)

-- coprolith (, April 23, 2000.

j00 @11 5UX0r

1 @m 1337 HAX0R

j00 = LOSARS



-- I am the Math God (, May 04, 2001.


-- Zachary Antjuan Glover (, December 09, 2001.

Religion is like a cancer. It eats away. It makes me sick to see people wasting there time in cherch. Im sorry if i hate my life,but fuck it all fuck this world, hate is everywere.

-- Mitchell g (, March 11, 2002.

mitchell, you poor mislead angry person. Everyone knows that you waste you time at church, not cherch.

-- mo (, April 03, 2002.

Wow, the amount of ignorance in this thing is sickening!!

Religion is for the weak-minded people. They need something to believe in since they don't have the mental will-power and inner strength to deal with their own problems, they turn to an all- powerful being to help cope. Got dumped? Don't worry, you have God. Want to commit sucide? Nevermind that it's against the law, God said it's not good so don't do it! Thinking about divorce? No no no, it's bad because your religion says so!

And for your information, many philosophers and scientists WERE tortured and killed by the chuch, for having "radical" ideas. Galelleo(sp?) was tortured by the church for claiming the Earth was round until he retracted his statement. Many religions, namely the ones with "Jesus", have changed and revised their original documents (Bible, etc.) to appear more wholesome. The King James edition of the Bible was a major rewrite from the original text; and contradictions are dime a dozen when you read through it carefully. Religion is dying out as well, it no longer possesses the power it had a century ago, and although there will always be suckers on this planet, some day science (which progresses by the day, much unlike religion) will have an answer for all.

-- fayzex (, October 11, 2002.

Get a life u bunch of retards

-- JohnnyPotSmoker (, December 03, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ