Left & Right Wing Preoccupation

[slowpoke]

Most western democracies have a fairly clear sense of the differences between liberals and conservatives. In the vast majority of these countries, people are still able to discuss issues rationally without fixating on left / right wing labels to the extent I'm seeing on this board. At the time of this writing, the Politics & International Affairs forum is overwhelmingly about US politics and the American obsession with Liberal vs. Conservative thinking.

These are the 25 current threads on page 1 of this forum. Eleven of those 25 were started by either OTB, americanson or Langweile and only two are devoted entirely to Canadian issues:

President Pledges to Rebuild San Francisco

More Sickness From The Radical Left

Anti War Crowd Lost War of Expectations?

Howard Dean...a present to the Republicans?

Hell No, We Wont' Go

Social Security Reform in the US

Funny or offensive??

North American politicians need more of this

The ten most underreported humanitarian stories

For Every Harpers Article Bashing the Right

Deep Throat (Get your mind out of the gutter: this is the politics forum)

Dems demand investigation into how GOP shill got White House press by

Just to confirm..what I knew all along...

An interesting critique of the right

N. Korean Nukes

Why Americans are considered warmongers...

The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats

The Next Bush Victory?

Even Clinton Wasn't This Bad

yychobbiest is John Kerry?

Retaliatory Duties against US Wine & Spirits

Walmart

Jean Chrétien @ Gomery Commission/ CPAC (Channel 68)

How to Offend an American

Paul Martin @ Gomery Commission/ CPAC (Channel 68)

Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems that the Canadians here on terb, for example, can usually discuss an issue without undue concern over how far left or right leaning their argument will be perceived. This is important because there are valid arguments on either side and it requires a certain amount of flexibility to consider both. A real discussion requires listening. Labels don't help. So lets lose this destructive left vs right mindset, and maybe have an intelligent discussion - Canadian style. Please??

[papasmerf]

personaly I like my wings served very crisp with a medium sauce, blue cheese, celery and carrot sticks.

[langeweile]

Most western democracies have a fairly clear sense of the differences between liberals and conservatives. In the vast majority of these countries, people are still able to discuss issues rationally without fixating on left / right wing labels to the extent I'm seeing on this board. At the time of this writing, the Politics & International Affairs forum is overwhelmingly about US politics and the American obsession with Liberal vs. Conservative thinking.

These are the 25 current threads on page 1 of this forum. Eleven of those 25 were started by either OTB, americanson or Langweile and only two are devoted entirely to Canadian issues:

President Pledges to Rebuild San Francisco

More Sickness From The Radical Left

Anti War Crowd Lost War of Expectations?

Howard Dean...a present to the Republicans?

Hell No, We Wont' Go

Social Security Reform in the US

Funny or offensive??

North American politicians need more of this

The ten most underreported humanitarian stories

For Every Harpers Article Bashing the Right

Deep Throat (Get your mind out of the gutter: this is the politics forum)

Dems demand investigation into how GOP shill got White House press by

Just to confirm..what I knew all along...

An interesting critique of the right

N. Korean Nukes

Why Americans are considered warmongers...

The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats

The Next Bush Victory?

Even Clinton Wasn't This Bad

yychobbiest is John Kerry?

Retaliatory Duties against US Wine & Spirits

Walmart

Jean Chrétien @ Gomery Commission/ CPAC (Channel 68)

How to Offend an American

Paul Martin @ Gomery Commission/ CPAC (Channel 68)

Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems that the Canadians here on terb, for example, can usually discuss an issue without undue concern over how far left or right leaning their argument will be perceived. This is important because there are valid arguments on either side and it requires a certain amount of flexibility to consider both. A real discussion requires listening. Labels don't help. So lets lose this destructive left vs right mindset, and maybe have an intelligent discussion - Canadian style. Please??

Does those "Canadian style" discusiion rules apply, when you and your boys bash Bush and the USA?
Come down from your high horse. You guys are no better, when it comes to that.

[Peeping Tom]

Politics by their very nature are adversarial.

[onthebottom]

Slowpoke,

There is a bit of right/left bashing on both sides, and you're right it is usually an intellectual shortcut. I'm happy to discuss any issue without labels as long as I don't have to hear "shrub" "right wing" "amerikkka".... you get the idea.

I am amused at the scarcity of threads about Canada (especially if you subtract those threads whining about US barriers to trade ;-). I've just assumed nothing important or interesting happens up there - every time there is a Canada based thread I ask questions and do a bit of research. Unfortunately they always die out quickly or disintegrate into a Bush bash. Bit sad actually.

In addition to the left/right labels I'm also annoyed at the freedom some feel to criticize US policy with no need to suggest an alternative, something I'm going to start calling Monday morning Canucking. Don't like Iraq, Iran, North Korea US policy, great, what would you do differently (let's just ignore the point about Canada actually doing something - that's not very realistic).

OTB

[onthebottom]

OTB: You're more than willing to bash anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You're a miopic hypocritic. You'll dish it out but you can't take it.
Go simmer in your own stew. You don't give a damn about anyone that
disagrees with you. You're full of yourself and stay south of Columbus or
we'll have to duke it out some day. :mad:

Don

PS: The Tribe is going to kick the Twins ass this baseball season.

This from Mr. "and fuck your mother" LOL

And no, the Tribe has no chance against the Twins AGAIN this year.

If someone disagrees with me I argue with them if I think they are wrong. I don't think that was the point of the thread.

OTB

[onthebottom]

You're all lip and no legs. Other than sitting on your fat ass when did
you ever risk anything for our country. Tell me OTB what excuse did
you use to avoid serving in the military? What did you ever do to serve
our country? A Rush Limbaugh wannabe is all you are. Now you want
to slander my mother. You're a sniveling coward. Go crawl in a hole.

Could we add content free personal attacks to those things we don't need on this board?

OTB

[happygrump]

This preoccupation with left vs. right in this forum seems to be primarily because the current divisive nature of the Washington power structure. Maybe I'm wrong - that's happened before, and I have the divorce papers to prove it - but it looks to me that supporters from both sides (actually, there are more than 2, but you get the idea) are more interested in cloaking themselves in ideology than in actually making valid arguments to back their point.

That's really too bad, because even though I may have fundamental disagreements with the politics of papasmerf, langeweile and to a lesser extent OTB, I can often see the pathway of logic that leads them to their conclusions. I may disagree with the logic - the adherence to the now-discredited supply side economic theories, for instance - but I understand how the arguments are created.

I did a short experiment recently in a thread about Dupont and the potential harmful nature of Teflon. Instead of jumping all over Dupont like a bad smell, I made a deliberate choice to voice an opinion that is diametrically opposed to my actual thoughts on the issue. It was quite good fun, actually! However, I suddenly found myself on the receiving end of a host of emotionally-charged and rather useless arguments. So, I must admit a large degree of respect for those who choose to swim against the predominantly liberal current in this thread.

As far as personal attacks go, well, they say more about the attacker than the supposed victim. They say even more when the spelling is bad.

[slowpoke]

Does those "Canadian style" discusiion rules apply, when you and your boys bash Bush and the USA?
Come down from your high horse. You guys are no better, when it comes to that.

It is possible to take issue with Dubya and his foreign policy without it degenerating into the same tired old left vs. right name calling. There are a few Americans on this board, yourself included, who seem to have nothing better to do than to drone away endlessly about every scrap of US news, the US right vs. the US left etc. It is, IMHO, stupifyingly boring.

I suspect most Canadians want to know about the latest US invasion, events in Iraq, presidential elections, front page news etc., but not every last detail of American political life. Why should we care? Give it a rest. A great many of those posts bashing Bush / USA are happening on inflammatory threads started by Americans like yourself. Aren't there any US boards for you to go and project your national interests onto? At least on a US board it might be interesting.

[onthebottom]

Strange, truly strange. I thought our country relished freedom of speech.
Yet, you are the first to deamonize those that disagree with your view.
Strange, truly strange. Why is your skin so, so thin. I would think you
would relish criticism and discourse. But, you don't. If others challence,
you deamonize

Why do I call you a Rush wannabe? Because that's how you come across.

Don

PS: The Twins are wannabes that never made it to the League or Championship
finals. :D

That's funny because I distinctly remember sitting at a World Series game as the Twins won the 7th game. Nice 3rd base seats my father gave me because he was in a friends box behind home plate. Meet Senator Kerry that night, in said box.

I'm happy to debate policy, ideas, politics, I just don't relish in the name-calling that seems to charge you up so much.

OTB

[sizematters]

A major, no - the major - problem in the US is the incredible disparity
between the rich and the poor. Don

DQ, Canada has this problem as well.
I'm unclear on the connection you are making between rich/poor, left/right...if indeed you intended such a connection. Please expand...

[langeweile]

It is possible to take issue with Dubya and his foreign policy without it degenerating into the same tired old left vs. right name calling. There are a few Americans on this board, yourself included, who seem to have nothing better to do than to drone away endlessly about every scrap of US news, the US right vs. the US left etc. It is, IMHO, stupifyingly boring.

I suspect most Canadians want to know about the latest US invasion, events in Iraq, presidential elections, front page news etc., but not every last detail of American political life. Why should we care? Give it a rest. A great many of those posts bashing Bush / USA are happening on inflammatory threads started by Americans like yourself. Aren't there any US boards for you to go and project your national interests onto? At least on a US board it might be interesting.

On a few occassions I have posted some Canadian issues. With mediocre results. Is is my fault? I don't think so.
I found most Canadians pretty detached from their own politics. Is it because they don't care or is it because they have surrendered and don't feel they can change anything.
Ottawa has raised property taxes two years in a row now, has cut municipal services, while at the same time raised politicians salaries by 20%.
There was zero reaction within the city. Everybody just rolled over and went to an anti-Bush demonstration? :(
Your goverment has thrown away millions of $$ in sponsorship money, while some Canadians on this very board suggested, that the investigation was a waste of money.
Billions of $$ have been lost in that nightmare called "gun registry" however the same people are still in power?
On more than one ocassion I was trying to discuss Canadian politics, but somehow it has always turned in to an anti-American/Bush thread. Why?You tell me.

[someone]

I am amused at the scarcity of threads about Canada (especially if you subtract those threads whining about US barriers to trade ;-). I've just assumed nothing important or interesting happens up there - every time there is a Canada based thread I ask questions and do a bit of research. Unfortunately they always die out quickly or disintegrate into a Bush bash. Bit sad actually.OTB

I think that there is a very simple reason why the threads on American issues last longer here. That is because you will find very few Canadians that worship their PM and even if they did, they would be embarrassed to admit it. Hence, there are no born again types willing to defend Martin (or whoever) to the death. However, there are clearly a handful of Americans on this board that seem to think that Bush is the second coming (I will be polite and not name them but I think everyone can think of examples). Thus, it is like arguing with one of those born again Christians trying to sell you religion on the street. The arguments can go on as long as people take the time to respond.

[langeweile]

How interesting this thread has deteriorated in to a Bush/American bashing. Well there is a new concept.

Just a few clarifications:

1) I am not a born again Christian. Never have been never will be

2) I am a conservative first and a Bush supporter second. There is many issues I don't support him in.
a) Medicare reform
b) Deficit
c) Pork barrel spending
d) Support for ILLEGAL immigrants
e) National drivers license standards.
f) Continued troop presence in places like Europe and Korea.
etc.etc.

3) Bush is in a line of many presidents that soon will be gone. I am not defending HIM to the death.
I am just a bit tired of canadians hiding behind Bush to further their agenda on continous anti-americanism.

If some of you need further proof, than I respectfully refer you to the previous post.
To call ALL Bush supporters somehow religous extremists is just plain wrong. It is full of prejudice and mean spirited.
Remember how the thread started out and remember where we are now.

[onthebottom]

It is possible to take issue with Dubya and his foreign policy without it degenerating into the same tired old left vs. right name calling. There are a few Americans on this board, yourself included, who seem to have nothing better to do than to drone away endlessly about every scrap of US news, the US right vs. the US left etc. It is, IMHO, stupifyingly boring.

I suspect most Canadians want to know about the latest US invasion, events in Iraq, presidential elections, front page news etc., but not every last detail of American political life. Why should we care? Give it a rest. A great many of those posts bashing Bush / USA are happening on inflammatory threads started by Americans like yourself. Aren't there any US boards for you to go and project your national interests onto? At least on a US board it might be interesting.

Hay Hay ho ho, YYC starts half those thread himself. There were many anti-US/Bush (and those are different things) threads when things were going worse than they are now (and the election was still in play) - what you see is a bit of us on the can't use that term having a bit of fun with it.

I come here because of the different perspective, it would be very easy for me to find a can't use this term board in the US, but how would I learn anything new? I try and read a lot of what is written here, except by young fools just trying to stir things up, because there are a lot of very intelligent people here, and the world is full of people that don't agree with me. Their called wrong ;-)

OTB

[onthebottom]

I think that there is a very simple reason why the threads on American issues last longer here. That is because you will find very few Canadians that worship their PM and even if they did, they would be embarrassed to admit it. Hence, there are no born again types willing to defend Martin (or whoever) to the death. However, there are clearly a handful of Americans on this board that seem to think that Bush is the second coming (I will be polite and not name them but I think everyone can think of examples). Thus, it is like arguing with one of those born again Christians trying to sell you religion on the street. The arguments can go on as long as people take the time to respond.

Why does it have to be about people (hint, it doesn't) it's about issues? If you want to talk about Iraq (and we've been doing it at nausea for years here) then do, you will never see me say Bush is the second coming, you will see me support some of his policies. Now I've taken shots at Clinton, Kerry and others, but not to the extent that you see Bush basing on this forum. I'm happy to stick to the issues.

OTB

[someone]

How interesting this thread has deteriorated in to a Bush/American bashing. Well there is a new concept.

Just a few clarifications:

1) I am not a born again Christian. Never have been never will be

2) I am a conservative first and a Bush supporter second. There is many issues I don't support him in.
a) Medicare reform
b) Deficit
c) Pork barrel spending
d) Support for ILLEGAL immigrants
e) National drivers license standards.
f) Continued troop presence in places like Europe and Korea.
etc.etc.

3) Bush is in a line of many presidents that soon will be gone. I am not defending HIM to the death.
I am just a bit tired of canadians hiding behind Bush to further their agenda on continous anti-americanism.

If some of you need further proof, than I respectfully refer you to the previous post.
To call ALL Bush supporters somehow religous extremists is just plain wrong. It is full of prejudice and mean spirited.
Remember how the thread started out and remember where we are now.

First of all, you should know that the religious references were analogies. I happened to think that it is a good analogy. Nonetheless, whether you think it is good one or not, I find it hard to believe that you did not pick up that it was meant to be an analogy. Moreover, as an explanation of why threads on American politics go on for so long, I think it is accurate. Few Canadian would want to be seen as so differential to their political leaders as to continually defend them no matter what. Thus, when something negative is posted about Martin (if you do a search you will find a that I have made a few negative posts about Martin) you may find a bit of an exchange but it will die down quickly. Generally, I would say that this is true even in cases were they actually like the leader. Indeed, the only time I have ever had someone get involved in a long debate with me about my negative comments about the Martin was with bbking during the election. And that was just once.

Also, I defy you to find anything anti American in the previous post I made

[someone]

Why does it have to be about people (hint, it doesn't) it's about issues? If you want to talk about Iraq (and we've been doing it at nausea for years here) then do, you will never see me say Bush is the second coming, you will see me support some of his policies. Now I've taken shots at Clinton, Kerry and others, but not to the extent that you see Bush basing on this forum. I'm happy to stick to the issues.
OTB

Please see my last post regarding analogies. It is also interesting that although I did not mention names, two of you automatically assume I was referring to you. To me that seems to suggest something about the truth of the analogy (OK in your case, you have the excuse that I was responding to a post you made). BTW, the reason that you see so much criticism of Bush on this board is that it is really hard to think of a worse U.S. president without going back to the 19th century. If Trudeau were still in power in Canada, you would find me making a lot of negative posts about him. However, he is not so there is little reason to debate his bad policies. There is still a reason to debate Bush’s bad policies (not the mention that Trudeau was only bad for Canada and not the world).

[langeweile]

how interesting that you're blind to the Canada bashing in this thread....
No i am not, but if you start to attack my country I have the right to defend myself.

[someone]

I am just a bit tired of canadians hiding behind Bush to further their agenda on continous anti-americanism.

If some of you need further proof, than I respectfully refer you to the previous post.

BTW, I really am interested in hearing what you found in the post in question that was anti-American. I have reread it a few times and I will be dammed if I can see what you’re referring to.

[happygrump]

No i am not, but if you start to attack my country I have the right to defend myself.

It's not personal, lang. Is not the strength of a democracy based on the right of free speech and dissent?

[lenharper]

Lange:

In the post you refer to, the poster states -- "there are a handful of posters on this board who think bush is the second coming". You refer to this post by saying the poster catagorizes "ALL Bush supporters as right wing fanatics."

If you want to have a discussion at least take the time to read what the other guy is saying. It's this kind of knee jerk response that makes certain posters look like foamy mouthed maniacs.

[langeweile]

That is because you will find very few Canadians that worship their PM and even if they did, they would be embarrassed to admit it. Hence, there are no born again types willing to defend Martin (or whoever) to the death. However, there are clearly a handful of Americans on this board that seem to think that Bush is the second coming (I will be polite and not name them but I think everyone can think of examples).

Your post implies that all supporters of Bush are the "born again types" and believe that he is "Christ" ("second coming")

I have some serious issues with the "born against types" or the religous right in the USA. Most of them are out of touch with reality and are borderline idiots.
These people are a fringe group of American poltitics and I have nothing in common with them. i don't want to be associated with them and don't share any of their views.
So for you to put me in the same corner is an insult.

[someone]

Your post implies that all supporters of Bush are the "born again types" and believe that he is "Christ" ("second coming")

I have some serious issues with the "born against types" or the religous right in the USA. Most of them are out of touch with reality and are borderline idiots.
These people are a fringe group of American poltitics and I have nothing in common with them. i don't want to be associated with them and don't share any of their views.
So for you to put me in the same corner is an insult.

I don’t like overly religious types either, although I can better understand why they support Bush than I can understand why others support Bush. I guess as they say, politics makes strange bedfellows. Next time, I will try to come up with a different analogy (although off the top of my head, I really can’t think of a better one). I won’t even crack any jokes about why you assumed a reply to one of OTB’s posts referred to you ;) . However, I will say that there was nothing anti-American in my post.

[langeweile]

DQ, my good friend.
Attacking and questioning ones goverment is a citizens responsibility.There is a difference however in questioning and criticizing somebodies (or own) goverment, and asserting that whoever voted for the current goverment, is an extremist or a religous fanatic.

[red]

Slowpoke,

There is a bit of right/left bashing on both sides, and you're right it is usually an intellectual shortcut. I'm happy to discuss any issue without labels as long as I don't have to hear "shrub" "right wing" "amerikkka".... you get the idea.

I am amused at the scarcity of threads about Canada (especially if you subtract those threads whining about US barriers to trade ;-). I've just assumed nothing important or interesting happens up there - every time there is a Canada based thread I ask questions and do a bit of research. Unfortunately they always die out quickly or disintegrate into a Bush bash. Bit sad actually.

In addition to the left/right labels I'm also annoyed at the freedom some feel to criticize US policy with no need to suggest an alternative, something I'm going to start calling Monday morning Canucking. Don't like Iraq, Iran, North Korea US policy, great, what would you do differently (let's just ignore the point about Canada actually doing something - that's not very realistic).

OTB

more gratuitous canada bashing.

[someone]

I have some serious issues with the "born against types" or the religous right in the USA. Most of them are out of touch with reality and are borderline idiots.
These people are a fringe group of American poltitics and I have nothing in common with them. i don't want to be associated with them and don't share any of their views.

Given how sensitive you are about my analogy, I will say up front that I am not implying that you are religious. However, the sensitivity did leave me curious as to just how much of a “fringe group of American poltitics” they are. The results are so surprising that I am not sure I believe them myself but ABC would seem to be a reasonably reliable source. www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm.

ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by ICR.
I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. [See below.] Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"

LiterallyTrue NotLiterallyTrue NoOpinion
% % %
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and the animals on their ark survived."
60 33 7

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."

61 30 8

The story about Moses parting the Red Sea so the Jews could escape from Egypt."

64 28 8

I have lived in the U.S. bible belt and even I am amazed at these numbers (I was expecting numbers in the 30s which I would have considered to be very high). Still, if the numbers are correct, I would argue that you are wrong in calling them a fringe group.

[onthebottom]

more gratuitous canada bashing.

No it isn't

OTB

[onthebottom]

attacking your accuser personally isnt a defense. its just a suck's excuse for an argument.....

DQ, take note.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by ICR.
I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. [See below.] Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"

LiterallyTrue NotLiterallyTrue NoOpinion
% % %
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and the animals on their ark survived."
60 33 7

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."

61 30 8

The story about Moses parting the Red Sea so the Jews could escape from Egypt."

64 28 8

I have lived in the U.S. bible belt and even I am amazed at these numbers (I was expecting numbers in the 30s which I would have considered to be very high). Still, if the numbers are correct, I would argue that you are wrong in calling them a fringe group.

Oh man, those are freaky scary numbers. I wonder how many think - as Stockwell Day does - that humans existed at the time of the dinosaur?

[red]

No it isn't

OTB
yes it was

[langeweile]

Given how sensitive you are about my analogy, I will say up front that I am not implying that you are religious. However, the sensitivity did leave me curious as to just how much of a “fringe group of American poltitics” they are. The results are so surprising that I am not sure I believe them myself but ABC would seem to be a reasonably reliable source. www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm.

ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by ICR.
I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. [See below.] Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"

LiterallyTrue NotLiterallyTrue NoOpinion
% % %
"The story of Noah and the ark in which it rained for 40 days and nights, the entire world was flooded, and only Noah, his family and the animals on their ark survived."
60 33 7

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."

61 30 8

The story about Moses parting the Red Sea so the Jews could escape from Egypt."

64 28 8

I have lived in the U.S. bible belt and even I am amazed at these numbers (I was expecting numbers in the 30s which I would have considered to be very high). Still, if the numbers are correct, I would argue that you are wrong in calling them a fringe group.


if you look at the whole picture you will realize that allthough a lot of people believe in those stories, there is a difference in once believe and the influence it has (or should have) on daily politics.
Just because you believe in something doesn't make you a fanatic. many of the question in regards to poltics vs religion, you can see that people have definite ideas on where religion stops and politics begin.

[onthebottom]

I owe you an apology. My mistake. I was way over the top.
My attack weakened my argument.

Regards, Don

Classy post, apology accepted, insult forgotten.

Keep arguing with me, I like the issues based stuff, it's just the personal stuff that gets old.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

if you look at the whole picture you will realize that allthough a lot of people believe in those stories, there is a difference in once believe and the influence it has (or should have) on daily politics.
Just because you believe in something doesn't make you a fanatic. many of the question in regards to poltics vs religion, you can see that people have definite ideas on where religion stops and politics begin.

It doesn't make you a fanatic. But it does call into question a person's ability to reason effectively.

[langeweile]

It doesn't make you a fanatic. But it does call into question a person's ability to reason effectively.

Are you saying that because someone believes in God, he lost his ability for sound reasoning? or are you referring to the few extremists?

[someone]

Are you saying that because someone believes in God, he lost his ability for sound reasoning? or are you referring to the few extremists?

In modern societies, I would say that it is one thing for the uneducated to take such stories seriously. However, if intelligence is normally distributed, those results indicate that even Americans of average intelligence know nothing of natural history. You can’t tell me that you think that is healthy.

[assoholic]

..the point is that the Christian Right is the strongest force in US politics today. They are not a fringe group and they control the South. Second you were right alot of them are borderline idiots. You just dont want to be associated with them so you minimize their numbers.

[Peeping Tom]

I find it rather telling that of all the poll sources linked to, the meaningless unqualified question got the attention. Then I saw this gem: (emphasis mine)

I don’t like overly religious types either, although I can better understand why they support Bush than I can understand why others support Bush.

Since this view is quite prevalent it is worthy of an ideological deconstruction. The left (sorry, I have to) takes it as an article of faith that Bush is bad, always wrong, the debbil etc. - as seen here in the relentless Bush bashing sans justification, i.e. OTB's "Monday morning Canucking". Quite naturally, members of one faith can easily rationalize those of another faith as being fundamentally wrong, hence the fervent belief in the bogeyman of the "religious right". What is seen is the rigid doctrine of leftist state religion vs. the private religion of others, with dollups of insanity erupting towards those who can make a case for their right leaning arguments.

With respect to the OP, sorry for turning this on its ear, yet in a feeble paragraph I added something worthy of critique, fire away guys and flame away children :)

The part that got me started: (emphasis mine)


if you look at the whole picture you will realize that allthough a lot of people believe in those stories, there is a difference in once believe and the influence it has (or should have) on daily politics.
Just because you believe in something doesn't make you a fanatic. many of the question in regards to poltics vs religion, you can see that people have definite ideas on where religion stops and politics begin.

[someone]

I find it rather telling that of all the poll sources linked to, the meaningless unqualified question got the attention. Then I saw this gem: (emphasis mine)

I don’t like overly religious types either, although I can better understand why they support Bush than I can understand why others support Bush.

Since this view is quite prevalent it is worthy of an ideological deconstruction. The left (sorry, I have to) takes it as an article of faith that Bush is bad, always wrong, the debbil etc. - as seen here in the relentless Bush bashing sans justification, i.e. OTB's "Monday morning Canucking". Quite naturally, members of one faith can easily rationalize those of another faith as being fundamentally wrong, hence the fervent belief in the bogeyman of the "religious right". What is seen is the rigid doctrine of leftist state religion vs. the private religion of others, with dollups of insanity erupting towards those who can make a case for their right leaning arguments.

First I will say that you are crazy if you are implying that I am left wing. However, you also don't address the question. Are you really telling me that you think there is nothing wrong with a school system in a developed country that produces people who think the world was made in 7 days? Can you name any other developed country that would produce poll results like that. OTB asked in another post why I thought the U.S. did so bad on standardized testing. Look at those poll results and tell me how it could produce good results in science. BTW, given that those percentages are higher than those who voted for Bush this looks like it this is more than a left versus right issue. It is a educational problem.

[onthebottom]

I think you guys are getting a bit carried away slamming Christians here. You simply can't assume that because people have faith that they can't think.

Enough said.

OTB

[yychobbyist]

I'm not saying that religious people or Christians can't think. I am spiritual person and I have no problems with spiritual people

I do, however, question the reasoning ability and the critical thinking skills of people who believe the world was created in six days, that a guy built a boat and sailed the high seas with a bunch of animals for a month and half, and that some guy parted seas so that a bunch of people could be saved.

I have a problem with people whose beliefs fly in the face of science. Science tells me how the earth was created, it tells me that the great flood never happened and that a person can't part water.

[langeweile]

The thing with faith is, that you either believe or you don't. That's why they call it faith.
I don't want to get in to a long discussion on faith, like politics it is a very personal issue.
Let me just say that poking fun at people for their believes is very intolerant. Intolerance is not a virtue of the religous right.
Many of those people that say they believe in those stories, are also very clear, that those beliefs have a limited place in poltics.

I judge a person by what they do and not by what they believe in. If you a good and stand up person and you need the bible to give you that strength..who am I to judge? I rather have you live by the word of God, than be lost in life with nothing to hold on to.

Tolerance and acceptance go a long way.

[happygrump]

Tolerance and acceptance go a long way.

Amen to that (no pun intended).

[someone]

I can’t believe that OTB and Lang don’t think there is a problem with half the population does not even have a very basic knowledge of science in today’s world. We are not talking about religion so much as ignorance. There are plenty of religious people in other developed countries that profess to believe in some kind of God. However, even the Vatican no longer takes the story of creation literally.

I really thought people would try to attack the figures (which I find hard to believe myself) rather than try to say there is nothing wrong with them. For example, one of my friends argues that the numbers are exaggerated. He argues that many Americans think that the more religious they seem the more they look like nice people. Thus, they pretend to have these believes when they are asked. I am doubtful that people would really want to pretend to be dumber than they are but at least he is not saying that if these figures are true, it would not be a bad sign.

If these figures really do reflect American’s knowledge of science, it is surely a sign of a society in decay.

[langeweile]

I can’t believe that OTB and Lang don’t think there is a problem with half the population does not even have a very basic knowledge of science in today’s world. We are not talking about religion so much as ignorance. There are plenty of religious people in other developed countries that profess to believe in some kind of God. However, even the Vatican no longer takes the story of creation literally.

I really thought people would try to attack the figures (which I find hard to believe myself) rather than try to say there is nothing wrong with them. For example, one of my friends argues that the numbers are exaggerated. He argues that many Americans think that the more religious they seem the more they look like nice people. Thus, they pretend to have these believes when they are asked. I am doubtful that people would really want to pretend to be dumber than they are but at least he is not saying that if these figures are true, it would not be a bad sign.

If these figures really do reflect American’s knowledge of science, it is surely a sign of a society in decay.

Here we go again.
There is no conflict in my mind between believing the stories from the bible(with the exception of creationism) and the believe and support of certain scientific theories.
You can believe in them, but don't take them literally, those two are very compatible thoughts.
Let's don't forget that these stories have been written by people, who claim to have seen something. Did it all happened as described i highly doubt it. Is there some underlying truth? Who really knows? It is a question of believe.

Why do people that believe in the bible, have a lack of scientific knowledge? and why is it witness to a society in decay?
Again I get the feeling that you just wrote this as a cheap shot against Americans.
You implied a couple times that the religous right is somehow intolerant, you have shown the same intolerance, and you claim to be a man of science?

Why does it bother you, that people have such strong believes? Does it question your own believe system? Does it in any way bother your serenity?
Why can't you just accept those peoples believes?
You don't know any of those people, you have never sat down with either one of them. You are taking a "scientific poll" to make a judgement on somebodies faith. Isn't that a bit black and white?
We all know how accurate and indepth polls are?

There is a certain under educated fringe that actually have a literally believe. My experience with faith is, that people don't like to talk openly about it. Usually those who do are trying to sell you something anyway. Good believers live their faith and don't talk about it.

[onthebottom]

YYC, Someone,

I think you are making a leap that because 60% of the population (and I think that's high but it doesn't change the argument) believes the bible that they don't believe in science. While one could argue that the two are irreconcilable - what you gentlemen are arguing - I don't know that everyone tries to reconcile these.

Think about this, how many religious people do you KNOW that are stupid or don't believe in science. I can't think of any myself.

OTB

[langeweile]

DQ,
FINALLY...thanks for the post.

[Peeping Tom]

I'm wondering why you don't back this up. Just how does half the population not have a clue about science?




I can’t believe that OTB and Lang don’t think there is a problem with half the population does not even have a very basic knowledge of science in today’s world.

So, if its not religion, then Americans are ignorant?


We are not talking about religion so much as ignorance.

I suppose you are the Vatican's point man. Maybe you should check the numbers - the Vatican does not represent the majority of Americans who declare themselves religious.


However, even the Vatican no longer takes the story of creation literally.

Nobody is bothering to attack the figures because they are meaningless. There is nothing wrong with them because the question is unqualified, any answer would be equally valid. Next time choose something you can correlate to your arguments (something you have been very shy at doing).


I really thought people would try to attack the figures (which I find hard to believe myself) rather than try to say there is nothing wrong with them.

See above, next time try to interpret what it says before postulating your stereotype.


If these figures really do reflect American’s knowledge of science

This last line is what is expected of a religious zealot. It seems the true believer is you.


it is surely a sign of a society in decay.

[someone]

Here we go again.
There is no conflict in my mind between believing the stories from the bible(with the exception of creationism) and the believe and support of certain scientific theories.
You can believe in them, but don't take them literally, those two are very compatible thoughts.

The point is that 60%+ of the American populatin did claim to take them literally.

[langeweile]

The point is that 60%+ of the American populatin did claim to take them literally.
Read the rest of the post....it is a poll..answers to questions of faith are never black and white..

[someone]

There are many rational people, scientists included,
that hold there is a unity of science and religion.

That may very well be true but those are not people who believe that the world was made in 7 days (Given that Newton lived before Darwin, he may be an exception but if he lived today, I am sure he would not take the story of creation seriously.

[someone]

I'm wondering why you don't back this up. Just how does half the population not have a clue about science?

Are you serious in asking this question? The answer is because all the evidence of modern science is that the world was not made in 7 days. Please attend a grade 7 class in a country with real highs schools if you need more elaboration on this answer




So, if its not religion, then Americans are ignorant?

See the answer above.



I suppose you are the Vatican's point man. Maybe you should check the numbers - the Vatican does not represent the majority of Americans who declare themselves religious.

Those Americans are also not represented by the majority of theologians



Nobody is bothering to attack the figures because they are meaningless. There is nothing wrong with them because the question is unqualified, any answer would be equally valid.


You can't be serious can you?

[someone]

YYC, Someone,

Think about this, how many religious people do you KNOW that are stupid or don't believe in science. I can't think of any myself.

OTB

I can know think of 60% of the population in a certain country.

More seriously, I can't think of any other developed country in the world were there would not be serious concerns if the education system produced results like this. Indeed, I can't think of any developed country where the number would even come close. I challenge you to find one were the people are this uneducated.

[someone]

Read the rest of the post....it is a poll..answers to questions of faith are never black and white..
You really want me to take the time to pick apart everything in your post? Maybe when I have more time but right now I have to get ready to teach a class in a nonevolutionary science.

The fact that the American posters on this board don't even find the results surprising says a lot. When I used to hear reports about groups in the U.S. who wanted planned designed (or whatever the term they have started using for creationism is) taught in schools, I used to think it was just a few crackpots in the bible belt. Now, I am really beginning to wonder. Perhaps my impression of American culture was very wrong.

[slowpoke]

Slowpoke,


....In addition to the left/right labels I'm also annoyed at the freedom some feel to criticize US policy with no need to suggest an alternative, something I'm going to start calling Monday morning Canucking. Don't like Iraq, Iran, North Korea US policy, great, what would you do differently (let's just ignore the point about Canada actually doing something - that's not very realistic).

OTB

Let me make sure I've got this straight. I hear that a big stong guy has just beaten the crap out of a much weaker person or I learn that a very rich and powerful group has recently bombed and invaded a poor and helpless group. I also learn that the helpless group posed no plausible threat to the powerful one.

But, according to you, I should have worked out an alternative strategy for the above aggressors before I can express my outrage. Why should I? I just want them to be punished and made to stop. That's it. I would be perfectly willing to discuss why it was wrong for the aggressors to behave this way but that should be self evident.

If I was forced to suggest an alternative strategy for the above aggressors, it would be to stop immediately and turn the bully / ringleader over to the authorities in the [world] court to be prosecuted like any other [war] criminal. This isn't a left / right thing and you can call it Monday morning Canucking if it makes you feel better. BTW, we Canucks aren't the only group that feels this way so you might want to expand the "Canucking" to something a little more global.

[onthebottom]

I can know think of 60% of the population in a certain country.

More seriously, I can't think of any other developed country in the world were there would not be serious concerns if the education system produced results like this. Indeed, I can't think of any developed country where the number would even come close. I challenge you to find one were the people are this uneducated.

You are confusing a belief in the bible (example you used) with ignorance or the rejection of science. My point remains, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think it is very easy to believe in the big bang and creation at the same time (one sounds like an explanation of the other to me). You are reading this as too black and white.

You must know Americans. How many of them seem this "uneducated". I'm guessing none. That should tell you something.

And to answer your comparative question, UK has some of the same test score issues that we have. (if that's what you meant).

I didn't get the first line, maybe you're too cleaver for me.

OTB

[onthebottom]

Let me make sure I've got this straight. I hear that a big stong guy has just beaten the crap out of a much weaker person or I learn that a very rich and powerful group has recently bombed and invaded a poor and helpless group. I also learn that the helpless group posed no plausible threat to the powerful one.

But, according to you, I should have worked out an alternative strategy for the above aggressors before I can express my outrage. Why should I? I just want them to be punished and made to stop. That's it. I would be perfectly willing to discuss why it was wrong for the aggressors to behave this way but that should be self evident.

If I was forced to suggest an alternative strategy for the above aggressors, it would be to stop immediately and turn the bully / ringleader over to the authorities in the [world] court to be prosecuted like any other [war] criminal. This isn't a left / right thing and you can call it Monday morning Canucking if it makes you feel better. BTW, we Canucks aren't the only group that feels this way so you might want to expand the "Canucking" to something a little more global.


I just used Canuck because, well there are many Canucks here and Canada isn't as action oriented as many other Western countries. Never mind that last part, it'll just start a flame war I'm not interested in.

So, in your Iraq example (gee, that was hard to read into), you could disagree with the approach the US and UK have taken and suggested continued sanctions (a solution), ending sanctions (containment) ...... Taking this approach would require you live in the real world where there are a fixed number of potential solutions, sometimes all of them with flaws. You would then have to defend your solution as being better than the solution being pursued by the US and UK.

That was the only point I was trying to make - not a hard one to understand.

OTB

[langeweile]

You really want me to take the time to pick apart everything in your post? Maybe when I have more time but right now I have to get ready to teach a class in a nonevolutionary science.

The fact that the American posters on this board don't even find the results surprising says a lot. When I used to hear reports about groups in the U.S. who wanted planned designed (or whatever the term they have started using for creationism is) taught in schools, I used to think it was just a few crackpots in the bible belt. Now, I am really beginning to wonder. Perhaps my impression of American culture was very wrong.

Again..a very much expected response. A typical Euro response I might add.

Why do guys like you always talk down to us, and consistently belittle us? One of many questions I have asked you, without ever getting an explanation.
In the end that is fine with me. Having lived in Europe, Canada and the USA I pretty much know, what makes you guys tick.
It is fascinating to me, on how much I see of me in you, in my past attitudes on the USA. Truly fascinating. Thanks for reminding me on where I came from.
Cheers.

[someone]

I was raised Catholic. Sixteen years of parochial education. I attended a Jesuit university
and most of my instructors were Jesuits. I may not be representative of other Catholics
education in our tradition. But the Jesuits taught me to think critically when reading not
only scripture but all other matters. My theology professors [all Jesuits] read the Bible,
and Genesis in particular, as metaphores since our language is limited to the dimensions
of the physical universe. Points of interest:

1. Six days of Creation in Genesis were understood to be six of God's days and not six
of man's days. It is pure foolishness to think God measures His actions in the same time
frame as it takes for our planet to make one spin on it's axis. Six days, but whose six
days and measured from whose perspective. Six of Gods days could be 6 million or 6
billion of you and my days.

2. Adam. Was there one Adam or is Adam a generic term for mankind. There is the Adam of the creation of man, there is the Adam of the Garden of Eden and there is the
Adam of the fall from grace father to Cain and Abel. My understanding is that there are
three Adams. One at the creation of mankind, one who is the hunter and gatherer and
one who is the farmer.

3. Teachings of Jesus. Most of Jesus's teachings are in the form of parables. He does
not speak in concrete terms but in metaphores. No better example is The Sermon on the
Mount. The entire Sermon is metaphorical and cannot possibly be taken literally.

As for evolution, God can do and act in ways that God chooses. If God chooses to use
evolution as His design then so be it. How can you and I, finite minds, understand God's
mind, God's plan?

There is but one Truth, one Reality. We may not know, we may not ever understand how
this Single Truth and Reality has been designed by the Divine Architect of the universe.

I do not believe there is a contradiction between Scripture and Science.

Don

If you read my posts you will see that I did not pass any judgment about people who treat those stories as "metaphores" and "parables" to use your terms. That is a whole other issue and not one I am prepared to devote time discussing now. My point was the surprising number of Americans that take those stories literally as the polls results indicate. Right now I am only discussing the more clear cut case of people who take those stories literally. As I said before, I am amassed that Americans don’t find the results very weird.

[slowpoke]

I just used Canuck because, well there are many Canucks here and Canada isn't as action oriented as many other Western countries. Never mind that last part, it'll just start a flame war I'm not interested in.

So, in your Iraq example (gee, that was hard to read into), you could disagree with the approach the US and UK have taken and suggested continued sanctions (a solution), ending sanctions (containment) ...... Taking this approach would require you live in the real world where there are a fixed number of potential solutions, sometimes all of them with flaws. You would then have to defend your solution as being better than the solution being pursued by the US and UK.

That was the only point I was trying to make - not a hard one to understand.

OTB

Just prior to the invasion, I was very clearly on the side of continued inspections. We know now that the inspectors wouldn't have ever found anything so, with that knowledge, it is obvious that the inspections would have gone on for a year or two longer, then the UN could have gradually lifted the sanctions in exchange for permanent UN inspectors and monitors in Iraq etc. Bush was just far too impatient.

If Bush had put as much effort and expense into helping reform the UN as he did into invading Iraq, we'd have supported him, we'd have shared the cost and so would most western democracies. Martin has spoken out strongly for a reformed UN so he'd have been very much in favour of this, including a UN controlled permanent force. If the US really wanted it, the UN could have become the policeman the US is always pretending to be. I would have supported a UN force in Iraq, but only after the inspections had been given more time to assess the threat of WMD. Hans Blix would have eventually ruled out WMD and none of this bloodshed would have been necessary.

I knew the war in Iraq would be bloody and costly and I have been proven right in spades. I never believed Dubya's WMD pretence, especially when the wheels started falling off his "facts" during the pre-invasion WMD promo. It was quite evident that the neocons preferred their doctored evidence of WMD because they kept touting it long after it had been discredited. With Korea, India, Pakistan, Isreal and probably a few others all being rogue members of the nuclear club, I couldn't see the urgency of invading Iraq with all the inspections, sanctions and surveillance being directed its way. Saddam couldn't scratch his ass without everyone knowing yet the US insisted that he presented the greatest threat. What nonsense!

[someone]

You are confusing a belief in the bible (example you used) with ignorance or the rejection of science. My point remains, the two are not mutually exclusive. I think it is very easy to believe in the big bang and creation at the same time (one sounds like an explanation of the other to me). You are reading this as too black and white.

God, this is frustrating. If you read the poll results you will see that it is 60+% of the American population that is taking things literally. READ THEM.



You must know Americans. How many of them seem this "uneducated". I'm guessing none. That should tell you something.


Educated is a relative term. Having taught in an American post secondary institution, I m not impressed with American education standards but we have exchange posts in another thread on that so I don't see why you want to go over the same ground again.


And to answer your comparative question, UK has some of the same test score issues that we have. (if that's what you meant).


I have a very hard time believing that. Can you please post a source or a link? I would be interested in seeing comparative results for different western countries.

[onthebottom]

Just prior to the invasion, I was very clearly on the side of continued inspections. We know now that the inspectors wouldn't have ever found anything so, with that knowledge, it is obvious that the inspections would have gone on for a year or two longer, then the UN could have gradually lifted the sanctions in exchange for permanent UN inspectors and monitors in Iraq etc. Bush was just far too impatient.

If Bush had put as much effort and expense into helping reform the UN as he did into invading Iraq, we'd have supported him, we'd have shared the cost and so would most western democracies. Martin has spoken out strongly for a reformed UN so he'd have been very much in favour of this, including a UN controlled permanent force. If the US really wanted it, the UN could have become the policeman the US is always pretending to be. I would have supported a UN force in Iraq, but only after the inspections had been given more time to assess the threat of WMD. Hans Blix would have eventually ruled out WMD and none of this bloodshed would have been necessary.

I knew the war in Iraq would be bloody and costly and I have been proven right in spades. I never believed Dubya's WMD pretence, especially when the wheels started falling off his "facts" during the pre-invasion WMD promo. It was quite evident that the neocons preferred their doctored evidence of WMD because they kept touting it long after it had been discredited. With Korea, India, Pakistan, Isreal and probably a few others all being rogue members of the nuclear club, I couldn't see the urgency of invading Iraq with all the inspections, sanctions and surveillance being directed its way. Saddam couldn't scratch his ass without everyone knowing yet the US insisted that he presented the greatest threat. What nonsense!

OK, I have no objection to people disagreeing with US (or anyone else's) policy, just don't throw stones without having an alternative. You have shown an alternative, there are many costs (35k children under 10 dieing per year under sanctions, rapes, murders.....) of maintaining sanctions but it was a valid alternative.

While you may have always known there were no WMD we mere mortals were not so sure (including both Clintons, Kerry.....), you need to recall that Iraq had them before and used them - this was not a theoretical discussion with Iraq. But hey, I thought he had them and I was wrong. I think Bush was wrong as well (in that he really did think Iraq had WMD) but then you'll just say I'm a brain washed right wing nut (brining us back to the topic at hand).

nuff said.

OTB

[langeweile]

If you read my posts you will see that I did not pass any judgment about people who treat those stories as "metaphores" and "parables" to use your terms. That is a whole other issue and not one I am prepared to devote time discussing now. My point was the surprising number of Americans that take those stories literally as the polls results indicate. Right now I am only discussing the more clear cut case of people who take those stories literally. As I said before, I am amassed that Americans don’t find the results very weird.

I give up...you win...

[someone]

You asked me to go through your posts in more detail so I will.


Here we go again.
There is no conflict in my mind between believing the stories from the bible(with the exception of creationism) and the believe and support of certain scientific theories.

If you read the poll results you will see that we are talking about people who believe in creationism so what is the point of your exception?



You can believe in them, but don't take them literally, those two are very compatible thoughts.
Let's don't forget that these stories have been written by people, who claim to have seen something. Did it all happened as described i highly doubt it. Is there some underlying truth? Who really knows? It is a question of believe.

Given that we are talking about people who take the stories literally, what exactly is your point!.



Why do people that believe in the bible, have a lack of scientific knowledge?

If carbon dating says that the earth is a few billion years older than humans and these people believe it is only a few days older, clearly they have a lack of scientific knowledge. What could be clearer! I’m beginning to think that I am arguing with Americanson (OK, I admit that I am hitting below the belt here ;) )



and why is it witness to a society in decay?

This is so obvious that I’m not ever sure where to start. A society were the majority of people are unaware of all the major advances in science in the last 100+ years is not healthy.



Again I get the feeling that you just wrote this as a cheap shot against Americans.
You implied a couple times that the religous right is somehow intolerant, you have shown the same intolerance, and you claim to be a man of science?

I would be even more concerned if people in Canada thought like this as it would have a more direct effect on a country I care more about. However, it happens to be an American problem. BTW I seem you recall that you were the one that said the religous right was intolerant (although I did not disagree).


Why does it bother you, that people have such strong believes? Does it question your own believe system? Does it in any way bother your serenity?
Why can't you just accept those peoples believes?


Part of my job is the search for truth. Moreover, my personality has never been one to suffer fools gladly.



You don't know any of those people, you have never sat down with either one of them. You are taking a "scientific poll" to make a judgement on somebodies faith. Isn't that a bit black and white?
We all know how accurate and indepth polls are?

If you have better data please present it.



There is a certain under educated fringe that actually have a literally believe. My experience with faith is, that people don't like to talk openly about it. Usually those who do are trying to sell you something anyway. Good believers live their faith and don't talk about it.
[/QUOTE]I will not argue with that (although the poll results indicate that is is more than a fringe).

[slowpoke]

...While you may have always known there were no WMD we mere mortals were not so sure (including both Clintons, Kerry.....), you need to recall that Iraq had them before and used them - this was not a theoretical discussion with Iraq.
OTB

I didn't always "know" about WMD. I was totally uninformed at the beginning so I'd have believed any plausible argument if the evidence was good. But when the inspectors couldn't find anything and the neocons started their ultra hard sell WMD promo with bogus evidence, I became very skeptical. I also couldn't quite see what the hurry was. Every extra day they had inspectors combing Iraq for WMD meant a slight decrease in the probability that they still existed. So a few more months or even years would have ruled them out. I was also suspicious of Dubya's contempt for the UN. He definitely had a hidden agenda and seemed almost desperate to invade. All telltale signs that something was fishy.

[yychobbyist]

YYC, Someone,

I think you are making a leap that because 60% of the population (and I think that's high but it doesn't change the argument) believes the bible that they don't believe in science. While one could argue that the two are irreconcilable - what you gentlemen are arguing - I don't know that everyone tries to reconcile these.

Think about this, how many religious people do you KNOW that are stupid or don't believe in science. I can't think of any myself.

OTB


I don't think people who believe in the bible are idiots or unscientific. I think you can understand the bible as story-telling, as a work of fiction rather than as a book of non-fiction. You can believe in the symbolism of the stories and be completely scientific. But, if you believe that the world was really created in six days, if you really believe that Noah's arc actually existed then I think you have a problem with your ability to comprehend what has been factually and scientifically proven about the history of the earth.

[someone]

My point is that you can't read Scripture literally! Even those that say they do, don't.
The Gospels, in particular, have to be interpreted. Again, noone can read the document
literally. When questioned, those that say they do will hedge their words and make
exceptions. Specifically, the words of Christ.

Except for the fact that you seem to take the spiritual aspects seriously, I don’t think we are in much disagreement here.

[onthebottom]

I didn't always "know" about WMD. I was totally uninformed at the beginning so I'd have believed any plausible argument if the evidence was good. But when the inspectors couldn't find anything and the neocons started their ultra hard sell WMD promo with bogus evidence, I became very skeptical. I also couldn't quite see what the hurry was. Every extra day they had inspectors combing Iraq for WMD meant a slight decrease in the probability that they still existed. So a few more months or even years would have ruled them out. I was also suspicious of Dubya's contempt for the UN. He definitely had a hidden agenda and seemed almost desperate to invade. All telltale signs that something was fishy.

You will recall that there were no inspectors on the ground until 1444 and US troops were in Kuwait. Even Hans Blix (who was right all along) has said that inspectors would probably not have been let back in without those troops sitting on the boarder. If that's true (and I believe it, which doesn't make it true) how long could inspections have gone on? (remember, 3,000 CHILDREN a month are dieing (UNICEF))

OTB

[onthebottom]

I don't think people who believe in the bible are idiots or unscientific. I think you can understand the bible as story-telling, as a work of fiction rather than as a book of non-fiction. You can believe in the symbolism of the stories and be completely scientific. But, if you believe that the world was really created in six days, if you really believe that Noah's arc actually existed then I think you have a problem with your ability to comprehend what has been factually and scientifically proven about the history of the earth.

I think (no poll data to prove my point) that many people do not reconcile the conflict between believing that GOD created the world in six days and the big bang theory. You are reading a lot into those poll results. Again, use your contacts with religious people (don't think the American part is very relevant other than we have more religious people than many countries) and ask them if they believe the world was created by GOD, was it done is six days and does that conflict with science. I predict you will get many responses like DQ's (six of GOD's days and how can we even comprehend), which are signs that people don't think it important to resolve their faith with the world around them.

OTB

[onthebottom]

One school of thought is that God is Reality.
I once posed this premise to a well respected priest:
"Is it possible God was the Big Bang, that metaphorically speaking,
God blew himself up. He laughed and dismissed the argument.
The next time we talked he said he understood my metaphore and
couldn't dismiss that premise. It's just a thought.

While you've spent more time thinking about this than I have, I've always thought the Big Bang was God at work. Turning something the size of an acorn into the entire known universe sounds pretty divine to me.

OTB

[someone]

One school of thought is that God is Reality.
I once posed this premise to a well respected priest:
"Is it possible God was the Big Bang, that metaphorically speaking,
God blew himself up. He laughed and dismissed the argument.
The next time we talked he said he understood my metaphore and
couldn't dismiss that premise. It's just a thought.

Of course you are then accepting the hypothesis that he plays dice :o .

[yychobbyist]

I think (no poll data to prove my point) that many people do not reconcile the conflict between believing that GOD created the world in six days and the big bang theory. You are reading a lot into those poll results. Again, use your contacts with religious people (don't think the American part is very relevant other than we have more religious people than many countries) and ask them if they believe the world was created by GOD, was it done is six days and does that conflict with science. I predict you will get many responses like DQ's (six of GOD's days and how can we even comprehend), which are signs that people don't think it important to resolve their faith with the world around them.

OTB

If my next few days would be spent talking about the creation of the earth with religious types I quite fear that I will never do anything economically productive ever again.

[slowpoke]

You will recall that there were no inspectors on the ground until 1444 and US troops were in Kuwait. Even Hans Blix (who was right all along) has said that inspectors would probably not have been let back in without those troops sitting on the boarder. If that's true (and I believe it, which doesn't make it true) how long could inspections have gone on? (remember, 3,000 CHILDREN a month are dieing (UNICEF))
OTB

I remember there was a lot of discussion about the administration of the sanctions themselves. I'm too lazy to go scrounging around for backup on this but I clearly recall that the US had a veto on the UN governing body that decided which items Iraq was allowed to import in exchange for oil. Apparently the US used that veto repeatedly to prevent fairly innocuous imports that would have lessened the infant deaths. The sanctions were supposed to prevent imports of materials that had possible military applications but, in reality, they were used more as a bludgeon which resulted in many unnecessary deaths, including infants.

I would have supported massive troops on the border, thousands of expensive inspectors, overflights and surveillance every hour or so and any number of precautionary measures to avoid the slaughter of innocents that eventually occurred. If it were up to me, Canada would have participated in these preventive measures and shared the cost.

[langeweile]

If my next few days would be spent talking about the creation of the earth with religious types I quite fear that I will never do anything economically productive ever again.

This quote is true for religion and for politics.

[someone]

And to answer your comparative question, UK has some of the same test score issues that we have. (if that's what you meant). OTB

The following disagrees with you. The results for the U.S. are not as bad as the other poll I posted (in this case, over 50% of Americans seem to undestand some of the basic sceintific findings of the last 100 years) but it is still significantly higher than in Britin (45% versus 7%).

http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/creation0822.html

[onthebottom]

The following disagrees with you. The results for the U.S. are not as bad as the other poll I posted (in this case, over 50% of Americans seem to undestand some of the basic sceintific findings of the last 100 years) but it is still significantly higher than in Britin (45% versus 7%).

http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/creation0822.html

I thought you were saying the US scored low on standardized tests because of this (UK does as well). I may have been responding to a point no one made (I hate it when I do that).

I thought it was interesting that:

"Only 5 percent of American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical creationist view, according to one survey. Fifty-five percent endorse the Darwinist position, and [b]40 percent accept theistic evolution.[b]"

Even 40% of scientists think God had something to do with life - very interesting.

OTB

[someone]

I thought you were saying the US scored low on standardized tests because of this (UK does as well). I may have been responding to a point no one made (I hate it when I do that).

I thought it was interesting that:

"Only 5 percent of American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical creationist view, according to one survey. Fifty-five percent endorse the Darwinist position, and [b]40 percent accept theistic evolution.[b]"

Even 40% of scientists think God had something to do with life - very interesting.

OTB
Perhaps my question was not clear. I'm even surprised by the 5% but perhaps there are physical sceinces where evolutionary thought has not had an impact (metallurgy perhaps?)

[slowpoke]

You will recall that there were no inspectors on the ground until 1444 and US troops were in Kuwait. Even Hans Blix (who was right all along) has said that inspectors would probably not have been let back in without those troops sitting on the boarder. If that's true (and I believe it, which doesn't make it true) how long could inspections have gone on? (remember, 3,000 CHILDREN a month are dieing (UNICEF))

OTB

I finally found a blurb about the sanctions you seem to think just innocently appeared from nowhere:


"...However, the U.S. often did hold up contracts for months--or even years--to question medical supplies. “Concerned about security, the United States blocked yogurt makers, child vaccines, ambulances, equipment for water purification, truck tires, electrical generators,” reports Gordon. “In July 2002 alone, $5 billion of contracts for critical humanitarian supplies for Iraq were on hold--nearly all at the behest of the United States.”

This is the scandal that no committee will investigate: the impact the sanctions had on the people of Iraq.

With the stated purpose of stopping Saddam Hussein from manufacturing “weapons of mass destruction,” the sanctions banned so-called “dual-use” items. Chlorine, which is needed to purify water, was considered a “dual-use” item.

“The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging,” former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote in Britain’s Independent newspaper. “Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change.

“Since 1991, the United States had made it clear--through successive statements by James Baker, George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright--that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.”

This is the real scandal...."

http://www.selvesandothers.org/article7641.html

[onthebottom]

I finally found a blurb about the sanctions you seem to think just innocently appeared from nowhere:


"...However, the U.S. often did hold up contracts for months--or even years--to question medical supplies. “Concerned about security, the United States blocked yogurt makers, child vaccines, ambulances, equipment for water purification, truck tires, electrical generators,” reports Gordon. “In July 2002 alone, $5 billion of contracts for critical humanitarian supplies for Iraq were on hold--nearly all at the behest of the United States.”

This is the scandal that no committee will investigate: the impact the sanctions had on the people of Iraq.

With the stated purpose of stopping Saddam Hussein from manufacturing “weapons of mass destruction,” the sanctions banned so-called “dual-use” items. Chlorine, which is needed to purify water, was considered a “dual-use” item.

“The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging,” former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote in Britain’s Independent newspaper. “Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change.

“Since 1991, the United States had made it clear--through successive statements by James Baker, George W. Bush and Madeleine Albright--that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.”

This is the real scandal...."

http://www.selvesandothers.org/article7641.html


Yes, read many of these points before. What would you have done?

OTB

[slowpoke]

Yes, read many of these points before. What would you have done?

OTB

I would have finished Saddam during Desert Storm. Leadership involves recognizing a rare opportunity and acting on it decisively. Anyone with a bit of experience knows you won't often get a shot at Saddam like the one they had then. I supported the UN coalition kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. It was a worthwhile mission because Saddam had invaded his neighbour. The coalition had Iraq on a platter, with most of their troops getting creamed out in the open desert north of Kuwait, and Saddam minding the store all by himself back in Baghdad. If they wanted him, he was there for the taking. If they'd taken advantage of that opportunity, sanctions would have been unnecessary and the infrastructure would've remained intact. Democratizing Iraq would have been a piece of cake compared to what is happening now. You can say hindsight is always 20/20 but I clearly remember thinking at the time that they should have taken out Saddam right then and there.

Failing that, I wouldn't intentionally withold vital medicines and necessities of civilian life under the sanctions in an attempt to destabilize the whole country and maybe inspire the Iraqi population to overthrow Saddam. The stated goal of the sanctions was to deny Saddam any chance to trade oil for materials that might have military applications but we both know that the sanctions were intentionally used to withold much more than possible war materials.

When you said: " ..If that's true (and I believe it, which doesn't make it true) how long could inspections have gone on? (remember, 3,000 CHILDREN a month are dieing [under the sanctions] (UNICEF))", you avoided the part where the US/UK intentionally administered the sanctions so that their impact was dramatically worse than they had to be. I would have prevented obvious war materials from entering Iraq but I wouldn't have contributed to infant deaths any more than I had to.

[happygrump]

I would have finished Saddam during Desert Storm... If they wanted him, he was there for the taking.

I would have done the same, but the 1991 coalition did not have a mandate to neutralize Saddam. Schwartzkopf (sp?) wanted to march to Baghdad too, but Bush Sr. denied permission. The coalition's mandate was restricted to the liberation of Kuwait and to provide security in the clean up the oil fires that resulted (thanks to firefighting gear and expertise mostly from Alberta and the gloriously-moustachioed Mike Miller of Safety Boss).

Another one of those situations where the wrong thing was done for the right reasons.

[someone]

I would have finished Saddam during Desert Storm. Leadership involves recognizing a rare opportunity and acting on it decisively. Anyone with a bit of experience knows you won't often get a shot at Saddam like the one they had then. I supported the UN coalition kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. It was a worthwhile mission because Saddam had invaded his neighbour. The coalition had Iraq on a platter, with most of their troops getting creamed out in the open desert north of Kuwait, and Saddam minding the store all by himself back in Baghdad. If they wanted him, he was there for the taking. If they'd taken advantage of that opportunity, sanctions would have been unnecessary and the infrastructure would've remained intact. Democratizing Iraq would have been a piece of cake compared to what is happening now. You can say hindsight is always 20/20 but I clearly remember thinking at the time that they should have taken out Saddam right then and there.
I completely agree that if they had invaded then, it would have been justified. There was a problem in getting a UN resolution but if the U.S. was going to end up breaking international law by invading Iraq without a UN resolution anyway, they could have at least done it when there was some justification. I have to wonder why there was such a change in the U.S position. Is it just the case of different administrations seeing the world differently? Alternatively, at the time did the U.S. really believe that sanctions would topple the government, making an invasion unnecessary (I can’t think of an example of sanctions actually having that effect anywhere)

[happygrump]

I can’t think of an example of sanctions actually having that effect anywhere

Just one that I can think of: South Africa (though there was never discussion about invasion as far as I know), despite Maggie Thatcher's refusal to enact sanctions from the UK, probably because her family had investments there. Better to take the money and ignore the injustice, I suppose...

[someone]

Just one that I can think of: South Africa (though there was never discussion about invasion as far as I know), despite Maggie Thatcher's refusal to enact sanctions from the UK, probably because her family had investments there. Better to take the money and ignore the injustice, I suppose...
But were sanctions really decisive in that case?

[slowpoke]

I would have done the same, but the 1991 coalition did not have a mandate to neutralize Saddam. Schwartzkopf (sp?) wanted to march to Baghdad too, but Bush Sr. denied permission. The coalition's mandate was restricted to the liberation of Kuwait and to provide security in the clean up the oil fires that resulted (thanks to firefighting gear and expertise mostly from Alberta and the gloriously-moustachioed Mike Miller of Safety Boss).

Another one of those situations where the wrong thing was done for the right reasons.

I knew there were nagging technicalities but, with enough pressure on the UN, they might have been able to arrange something. I think Bush Sr. was afraid to take US casualties so he refused to even push for anything more than the usual air strikes. He sure as hell didn't make as big a pitch to sell an assault on Baghdad as his son did a decade or so later.