@Evidence-

"a drawing is not evidence"

Neither is a book.

@48-

"Believing we had an common ancestor means you belive[sic] well[sic] all came from a rock that was rained on for millions of years."

Wrong again.

1.) Evolution does not attempt to explain where life came from, only how it came to be how it is. I haven't heard the "rock rained" on theory, but I think it's a lot less plausible than others.

2.) How is that any more of a stretch than believing in a creator-less creator who existed before things existed?

3.) WTF do you care? If you're convinced that your Abrahamic Hygiene Deity will come back to eternally damn us sinners any day now why bother convincing us? More Heaven for you and your 72 virgins. Wait... am I getting mixed up again? Of course. 72 virgins is crazzzzzyyyyy not sane and rational like your afterlife.

@44-

Another creationist shows his/her true colors. You guys can have Heaven all to yourself if you just leave Earth to the rest of us heathens.

@27-

"The fossil record shows no transitional forms"

Well, actually it does, but that's beside the point.

If I showed you a picture of myself at 6, and then a picture of myself at 9, would you assume that they were pictures of two distinct individuals, because you never saw the pictures of me at 7 and 8? If I showed you the pictures of me at 7 and 8, would you assume you were looking at 4 different individuals, because you don't see pictures from 6.5, 7.5, and 8.5?

@15 - "show me an animal that has transitioned from one species to another"

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

@20 - Then you don't understand how evolution works. How about this guy turning into dogs and cats?

@3-

"This has never been seen" Except in the fossil record. But then again, JHVH could have just put those there to trick us, because He has been known to be a big fan of the psych out. You can interpret the fossil record any way you want, but I'm going to side with the scientists who've devoted their lives to studying it, rather than the theologians who've devoted their lives to ignoring it.

In regard to "new information," see one of those scientists' analysis of the "information" problem. Also, see Dawkins' explanation of how evolution can increase complexity (going from skin to a functioning eye).

@45 -

+1.

The comments are disagreeable and misinformed, but not abusive, off-topic, or spam. I'm all for comment moderation, but this feels a little censor-y to me. We should debate the commenters we disagree with, not censor them.

@22-

If waterboarding is torture I wonder what cutting off limbs is considered as?

Torture. Just because there is a greater order of magnitude, that doesn't mean that smaller crimes don't count. Stealing a car is theft, even though you could steal a jet.

I love how so many people complain that it is torture yet those same people are in favor of it if one of their loved ones could be saved by its use.

Examples? Names? Dates? Has this happened outside of 24? As in, in the real world?

Do you think the Taliban thinks about the rights of the civilian cameraman before he cuts off his head?

No, they don't, and that's why we're better than them. Our response to Hitler could have been "lets round up all of the Germans and throw them in ovens," but then WWII wouldn't be our one shining example of a just war, would it?

I'm so tried of Do-Gooders going around promoting the rights of people who would kill them as much as look at them.

Do-Gooders like this guy? Or this guy?

...the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have better legal representation than our own American Citizens (and for FREE yet)!

Names? Dates? If they've got such great legal representation, why are they still there?

What is next, giving people sneaking over the boarder food & blankets and sending them on their merry way?

I shudder at the thought of such a terrible, bleak world. Would you prefer that they are shot, and their corpses hung on the wall as an example to their filthy, greedy families?

Fascist totalitarianism is not what America is about. One more quote for you. If we aren't fighting this "war" because of a moral imperative, to defeat a fatal ideology, then we are simply fighting a war of revenge, of vendetta. If that's the case, then we're no better than our enemies.

Bigotry + Booze + Email = Win. Forever and ever.

Great Men, Great Mustaches:
Burt Reynolds. Tom Selleck. Jamie Hyneman. Freddie Mercury. Johnathan Waters. Mario. Luigi. Solid Snake. Revolver Ocelot. Pre-Crisis James Hetfield. Your Dad. Tony Stark. Dr. Strange. Walter White. Friedrich Nietzsche. Frank Zappa. Nick Cave. The Great Cthulhu, Dead and Dreaming in Sunken R'Lyeh. Charlie Chaplin. Morgan Spurlock. Captain Crunch. Greg Norton. Ned Flanders. Count Dracula.

This is why I don't listen to pop.

Perfect length for a Neurosis song: forever

It's interesting, but I wonder about the personal consequences of developing such a mindset. I was a martial arts practitioner & instructor for many years, and found that developing a good self-defense mindset involved seeing potential attackers everywhere, and this led to assessing the physical vulnerabilities of everyone around me, especially when walking down the street. I was looking at the world through fight-colored glasses.

Could finding security/exploitation holes everywhere in the world around us develop a similar paranoia?

New American Capitalism 101: Litigation is easier than Innovation.

@3 - If you want privacy, don't go out in public. Once you go into the public sphere, everything you say and do is up for grabs. When you go out in public, you have to understand that you will, be seen, heard, judged, and remembered by people around you. They own their interpretation and their memory of everything they experience, and a photograph is just a physical manifestation of of that interpretation.

If the went home and sketched you from memory, would that be any different? Would you own the sketch? What if they described you in writing? Who would own the description? What if they simply described you verbally to a friend? Who would own that description?

Xodarap-

I think you've thoroughly split every hair on the thread. If you're through, I'm sure some of us would like to get back to the conversation, albeit with minor errors in philosophical jargon. Thanks, though.

@66

There's all sorts of epistemological problems here, and if we take these sorts of "you don't know" problems to their logical conclusion, we conclude that we don't know anything. And yet we continue to go on living, getting in our cars every morning, more or less "knowing" that there isn't a hungry cougar waiting in the passenger seat. If we didn't "know" that our cars were cougar-free, we'd never get near them.

We draw a lot of conclusions about our world based on logic and experience, and make predictions based on what we think is strong probability. I don't know that I won't return home today to find my dishwasher full of diamonds, but I can say with a high degree of certainty that it will not. That prediction then informs my actions- I won't take bet my savings at the racetrack, knowing I have a dishwasher full of diamonds to fall back on.

In the same way we can predict the contents of our dishwashers, we can predict life events with a fair amount of certainty. I predict that if I ever break my leg, it will hurt like hell, because leg injuries I've sustained in the past have hurt like hell, and I've heard reliable, first-hand accounts of victims of broken legs. And so, I can predict with a fair degree of certainty what death will be like. I can infer that it's something like sleep, which I've spent about half my life doing. Only I probably won't dream, because I've heard reliable first-hand accounts from scientists that the activity that causes dreams ceases at time of death. And it will be different from sleep in that I won't wake up, because the probability of rising from the grave is almost infinitesimally small. Even if Jesus did it, he's only one of about 90 billion, so I don't like those odds. Therefore, I can infer with a great degree of certainty that death will be much like sleep, but without dreams, and without an awakening at the end.

Philosophically, we can never "know" anything, but practically, we substitute the term "predict with a great degree of certainty based on logic, life experience, and reliable third party testimony" with "know."

America is obsessed with "sin." See the recent fervor over the Eliot Spitzer scandal, or the asymmetry between the reaction to Bill Clinton's sexcapades, and George Bush's endorsement of torture. Remember which one was impeached?

Christianity teaches us that "sin" is not just limited to action, but also intent (Matthew 5:28).

As obsessed as Americans are with exposing, shaming, and punishing "sinners," is there any doubt that we will jump at the chance to police morality in the brain? We have laws in many states dictating what consenting adults can do with their genitals, why not have laws dictating what they can do with their brains?

If anyone's interested, I'll be selling plans for tinfoil hats on my website for $35 each, $50 and I'll throw in a roll of deluxe foil.

I don't wanna be held in your London dungeon.

It took 47 comments before anyone noticed this? Really? Glenn Danzig must be rolling in his grave.

So are the "seven book chapters, 38 refereed journal articles and a textbook" (Faulkner Press, http://www.faulknerpress.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=14) that Moulton authored derivative works of the researchers he no doubts cites and references?

The final line of Cory's quotation says it all.

I don't know about $35/seat and waiters ducking around, but I would definitely pay a premium to be able to enjoy a movie without hearing someone in the theater yell "OH SNAP!" ever again.

My gf and I enjoy going to the movies periodically, but our local chain has become overrun with inconsiderate audiences. We've learned to never see a movie on a Friday (doesn't matter what kind of movie, either), to not be surrounded by teens. However, waiting to see a flick late in its run, on a weeknight, just sets you up to see it with the gaggle of old ladies who need to explain the plot to each other at conversation volume.

I think a better business model would be a monthly membership fee (which could be revoked for disruption, etc.), so the apparent cost would be lower- say $15/ticket and $9.99/month.

Dear Army:

I want all my money back.

Love,

Greg Taxpayer

Also, there are some mildly NSFW moments herein (just nudity so far), but folks should be warned nonetheless.

So many excellent soundbites here.

On a side note, as ridiculous as some of these rituals look, we should keep in mind that the only measurable difference between these religions from those we take for granted is quantity of adherents.

"It creates a connoisseurship to sort out what’s worthwhile in the culture and what isn’t. Wealthy art collectors in this country have sorted out who the great artists are."

I hope there's some irony there that didn't come through in the text. I think it's nonsense that anyone has some sort of superior view on what is and what is not worthwhile art, and even more nonsense to say that that superior view is the result of merely having bought a lot of art.

This makes my HS video projects look like plop.

I'd slap a "Citation Needed" sticker on a few of the bullet points, but all in all- bravo.

Stupid heathens. Don't they know the only way to save a relationship is by consulting with a celibate priest?

Antinous-

But Catholics often aren't

Let's examine that. While a member of one faith can certainly respect the piety and devotion of a member of a competing faith, they have to make up their mind about whether or not that competing faith's description of the spiritual world is accurate.

A Christian may respect the devotion of a Hindu, but that Christian has to make a decision about whether or not s/he believes that Vishnu exists. If s/he decides that Vishnu exists in the same way that JHVH does, then that Christian is in violation of the 2nd Commandment (Exodus version). If the Christian decides that Vishnu does not exist, isn't s/he acknowledging that his/her Hindu friend is wrong about the spiritual world?

Naturally, these types of sentiments do not mesh well with plans for a peaceful, diverse world. It seems that your Catholic friends are "outgrowing" the exclusionist parts of the dogma. Let's hope that religionists of all stripes begin to outgrow the rest of the dogma, so we can have moral philosophies that don't require mythical support and authoritarian enforcement.

@Teresa-

But Catholicism, like most monotheistic faiths, is inherently exclusionary. I have a feeling you wrote Post 161 before my post (160) went live (I got a lot of errors before it posted, and even then it didn't show for errors), because we ended up quoting the same parts of the Nicene Creed. That supports my point that Catholicism is exclusionary. If you uphold the tenants of the doctrine, you have to renounce all other gods, and recognize all churches as unholy and untrue. Whether a particular adherent chooses to see "spiritual value" in other faiths is their choice, but Catholic doctrine asserts that there is not.

If Christian men believed that the tenants of Sikhism were true, they would feel bound to wear the 5 Articles of Faith at all times, or risk their salvation. As we see few Christian men wearing ceremonial daggers and such, we can assume that most Christian men believe the tenants of Sikhism to be untrue, since they do not fear losing their salvation by ignoring them.

There's a difference in seeing subjective "spiritual value" in other faiths, by accepting that they uplift morality, or increase their adherants' happiness, etc. However, by accepting one faith above all others, one makes a statement about the objective "spiritual value" of the rejected faiths.

Most people won't say they think that the rules of other religions are bunkum, but isn't their opinion evidenced by their obvious lack of obedience to them?

Really? So are you Catholic, and therefore recognize "one God," and "one holy catholic and apostolic Church?" (quoted from the Nicene Creed). Recognizing other gods (by, for instance, praying to them), or other churches (by, for instance, participating in other rituals) would make you pretty much apostate, and therefore a candidate for automatic (or latae sententiae) excommunication.

In that case, you couldn't really call yourself a Catholic. And since you've stated many times that you are, I made safe assumptions that you followed the basic tenants of the Church. You made assumptions about me (that my last name is Park, which proved to be correct) and that I'm male (also correct) based on my username and statements. I don't think it's going out of the way to assume you're a Catholic, since you've said as much here.

If you're ignoring doctrine, and picking and choosing which rules to observe, gods to worship, and rituals to practice, then you're not religious, you're just making things up- which puts you in an even worse position to debate religion.

@156-
How are the Mitzvot conceptually different than the Catholic Virtues? Is it wrong to compare the two? You clearly think the Mitzvot are nonsense, because you don't adhere to them. By accepting Catholicism you tacitly (and during your Christening, a Priest vocally did it on your behalf) reject all others. By accepting Catholicism, you are declaring that all other faiths are phony-baloney made-up mumbo-jumbo. If they weren't, you'd be playing by their rules too, and I assume you haven't prayed to Mecca lately or offered any sacrifices to Wotan.

Scientists "screwing around with things" is the reason you don't have polio or smallpox, by the way.

"Democracy does protect my feelings, I think that's part of the constitution or the emancipation proclamation isn't it? "
Emancipation Proclamation: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
Constitution: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

When you find the passages detailing what topics are unacceptable for rational debate between private citizens, please post them here so we'll all be sure what's off limits.

"sorry I am Catholic, if I were anything else, you'd be forced to be politically correct."

Wrong again, friend. If you came in here stating that the only paths to salvation were through the avoidance of grape skins and haircuts (provisions of the 613 Mitvot of Orthodox Judaism) you'd be equally trounced for superstition and nonsense.

"I am entitled to my feelings in a Democratic Society last I heard.
'You have no right to not be offended by the opinions of others. They aren't forcing their point of view on anyone.' This is absurd.

Not absurd at all. A democratic society has no compelling interest in protecting your feelings, and social pressure suppressing OUR speech against your convictions is inherently un-democratic. If you're worried about having your feelings hurt, you should stay out of the debate.

Catholicism is a philosophical, cosmological, and historical position, and is no more protected from criticism than other philosophical positions like existentialism or modernism, cosmological positions like atomism or string theory, or historical positions like creationism or catastrophism. Simply because it's the same position your ancestors likely took doesn't entitle it to any special protections. Ask a good atheist to defend his/her beliefs, and s/he'll do it, instead of turtling behind the "I'm offended!" defense.

Religion has got a free pass in public debate for far too long. Anyone (including Oprah or Obama) passing out a list of bad behaviors deserves a thorough dressing down from the rational populace. In 2008, we try to change each other's behavior with rational argument and supporting evidence, not horror stories about pitchforks and flames, and not with "because I said so" rhetoric.

@4-
Are you then in favor of a completely non-transparent government? Like a monarchy, dictatorship, or theocracy? I doubt you are, and that's the issue here.

Complete transparency is impractical, and likely counter-productive. What I'm (and likely Cory is, too) asking for is a government that is more transparent. Like I mentioned in my first post, government is about balance, and it is important for the executive & military branches of government to keep tactical and strategic secrets. But that secrecy needs to balance with the citizens' participation in their own representative government.

Clearly something is out of balance in the UK (and the US as well) when the citizenry is unhappy with the level of transparency, and the level of liberty sacrificed for security. Instead of allowing us to participate more in the security/liberty negotiations, are governments (US & UK in particular) are attempting to scare us into compliance with phrases like "people that would like nothing better than to see Amercan streets flowing with Ameican blood." The US (and the UK) system of government was built on debate and reason, not fear and authoritarianism. We need to get back to that.

@1: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/6_ways_to_filter_your_rss_feeds.php. Hopefully this will be the last we hear from you on how much you think Cory is totally lame.

@2:
A transparent society doesn't necessarily mean no secrets for anyone. Private citizens are still able to keep secrets from each other, and from their government. What it means is that the government is open to inquiry and protest. Government ≠ God, and therefore is not all-knowing. Citizens need the ability to debate security measures, and challenge the government when they think that certain "security measures" are actually the result of ulterior motives. Liberty and security exist in balance, and that balance should serve the citizens most of all, it should be their decision how the scales tip. Without a transparent government, the citizenry is in no control of this crucial balance.

@93-

"The absolute certainty, the - capital f - Faith that they do more harm than good"

I've never heard of scientists starting an 80-year war of occupation to secure some real estate. Also, I don't remember any scientists torturing and killing thousands upon thousands of people, just for having different ideas. The last official Inquisition was ended in 1858, so the Holy See has only been Inquisition-free for 150 years, which is about 7.5% of its history. And last I checked, the National Science Teacher Association didn't have a pending class action lawsuit vis a vis statutory rape.

You may call it "religious zealotry," but I'm perfectly willing to accept evidence that the Catholic Church (or dogma in general) has done more good than it has done harm. However, looking at the history books, and looking at the atrocities that Islam is inspiring worldwide, I have yet to see a convincing argument that religion makes the world a better place for anyone other than its own adherents.

@13-
I don't know what God thinks about the Vatican adding these laws by themselves. Did God ever appoint them as His spokesperson in the first place?

Jesus (who both is, and is not God for some reason) appointed Peter as His spokesman in Matthew 16:18-9, and allowed Peter to make laws on Earth that would be binding in Heaven. Therefore, G-d is behind this nonsense 100%.

Apparently Peter's push-to-talk line with JHVH got passed from Peter all the way down to this Ratzinger chap who calls the shots these days.

@13-
I don't know what God thinks about the Vatican adding these laws by themselves. Did God ever appoint them as His spokesperson in the first place?

Jesus (who both is, and is not God for some reason) appointed Peter as His spokesman in Matthew 16:18-9, and allowed Peter to make laws on Earth that would be binding in Heaven. Therefore, G-d is behind this nonsense 100%.

Apparently Peter's push-to-talk line with JHVH got passed from Peter all the way down to this Ratzinger chap who calls the shots these days.

@Anselm-

Not all cosplayers are gamers and not all gamers are cosplayers!

Will the prejudice ever end?

So did God just not see these problems coming when He came up with the original sin list?

Oh wait, it's all made up by celibate weirdos in strange costumes. I almost forgot for a second.

Late with the SYL reference, but here's the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZYb7CZ7Ltc

@7-
Are you saying that opponents of torture are only in it for the money?

And honestly, I think that the neocon contingent does want jihad, because nothing has earned more votes for evangelicals or support for imperialism than the threat of "Islamic Extremism." They're convinced that as long as we're afraid of Big Bad Osama, we'll continue to give up more of our liberty in exchange for "security."

Silly Cloonan. Torturing their leaders doesn't embolden terrorists! Criticizing our leaders emboldens them.

To quote Monster Magnet:

"...I was thinking how the world should have cried/ on the day Jack Kirby died"

I stash my power strip underneath an upended milk crate, and thread necessary cables up through the grating (and the power cable out a handle and to a wall socket). excess slack in the cables running up to my desk gets pulled down into the crate, where it stays. I've got two external drives and an unused iBook sitting on top of the crate, so it's a useful component stand as well.

Plenty of ventilation for the strip and wall warts, and it keeps that big mess out of sight. Cables coming up out of the crate get twist-tied together for neatness's sake.

@10:

Every time we ban a weapon, someone finds a workaround, as evidenced by this video. And, btw, the Lexan knives have as much killing power as a well-aimed Bic ballpoint.

@Moon-

If Pat Robertson was in charge of the FBI, and used it to torture and kill homosexuals and atheists, then your analogy would be accurate.

@Noen - Well, the House of Bush only has 11 months left, so we won't have that connection for much longer.

Secondly, we can do without the Saudi's oil. In 2007, Saudi oil accounted for only 16% of our total crude imports. Not exactly a "house of cards" scenario to cut them off. And I'd rather have them make idle threats about energy independence than torture and murder more people for the audacity of pretending its 2008.

Pessimism isn't going to work here. There were plenty of defeatist "it's never going to work because..." arguments during the US Abolition movement, but the absolute need to move forward overruled them.

@28

We have no moral or ethical compulsion to be "tolerant" of injustice. It isn't "intolerance" that we're fighting, it's superstitious oppression. Our goal shouldn't be to make Saudis more "tolerant" it should be to sanction their government and economy until they abide by basic standards of civil liberties and human rights.

There's no need for "tolerance" or "understanding" here. We should take direct, decisive, and bloodless action against any regime that perpetuates this sort of horror.

The fact that our government continues to do business with these zealots is absurd, because their law stands in direct opposition to everything that America has spent the last 400 years building. Every dollar we put into the hands of House of Saud finances more religious brutality, and we continue to sell them weapons to defend and expand their dominion.

@Ken Hansen-

Venezuela isn't the answer to all of our oil problems, but at least they don't have a religious police. How many gallons of Saudi gas to I have to buy to fund one flogging? Of the $394 billion worth of arms the Us gov't sold the between 1990-2000, how many of those guns are carried by the Mutaween?

"The broad public interest." Here in the States, our legislators stopped fussing about that years ago, and we've never been happier!

@jetsetsc-

Not if you buy your gas from Hess, or Sunoco, who do not import oil from Saudi Arabia (or most other OPEC nations).

Not one more penny, not one more moment of support. The US must withdraw all of its financial, military, and political support until the Saudis reject this nonsense.

Sekuriteh.

I haz it.

Dear Manga Kids:

Time to move on. Collect all your Bleach TPB's and move on to the next "underground" thing, because your medium of choice has just jumped over the biggest of sharks.

@Moonbat-

Beat me to it, well done. Beezlebub, does however translate to "lord of things that fly" or "lord of the flies," which I think is pretty appropriate for something that eats flying insects.

@82-
Not as proud as you are for all of the Americans who lost their homes, families and LIVES while our president stayed on vacation while the levees broke in New Orleans.

Nice effort, though.

If we teach children that fear is a scientifically quantifiable, evolutionarily explainable, and psychologically controllable phenomenon, how can we expect them to fear their god, their government, and (most of all) the TERRISTS?

@Bzishi

That's why the builders of the Lincoln Memorial wisely put a roof over the Lincoln statue. It's effectively lightning-proof. The builders of the Statue of Liberty had the foresight to build safeguards in that would ensure that nothing short of purple goo and Jackie Wilson songs would animate the statue.

Even so, in a showdown, my money would go on Giant Stone Lincoln over Giant Stone Jesus, hands down.

Is there any aspect of life that isn't improved by religious legalism?

If there is, I don't want to know about it.

FACT. When statues are struck by lightning, they come to life. FACT.

If giant stone Jesus tries to step on you (and he will), try to stand directly under the giant hole in his giant stone foot.

They could really use these in Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook.

I think we just learned the title for Manowar's next album.

It's great to see publishers taking a risk and giving stuff away, instead of running shrieking from the concept of digital distribution and *gasp* sharing.

@JCCalhoun-

If you're here, who's watching the counter at The Android's Dungeon and Baseball Card Shop?

IF you need to take a pill to get better at videogames, it's time to find a new hobby. Or shoot yourself in the face. It's up to you, really.

@ Ken Hansen-

Agreed, citizen! All dissent should be neatly typed and delivered in triplicate to the appropriate authorities! And all art must be contained in private residences and museums- we can't have it out in public where it might encourage thinking or feeling!

Bah.
The Robot Guitar as Beginner's Instrument: If you can't tune a guitar, even with the help of the myriad electronic tuners available already, you shouldn't be spending $2k on a new instrument, you should be spending it on lessons.

The Robot Guitar as Boon for Users of Alternate Tunings:
A good guitarist should be able to switch tunings between songs without any fuss (especially with a fixed-bridge instrument like the Les Paul), and any gigging guitarist worth his/her salt knows to bring a backup guitar anyway, so you should have at least 2 guitars onstage already.

One of the reasons that professional guitarists have different guitars for different tunings is because you want an instrument whose tone and response matches the tuning you put it in. Playing in a drop tuning like DADGAD requires the guitar to resonate at lower frequencies than when playing in standard tuning.

/curmudgeon

Inverted cross in the main pic FTW.

@15-

If the get close enough for you to use it, you're already one of them, as far as I'm concerned.

@Mark- Oh snap. Well played, sir.

If I'd seen that cover as a youngster, I would have been thoroughly traumatized. Therefore, it is thoroughly great.

William Gibson? How about ATHF's Hypno-Rims:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force#Deleted_Scenes
http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=500b007c0f021f09ba01ed06b1e35a50

Well, first of all, he's not talking about the iPhone specifically, just movies on cell phones. But he makes a good point- most films are meant to be seen in a theater, under certain conditions.

I'd like to see what would happen if we tasked a capable filmmaker like Mr. Lynch with shooting a film designed to be watched on a 3.5" screen, with headphones on, in a relatively public space.

@AGIT:

And there's more (moving backwards): 1970's-today: terrorists, 1940's-1960's: Commies, 1900's-1930's: anarchists & seditionists, 1880's-1900's: immigrants (this one's coming back!), 1860's-1880's: abolitionists (or anti-abolitionists, depending on your position relative to the Mason-Dixon)....

Before that we had other nations to scapegoat, like the Spanish, Mexicans, or British- before we realized it was much easier to hate "invisible" enemies at home than real enemies abroad.

We also did a bangup job on witches for a while.

The internet is our Edward R. Murrow now.

@Devoinregress-

I believe the trouble isn't legal authority, but the fact that most theaters wouldn't dare show a poster that isn't MPAA-approved, just like they wouldn't show a film or trailer that isn't MPAA-rated.

@ W. James Au-

Exhibit A: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0800069/Ss/0800069/teaserposter.jpg?path=gallery&path_key=0800069
(MPAA Says suitable for all ages)

Bound, nude body in a sack being dragged through the desert by a deformed mutant? Suitable for all ages.

Standing, hooded pseudo-POW led away by soliders? Mentally scarring.

Looks very inconsistent to me.

@Haldor -

Who's devaluing people? If I criticized another commenter's beliefs about politics, or art, or sports, or philosophy, would I be devaluing them? Why can't we discuss the merits of each other's assumptions about the supernatural?

I'm still trying to follow your logic- are you arguing that Christians don't have freedom of religion in America (though every non-Christian does) because of the Patriot Act and DRM?

You may feel like I'm dogging you or "splitting hairs," but I think it's ludicrous when the most dominant and influential religion in every aspect of American society tries to play victim.

@Haldor -

Please refer to my original comment, detailing how the 1st Amendment protects your religion from gov't interference, but not from criticism by your fellow citizens.

Your rights as a Christian exist ONLY inasmuch as they do not interfere with the rights of other Americans. If your religion gave you the right to supplant the rights of others, it would be an example of the American gov't preferring Christianity over other religions, or those of us who think it's all hokum.

Furthermore, if you don't like this situation, and if we were to make it illegal to criticize the religion (or lack thereof) of others, then we'd have to do away with your 1st Commandment, which says that JHVH is the ONLY god, and all others are false. And this is one of hundreds of criticisms (if not outright denials) of other faiths found throughout Christian holy texts.

Allowing private citizens to criticize religions is a PROTECTION of freedom of religion, not a strike against it.

"our liberties are being eroded by various laws, corporate behaviors, etc"

Which laws? The ones about Nativity scenes on public land? See Amendment 1. Or the ones about school-led prayer? Also, Amendment 1. Or do you mean the ones that allow people do things that Christians don't agree with? Sadly, the government doesn't exist to make sure that all Americans live up to the standards of Abraham's sky-god.

Corporate behaviors? There's a big difference between government action against religious sensitivities (protected by that 1st Amendment) and corporate actions that offend religious people (protected by nothing). Corporations have no compulsion to adhere to Christian sensitivities other than their desire to make money, and this is the way it should be- because (again) if the gov't stepped in, we'd be back to that "playing favorites" problem.

I still don't see how any standing US laws prevent Christians from practicing their religion, unless you feel that your fellow citizens' freedom of speech is an impediment to worship. To me, it doesn't seem like Christians are victims of discrimination (when Flying While Muslim can subject one to detention and interrogation), rather than they are victims of their own hypersensitivity. Or, more cynically, they have found that the best way to receive preferential treatment from the gov't is to play victim, hoping to circumvent the 1st Amendment rights of non-Christian Americans to better establish Christianity as the Official Church of the United States.

@Haldor-

Then why do you say that American Christians don't have freedom of religion?

"there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents government officials from enacting legislation that aligns with or is even based on their religious beliefs."

Right, but my point was that they are forbidden from making policy OF their beliefs, which prevents them from turning a particular religious belief into policy- like passing legislation that affirms Christmas to be about the birth of Christ the Messiah.

Obviously, much policy is based on religious doctrine, but it needs to be proven to have a purely secular value, otherwise it is making policy of religion.

@Haldor-

You have GOT to be kidding.

Freedom of religion DOES NOT mean freedom from criticism. If you want to make the connection, and argue that Christians are persecuted in America because they are criticized by their fellow citizens, you had better be ready to shut down every Christian who goes on TV and makes atheists out to be amoral and arrogant.

"God forbid that someone in government have religious beliefs."

A few corrections for you:

"[The Constitution] forbid[s] that someone in government [attempt in any way to make policy out of their] religious beliefs."

Personally, though, I long for a day when someone who still holds onto millennia-old superstitions stands no chance of holding public office anywhere in the world. If he filmed this ad in front of a big painting of The Wild Hunt, asking us to put the Thor back in Thursday, we'd laugh him off the airwaves.

Your 4th Amendment Rights, or $5 worth of Starbucks?

Make your call, Californians, make your call.

Themage,

License Farm DID answer each of your questions rather thoroughly. I wonder, then, why you jumped right to the "typical bleeding heart liberal" sound byte.

In America, we don't have rule by popular vote, we have government by representative democracy, and that's an important distinction. If we did have rule by popular vote, we'd have voted ourselves out of Iraq long ago, since most polls indicate that nearly 70% of Americans disapprove of the war (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).

A solution? How about we stop using the tactics of terrorism (influence through fear)? How about we start abiding by our own laws, and the laws and expectations of the rest of the civilized world? How about we wake up and realize that throughout human history, at every level, from personal to international, violence has only led to more violence, with very few exceptions?

If you support the war, and you support torture and unlawful captivity, that's great, you're entitled to that.

So enlist, or STFU.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

We haven't been reading our Nietzsche, apparently. Well, I guess the men in charge haven't been reading much at all (except maybe Deuteronomy).

My family's been in the States for more than 200 years, I'm starting to think it's time to cut our losses.

Rowling's going to need a bigger team of lawyers.

There's at least 50 different nonfiction Potter reference books available on Amazon at this very moment. Clearly, there's some intellectual property that needs defending! Rally the troops! We have to stand up for artists!

Or could it be that WB/JKR is preparing a reference book, and doesn't want the competition?

Looks like Pirate-Hobo-Zombie-Chimp-Ninja-Robot, actually. Or, Cyber-Pirate Zombo Ninjape, as it were.

The trick is charging people to tell you what the emperor's new clothes look like, apparently.

@Teresa: Then, if it's all the same, can I substitute extra helpings of language, sex, and art instead of religion?

The epiphany/epilepsy link is an interesting one. I've read that St. Paul's epiphany on the road to Damascus may have been an epileptic seizure. (I even think epilepsy was known as "St. Paul's Disease" in some parts of the world).

Given the incredible impact that Paul has had on the modern world, it's fascinating to think that his conversion to Christianity (and thus the resulting conversion of much of the world) was the result of one man's neurological disorder.

We get all worked up trying to prevent a repeat of September 11, thinking that increased security will save us.

The reason that things worked in 2001 is because the hijackers studied airline procedure and security and found workarounds.

We can't rely on "robots and science!" to save us from terrorism- in fact, nothing can. Someone who's dedicated the remains of their life into bringing down (what they see as) a diabolic evil will devote the extra weeks, months, or years, to circumventing whatever high-tech (or low-tech) security measures my tax dollars have paid for.

@Michael-

Welcome to the Internet.

Or one of the greatest metal albums ever recorded.

Jason, you beat me to it. Well done.

The real question is- how the hell do you steal one parking meter, let alone 122 more?

While there are ways to circumvent the law, and since it only pertains to sale, it's not a privacy issue. I feel that this is a First Amendment issue.

The spirit, if not the letter, of the law is to impose a certain morality on Alabamans, and that morality is without doubt a morality derived directly from orthodox Christianity.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that a law that imposes religious morals violates our separation of church and state.

@Jacob Davis

The choice issue is a troubling one, because I think the degree of "choice" in a situation is relative to the degree of repercussion.

I'll use an example from America- the Amish of central PA. Amish boys, when they reach a certain age, are allowed to spend a year in the modern world. During that year, they can decide to return to the Amish community, or join "the English" in modernity- but they can never return to their family.

Girls, however, are not given this choice. Even if an Amish woman manages to leave the community, what chance would she stand on "the outside?" With only a basic education, no economic or emotional support from her family, and virtually no understanding of post-1800's technology?

Everyone in America is free to reject their religious upbringing, and the rules it brings with it. But again, this is only a legal freedom. Often, the repercussions of the choice can be socially crippling.

I agree that we often ostracize others based on fashion choices, and bearing the brunt of that assault can be emotionally scarring. But I think that being shunned from your religious community and your family can be much more damaging. One gets over one's high school alienation. Recovering from religious and familial alienation, I would presume, is far more difficult.

@JacobDavis:

Thanks for the first-person account of this sort of thing, I think it enriches the dialog. Out of curiosity- the dresscode espoused by the cult you discussed sounds a lot like a Mennonite sect in the central PA area- any connection?

But to disagree- I agree that religious people make choices based on their dress code, and I'm sure they're aware of the choice. However, I feel that it is a choice made under far greater duress than an atheist's clothing decision.

As an atheist, my wardrobe decisions do not carry with them the same weight as someone whose religion mandates their clothing choices. Choosing to wear pants vs. shorts doesn't carry with it the threat of hellfire, or fear of being ostracized by my family and friends.

It's still a choice, and (in America)one that every adult and emancipated minor is free to make- at least legally. However, is the choice really free if the price of that choice includes losing your family, friends, and community?

I see a lot of commenters who interpret my and other anti-headscarf comments to mean "BURKHAS FOR NONE, G-STRINGS FOR ALL!," which is ludicrous. My issue (and I think I speak for many with similar sentiments) is with a religious system that privileges men (with things like autonomy and education) and disadvantages women.

I despise any a system that says "if you have these genitals, you have to wear these clothes. If you don't, you face a lifetime of contempt (and possibly violence) from your friends and family in this world, and eternal damnation in the rest."

I long for a world without headscarves.

I don't think Taco Bell positions itself as "authentic Mexican food" any more than Pizza Hut positions itself as "authentic Italian food," and I doubt that most TB patrons identify what they get as all that Mexican.